The Emergence of Black English: Text and Commentary (Creole Language Library)

THE EMERGENCE OF BLACK ENGLISH

CREOLE L A N G U A G E LIBRARY (CLL) A companion series to the "JOURNAL OF PIDGIN & CREOLE LANGUAGES" Editor: Pieter Muysken (Amsterdam)

Editorial Advisory Board: Mervyn Alleyne (Kingston, Jamaica) Germán de Granda (Vallodolid) Roger Andersen (Los Angeles) Ian Hancock (Austin) Lionel Bender (Carbondale, Illinois) John Holm (New York) Hans den Besten (Amsterdam) George Huttar (Dallas) Derek Bickerton (Honolulu) Hilda Koopman (Los Angeles) Norbert Boretzky (Bochum) Claire Lefebvre (Montréal) Lawrence Carrington (Trinidad) Salikoko Mufwene (Athens, Georgia) Hazel Carter (Madison) Peter Mühlhäusler (Oxford) Frederic Cassidy (Madison) Robert Le Page (York) Robert Chaudenson (Aix-en-Provence) John Rickford (Stanford) Chris Corne (Auckland) Suzanne Romaine (Oxford) Marta Dijkhoff (Willemstad, Curaçao) Pieter Seuren (Nijmegen) Christiaan Eersel (Paramaribo) Dan Slobin (Berkeley) Luiz Ivens Ferraz (Johannesburg) Norval Smith (Amsterdam) Glenn Gilbert (Carbondale, Illinois) Albert Valdman (Bloomington) Morris Goodman (Evanston) Herman Wekker (Nijmegen)

Volumes in this series will present descriptive and theoretical studies designed to add significantly to our insight in Pidgin and Creole languages.

Volume 8

Guy Bailey, Natalie Maynor and Patricia Cukor-Avila (eds) The Emergence of Black English

THE EMERGENCE OF BLACK ENGLISH TEXT AND COMMENTARY

Edited by

GUY BAILEY, NATALIE MAYNOR and PATRICIA CUKOR-AVILA

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1991

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Emergence of Black English : text and commentary / edited by Guy Bailey, Natalie Maynor, and Patricia Cukor-Avila. p. cm. -- (Creole language library, ISSN 0920-9026; v. 8) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Black English « History. 2. English language -- United States -- History. 3. Creole dialects, English -- United States -- History. 4. Slaves -- United States -- Language -History. 5. Afro-Americans ~ Language ~ History. 6. Black English ~ Texts. 7. Americanisms. I. Bailey, Guy, 1950. II. Maynor, Natalie. III. Cukor-Avila, Pat­ ricia. IV. Series. PE3102.N4E44 1991 427'.97308996 - dc20 91-13319 ISBN 90 272 5228 9 (Eur.) / 1-55619-161-8 (US) (Hb.; alk. paper) CIP ISBN 90 272 5230 0 (Eur.) / 1-55619-163-4 (US) (Pb. ; alk. paper)  Copyright 1991 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

Contents

Preface

ix

Introduction

1

PART I: TEXTS Wallace Quarterman

23

Fountain Hughes

29

Uncle Billy McCrea

41

Uncle Bob Ledbetter

45

Joe McDonald and Woman

51

Isom Moseley

55

Alice Gaston

59

Laura Smalley

61

Harriet Smith

79

Celia Black

99

Charlie Smith

107

vi

PART Π: COMMENTARY Speaking of Slavery: The Historical Value of the Recordings with Former Slaves PaulD.Escott

123

Slave Narratives, Slave Culture, and the Slave Experience Joe Graham

133

Songs, Sermons, and Life Stories: The Legacy of the Ex-Slave Narratives Jeutonne P. Brewer

155

The Linguistic Value of the Ex-Slave Recordings Michael Montgomery

173

Representativeness and Reliability of the Ex-Slave Materials, With Special Reference to Wallace Quarterman's Recording and Transcript John R. Rickford 191 Is Gullah Decreolizing? A Comparison of a Speech Sample of the 1930s with a Sample of the 1980s Salilcoko S. Mußvene

213

The Atlantic Creoles and the Language of the Ex-Slave Recordings John Holm

231

Liberian Settler English and the Ex-Slave Recordings: A Comparative Study John Victor Singler

249

There's No Tense Like the Present: Verbal -S Inflection in Early Black English Shana Poplack and Sali Tagliamonte

275

vii Appendix

327

Bibliography

331

List of Contributors

351

PREFACE

When we first came across references to a group of recordings made with former slaves born in the middle of the 19th century, we felt that acquiring the recordings would enable us to resolve many of the unanswered questions about the history of the Black English Vernacular (BEV). After working with the recordings for four years, we have come to realize that they actually raise as many questions as they answer. In particular, they force us to address a number of important issues about the construction and interpretation of linguistic texts that are generally ignored in creole studies, dialectology, and variation studies. For most of us, the texts that we analyze are confidential material. How our own scholarly training and biases shape those texts and thus prejudice our results are matters that are generally ignored. The fact that the recordings of former slaves are in the public domain prohibits us from ignoring the question, however. This volume attempts to confront those questions by presenting transcripts of the recordings and having a number of scholars with widely different perspectives write on the data. All of the scholars are working with the "same" texts - a set of recordings and our transcripts, which serve only as a guide to those recordings. The conclusions that the contributors reach, however, are remarkably different. A naive observer might conclude that they were working with different texts, and in a sense they are. Linguistic texts are not objective entities that exist apart from the person who composes them; rather they are the product of the interaction between speech (or writing) and the scholar who records or analyzes it. The creation of a linguistic text is an interpretive act, just as the analysis of the text is. The crucial question involves the extent to which our analyses are simply artifacts of the texts we have created.

χ

The fact that our results, based on texts that we help create, reflect our scholarly predispositions to some extent does not mean that we can have no definitive answers to questions such as those about the origins of BEV. Rather it simply means that we need to consider our texts from a variety of points of view, to examine those texts in light of other relevant evidence, and to recognize the influence of our own scholarly biases. Thus the value of this volume depends upon our success in having brought together as many different perspectives as possible. Only in that way can we begin to get definitive answers. This volume owes much to Pieter Muysken, who came up with the idea for its current format; to John Holm, who first suggested that we publish the transcripts and introduced us to Pieter Muysken; and to the contributors, who have been patient and helpful beyond the call of duty. We wish to thank all of those people. We also wish to thank the editors of the Journal of Language Variation and Change and Cambridge University Press for permission to reprint the essay by Shana Poplack and Sali Tagliamonte and the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina and the SECOL Review for permission to reprint the letters by Vilot Lester and Virgil.

INTRODUCTION

Guy Bailey, Natalie Maynor, and Patricia Cukor-Avila

The texts that underlie this volume represent one of the most exciting and surprising developments in the study of the Black English Vernacular (BEV) in the United States.1 The mere existence of a group of mechanical recordings with former slaves born well over a century ago is remarkable; the fact that most of the recordings were virtually unknown to linguists, even though those recordings had been archived in the Archive of Folk Song in the Library of Congress for many years, is astonishing. Debate over the evolution of BEV has permeated Afro-American studies, creole linguistics, dialectology, and sociolinguistics for a quarter of a century with little sign of a satisfactory resolution, primarily because evidence that bears directly on earlier stages of BEV is sparse. These recordings with former slaves born between 1844 and 1861 do provide direct evidence on an earlier stage of BEV and as a result play a crucial role in resolving the debate. Even these recordings, however, do not provide the kind of final answer to questions about the origins of BEV that many linguists would like to see. In fact, scholars who have used them often reach rather different conclusions as to what they say about earlier BEV, as the essays that follow the transcripts of the recordings demonstrate. In many ways, the existence of this data on earlier BEV has actually rekindled, rather than resolved, old controversies and initiated some new ones. The reasons for the lack of consensus among the authors of the essays may seem surprising since for once they are all dealing with the same data. In actuality, the lack of consensus simply highlights some of the basic problems of textual composition and interpretation and of scholarly

2

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

predispositions that underlie the study of BEV. As Rickford (this volume) points out, linguists are generally hesitant to challenge the data of others; in fact, the actual linguistic data that most scholars use is considered confidential material and is not shared with others. As a consequence, we have no way of knowing to what extent differences in results between studies reflect different methods and data bases rather than actual linguistic differences. The present volume attempts both to make this crucial source of data as widely known as possible and to explore its importance for the study of BEV in view of various problems of textual composition and interpretation. It does so by providing a complete description of the contents of the recordings, by providing transcripts of most of the contents, and by publishing a group of interpretive essays which examine the data in light of other relevant historical, cultural, social, and linguistic evidence and which provide contexts for interpretion and analysis. In these interpretive essays a group of diverse scholars on Black English analyze the "same" texts for the first time. As a result, the essays provide some indication as to how much of the controversy about the origins of BEV is a consequence of different data sets and how much is due to differences in interpretation and scholarly perspective. The papers also raise crucial questions about the evolution of BEV, about its relationship to other varieties, and, most important, about the construction and interpretation of linguistic texts. In addition to these documents, we have also reproduced and provided transcriptions of two letters written by slaves. These two letters, from the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina, provide evidence on the English of those slaves who were, in spite of legal restrictions, able to learn to read and write, and they provide additional information about the complex social conditions of slavery.

The Contents of the Collection Although some linguists have associated the recordings of former slaves with the slave narratives collected by the Works Project Administration (WPA) as part of the Federal Writers' Project, the recordings actually come from several different sources and were done over a forty year

INTRODUCTION

3

period. The earliest recordings, those of Wallace Quarterman, were done in 1935, while the interviews with Celia Black and Charlie Smith were conducted in 1974. Most of the interviews, however, were done between 1940 and 1942. Likewise, although many of the recordings were made by fieldworkers involved in the Federal Writers' Project, three of the interviews (those with Fountain Hughes, Celia Black, and Charlie Smith » three interviews that comprise a substantial part of the corpus) were conducted well after the completion of that project, and the relationship between several other recordings and the Federal Writers' Project is not clear. Finally, while some of the interviewers were clearly inexperienced and unfamiliar with black culture and local customs, the interviewers also include some of the best known folklorists in the United States (e.g., the Lomaxes and Zora Neal Hurston) and some people, such as John Henry Faulk, who had a remarkable understanding of both the local culture and the difficulties of doing fieldwork in that culture (see Brewer's essay in this volume). These people were talented fieldworkers and conducted some interviews which are comparable to modern sociolinguistic fieldwork (compare, for instance, the Laura Smalley interview with interviews collected by Donna Christian for A Survey and Collection of American English Dialect Recordings at CAL). Moreover, while most of the interviewers were white, several were black, including Zora Neal Hurston. In light of the great variation in when, where, and how the interviews were conducted, making generalizations about them as a whole is a risky proposition. As a result, this introduction attempts to provide as much specific information about the informants, interviewers, and circumstances of the interviews as possible. With the exception of a recording of a song, "My Lord Is a Rock in a Weary Land," performed by a group of unnamed singers, Table 1 lists the complete Archive of Folk Song holdings of "Recordings of Slave Narratives and Related Material," along with the dates when the recordings were made, the places where they were made, the interviewers present, and Archive's reference numbers for the interviews. These reference numbers should allow scholars to locate copies of any recordings they wish to audit. The precise number of people actually recorded is hard to determine. A number of former slaves are recorded simply giving their names and ages; not only is this material not very

4

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

useful to linguists, but it is also hard to hear. Further, the interview with Joe McDonald includes short stretches with an unidentified woman. When the unnamed singers and the slaves who give only names and ages are excluded, the Archive's holdings include recordings of fifteen people. However, these recordings vary greatly in their value to linguists. The "interviews" with Irene Williams (4011 A1 and 4016 A1) are actually oral performances and are generally not useful as linguistic evidence. As a result, we have not published transcripts of them here. The interviews with Annie Williams (8245 B, 8256 A, and 8301 A) are so difficult to hear that we could not transcribe them. The interview with the unnamed "colored fellow" is also difficult to hear. In some places the recording is quite audible; in others it is almost impossible to hear. Although the difficulties in sound quality prevented us from making a coherent transcript that could be published, the audible parts of the interview are useful as linguistic data; in fact, they have been used in three studies that systematically analyze data from the recordings (Bailey, 1987a; Bailey and Maynor, 1989; and Maynor, 1988). The elimination of the inaudible recordings and the oral performance leaves recordings with twelve former slaves, two of whom (Joe McDonald and an unidentified woman in recordings 4033 B3 and 4034 A3) were interviewed together. This volume provides transcripts of each of these. Table 2 lists all of the former slaves whose recordings are transcribed here, their dates of birth, their places of birth and residence, and when we could determine it, the type of work they did as slaves. In cases where the slaves were too young to have been assigned work, we indicate the type of work their parents did. As the table indicates, the age range of the former slaves spans almost two decades, and they come from throughout the South, although most of them come from Texas and Alabama. The former slaves are almost equally divided among field hands and house servants, with one of them, Charlie Smith, having been a cowboy. Charlie Smith is unique in other ways as well: he is the only one to have been born in Africa and the only one to have moved around much at all. Wallace Quarterman is unique in another way. As a native speaker of Gullah, he also served as one of the informants whom Lorenzo Dow Turner recorded in his studies of Gullah. The essay by Mufwene in this volume compares the linguistic evidence in the two recordings.

INTRODUCTION

5

TABLE 1 Summary of Contents Preserved on Tape in the Archive of Folk Song (AFS) in the Library of Congress Informant Quarterman

Date of Place of Recording Recording 1935 Frederica, GA

Interviewer(s)

AFS# Reference Sound Quality Tape 341  1 Fair Alan Lomax 1 Fair Zora Neal Hurston 342 A1 Mary E. Barnacle 342 A2/A3 1  Fair 1 Fair 342 

Hughes

1944

Baltimore, MD

Hermond Norwood

9990 A

—

Good

McCrea

1940

Jasper, TX

John A. Lomax Ruby T. Lomax

3975

1

Good

Ledbetter

1940

Oil City, LA

John A. Lomax Ruby T. Lomax

3992 A

1

Good

I. Williams

1940

Rome, MS

John A. Lomax Ruby T. Lomax

4011 A1 4016 A1

1 1

Good Good

McDonald and Unidentified "Woman"

1940

Livingston, AL

John A. Lomax

4033  4033 A3

1 1B

Good Good

"Colored Fellow"

1942

Mississippi

Alan Lomax Elizabeth Lomax

4777 & 4778 & 4779 &

1B 2 2

Poor Poor Poor

Moseley

1941

Gee's Bend, AL

Robert Sonkin

5091  2 /

Good

Gaston

1941

Gee's Bend, AL

Robert Sonkin

5091 

Good

Smalley

1941

Hempstead, TX

John Henry Faulk

5496 &   5497 2 5498 2 3 /3 

Good Good Good

H. Smith

1941

Hempstead, TX

John Henry Faulk

5499 & 3  5500 & 3 /4 

Good Good

Mrs. Williams  1937-40 Norfolk, VA

Roscoe Lewis

8245 



4

Poor

A. Williams

. 1937-40 Petersburg, VA

Roscoe Lewis

8256  4 8301 & 4/4

Names and Ages

. 1937-40 Petersburg, VA

Roscoe Lewis

8272 &

4

Poor

Poor Poor

Black

1974

Tyler, TX

Elmer Sparks

17,476

---

Fair

 Smith

1974

Bartow. FL

Elmer Sparks

17.510

---

Good

6

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA TABLE 2 Informants Whose Interviews Were Transcribed in This Volume Year of Birth

State of Birth

Quarterman

1844

GA

GA

house servant

Hughes

1848

VA

MD

field hand

McCrea

?

TX

TX

field hand?

Ledbetter

1861

LA

LA

field hand?

McDonald and Woman

?

AL

AL

house servant

?

AL

AL

field hand

Moseley

1856

AL

AL

house servant

Gaston

1853

AL

AL

?

Smalley

?

TX

TX

field hand

H. Smith

1851

TX

TX

field hand

 Black

1854

TX

TX

house servant

 Smith

1 8 4 4

Liberia

TX/others

cowboy

Informant

State of Residence

Occupation as a Slave

The Reliability and Validity of the Collection as Linguistic Data Because of its small size, the representativeness of this collection is a major concern of those who use it for linguistic analysis (see, for example, Rickford's essay in this volume). As Rickford points out, the sample is clearly not representative in a statistical sense, but it is probably as representative as many other samples that linguists have used. Nevertheless, two issues in particular concern interpreters: the proportion of field hands to house servants (the assumption being that house servants would be more likely to have learned a variety of English much like that of their white owners than to have maintained a creole ancestor of BEV) and the fact that the people interviewed might have been just those who had relatively good relationships with whites (the assumption being that those who had poor relationships with whites, and whose language might have

INTRODUCTION

7

been most different, would have been reluctant to talk with white interviewers). To some extent the concern is justified. The sample here does over-represent house servants since about half of the former slaves were house servants or their children. Nevertheless, field hands are represented, as Table 2 indicates; in fact, the longest and best interviews (in particular the Laura Smalley interview) are those with former field hands. If there actually were significant differences between the speech of field hands and house servants, we might expect to see at least some evidence of it in these interviews. For example, we might expect to find noticeable differences between the Smalley and Black interviews or between the Moseley and McCrea interviews. The interviews do contain a great deal of variation, but the field hand/house servant dichotomy is not the major dimension along which the variation exists. As we point out below, that distinction is only one of several that makes the social organization of slavery complex, and what happened to these people after slavery seems to have had a significant linguistic impact as well. The second concern is harder to address. The concern itself is based largely on speculation, and any attempt to characterize these former slaves based on the little evidence that we have about them is futile. We might note, however, that the former slaves vary widely in their responses to questions that might reveal something about their relationships with whites. At one extreme, Black and Ledbetter stress their positive relationships with whites, while at another, Smalley speaks frankly about the troubles she had with a landlord and provides striking accounts of the mistreatment of slaves. Others adopt a wide range of strategies for dealing with sensitive questions. Hughes simply refuses to tell all that he can, although the bitterness in his voice reveals much in itself; Harriet Smith, rather than refuse to deal with sensitive topics, mumbles. As Escott (this volume), in perhaps the best treatment of this problem, points out, it seems clear that these people have much more to say than they feel they can; nevertheless, they are remarkably frank at times. Although linguists often stress the field hand/house servant dichotomy to account for linguistic diversity in earlier BEV (see, for example, Dillard 1972), it actually oversimplifies an extremely complex social situation and is based on some rather inaccurate but widely held notions about the social organization of slavery in the American South.

8 BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

While the distinction might have been justified on stable, larger plantations where a division of labor was common and owners themselves performed little work, it is clearly not justified on the small and medium-sized farms (those with fewer than 20 slaves) where almost half of the slaves were held (see Gray 1933 and Oakes 1982 for statistics on and discussions of the size of slave holdings). On these smaller farms, the master and his family generally worked in the fields alongside the slaves. As historian James Oakes notes, the typical pattern of slaveholding differs dramatically from the "plantation legend" which dominates most of the discussion of slavery: The average slaveholder was forty-four years old, most likely male, still more likely white. Whatever his ethnic heritage, by 1850 he was almost always native born, and more than nine times out of ten he was born in the South. The average slaveholding was eight or nine, but the typical master owned fewer than that. The median value of the slaveholder's land was just under three thousand dollars. Eighty percent of the time his chief employment was in agriculture, either as a farmer, planter, or overseer. The only surprise in all of this is that the middle-aged white farmer with perhaps a handful of slaves quickly disappeared from the history books, replaced by a plantation legend that bore little resemblence to historical reality (1982: 52).

Unfortunately, the "plantation legend" provides the cultural context for most discussions of earlier BEV, even though only a little more than half of the slaves lived in situations that in any way resembled the legend. Moreover, the great diversity of the size of slaveholdings is only one of several factors that must be accounted for in determining whether or not this sample is representative. As Oakes points out, "physical movement, upward mobility, and social fluidity shaped the destinies of the vast majority of American slaveholders" (1982: 68) and "there was always substantial mobility into and out of the slaveholding class" (1982: 67). For the slaves of these masters, this meant a significant degree of instability. For a large number of slaves, the experiences that Vilot Lester reports in her letter to Patsy Padison (see the Appendix) must have been typical. Sold a number of times, Vilot Lester was a slave to several masters in at least three states and was separated from her child. The tone of the letter and

INTRODUCTION

9

her comments about her relationships with her masters suggest that Vilot's being sold was not the result of "bad behavior," a common reason for selling slaves on larger plantations (see the Smalley interview for an account of this). Rather, her situation was more likely a reflection of the social and economic fluidity that characterized the lives of many masters who moved in and out of slaveholding and whose holdings varied greatly over a lifetime. Vilot's letter suggests that frequent movement from one place to another must have affected the lives of many slaves, and the picture of slaveholders that emerges from the descriptions in Oakes is of an exceptionally mobile group: "Massive demographic dislocation was inevitable in a slaveholding culture that glorified movement, viewed westward migration as inextricably linked to upward mobility, and made material success the nearly universal pursuit" (1982: 80). Like their masters, many of the slaves must have experienced remarkably unstable lives, characterized by frequent movement, constantly changing acquaintances, and little certainty. The big difference, of course, was that the master had a choice in the matter. The large, stable plantations populated by slaves who spent their entire lives there did exist, but they were not the norm throughout the South. The data in Gray (1933) suggests considerable regional variation in slaveholding, with the larger plantations more characteristic of the rice and sugar growing areas of South Carolina and Louisiana and, to a lesser degree, the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt regions of Alabama and Mississippi. Elsewhere, smaller holdings were the norm. Moreover, even on these larger plantations the "class" distinctions among slaves may not have been as strong a factor as linguists tend to think. In many instances group loyalty (the bonds between slaves as slaves and as Africans) served to weaken if not eliminate the distinction (but see the Isom Moseley interview for an example of the distinction and of how it affected relations among blacks). After examining the extensive material in Rawick's edition of the WPA slave narratives, Escott notes that: Whites have long believed that class lines were very strong among the slaves and that the privileged house servants identified with their aristocratic masters rather than with the common field hands. Extensive materials in the slave narratives reveal that for a minority of slaves, this view was partially

10

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

correct, but for the large majority, there was no well-developed class system and group loyalty overrode tendencies toward class divisions (1979: 59).

Clearly, then, the field hand/house servant distinction oversimplifies a rather complex social situation. Finally, it is important to remember that what happened to these people after slavery is as important as their lives as slaves. As Rickford (this volume) points out, the people represented in these texts come very late in the history of American slavery. In fact, for most of their lives they were free men rather than slaves. While the Civil War freed blacks from slavery, it immediately provided only "one kind of freedom," as Ransom and Sutch (1977) indicate in their book by that name. In the absence of employment possibilities in cities, of marketable skills, and of capital to acquire land for themselves, blacks remained tied both to white landlords and to agricultural production through the system of tenancy that emerged as the norm throughout the South by 1880 (see Ransom and Sutch [1977] and Wright [1986] for an excellent discussion of this socioeconomic change). Tenancy gradually had three rather dramatic effects. First, it brought about geographic stability. Although a number of blacks moved west to Texas immediately after the Civil War and others moved about within the South looking for better wages, by 1880 the tenant system had become widespread and created a relatively stable population through a system of "debt peonage" (Ransom and Sutch, 1977). Because tenants had to use liens on prospective crops as a way to finance planting, because instability in crop prices often caused debt to be carried over into the next year's crop, and because the general store owners who financed crops required that virtually all of the land be planted in the cash crop (rather than having part of it devoted to producing food and other staples, which tenants then had to buy from the general store), tenants often became locked in to one farm and were forced to spend virtually their entire lives working out of debt to a general store owner. This "debt peonage" became a significant barrier to economic progress, and the testimony of some of these former slaves suggests the bitterness it caused: against the backdrop of the debt peonage which plagued many blacks, the reasons for Fountain Hughes' exhortations against the use of credit become clear. A second effect of the tenancy system was that it weakened any distinctions that

INTRODUCTION

11

might have existed between former field hand and house servant. As the interviews with Celia Black and Isom Moseley suggest, many former house servants, now on their own, ended up in the fields as a result of the tenant system. A third effect involved whites. Over time many whites also became victims of the system of debt peonage as instability in cotton prices, soil exhaustion, and the boll weevil gradually forced them to become tenants rather than owners. The data in Ransom and Sutch (1977: 295) indicate that in 1879, only about a fifth of the white farm operators in the "cotton South" were tenants, as opposed to slightly over half of the blacks. Wright (1986: 107) indicates that by 1900 almost half of all white farmers in the South were tenants. Although the percentage of black tenants had also increased, the major change during this period was that whites were drawn into the system of tenancy (as tenants) just as blacks had been. While white landlords varied in their willingness to employ white tenants along side black ones, a number of them did. The result was that blacks and whites often had contacts as economic, though not social, equals. Although the linguistic consequences of the complex social situation described above are unclear, that situation surely provided a variety of language learning and language contact environments. As a result, conclusions about the representativeness of the language of the former slaves in this collection defy easy generalizations. Four things about the early sociolinguistic context seem clear, however. First, a substantial portion of blacks had significant day-to-day contacts with whites, either one-on-one or in small groups. While this probably means that their language would have been significantly affected by white vernaculars, it also significantly increased the opportunities for white vernaculars to assimilate features of black speech, something often overlooked in studies of black-white speech relationships. (The fact that Southern white vernaculars in the lower South reflect strong influence from black speech in such features as copula absence and the high frequency of consonant cluster reduction seems best explained by this language contact environment rather than by the influence of blacks nurse maids, as Dillard (1972) and others have claimed. After all, the whites who are most likely to have these processes are precisely the ones least likely to have had black nurses. For some indication of the extent of copula absence in white speech, see Bailey and Maynor [1985b] and Wolfram [1974]. For a

12

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

discussion of consonant cluster reduction, see McDavid and McDavid [1951] and Bailey [1981]). Second, while BEV is obviously the product of language contact between African languages and English dialects, with Africans gradually shifting to more English-like varieties, the proportion of African and English input and the rate at which the shift occurred must have differed considerably from place to place. Third, the social cleavages among the slaves were probably not as great as linguists have assumed, and as a result, the linguistic cleavages may not have been as great either. The social organization of slavery was quite complex and differed cosiderably from the plantation myth that underlies much linguistic work. Fourth, a primary effect of tenancy was to level many of the earlier social differences among slaves that did exist and to preserve contact among blacks and whites. Tenancy thus created (or perhaps maintained) a social context that provided an opportunity for mutual influence among black and white vernaculars. Although statistical reliability is an unreasonable expectation for a set of recordings of a variety spoken a century and a half ago, it is reasonable to expect a fairly representative set of texts. In this case, a representative set of texts should reflect the social complexities of slavery discussed above. The primary problem with respect to the representativeness of these texts is not so much their over-representation of house servants but their under-representation of slaves who lived on small farms and who, like Vilot Lester, had multiple owners in several different places. The texts should be used with this shortcoming in reliability in mind. The validity of the texts must be judged with reference to the conduct of the field work and the procedures for transcription. Conduct of the Fieldwork Perhaps the only thing that can be said which applies to all of the fieldwork is that none of it was done primarily for linguistic purposes. Therefore, to approach it with the same expectations that we approach sociolinguistic fieldwork is to insure disappointment. However, a number of the fieldworkers were expereienced folklorists (the Lomaxes and Zora Neal Hurston) and produced work that is comparable to the recordings done by

INTRODUCTION

13

professional linguists in the CAL collection of American dialect recordings. The great variation in quality requires that each interview be judged on its own merits: the transcripts will provide readers with a first approximation of quality. At least three factors inhibited the fieldwork (the essay by Brewer in this volume provides a discussion of the first two of these, and the essay by Escott also includes a useful discussion of the fieldwork). First, the early recording equipment was unwieldy and limited in its capacity. The fieldworkers had to pay constant attention to the equipment, and this must have hindered fieldwork in many cases. The options for overcoming the observer's paradox were certainly limited. Second, working in black communities sometimes provided potential hazards both for fieldworkers and informants since local authorities were suspicious of anyone who might be an "outside agitator." For whites, control of the black population was always a major concern. Finally, in some instances the racism of a fieldworker, however subtle, must have created problems. Auditors of the recordings will sometimes note paternalistic attitudes among fieldworkers and the "appropriate" responses among informants. The Ledbetter interview is an excellent example of this. In light of these drawbacks the quality of some of the fieldwork is remarkable (see the interviews by John Henry Faulk in particular). Escott (this volume) points to some factors that ameliorated the problems of fieldwork peculiar to these circumstances. The most important factor was the unique status of the slaves in the community. As very old people and former slaves with a long presence in one place, they apparently held a special status in the community and seemed to have had more leeway in what they were able to say. Moreover, the general constraints on blackwhite relations varied widely from community to community, and pre­ existing personal relationships among fieldworkers and informants sometimes took precedence over those constraints. Finally, in many instances (though not all) fieldworkers were not interested in obtaining information that would be damaging to informants. Thus as Escott (this volume) notes, the unpromising circumstances in which the interviews were conducted produced a surprising amount of useful material. While not all of the fieldwork is good, some of it is quite valuable, and the existence of the recordings and transcripts enables scholars to evaluate

14

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

analyses based on the ex-slave recordings in a way not possible with many studies. Composition of the Transcripts The transcripts included in this volume are presented for the convenience of the readers; we view them not as linguistic texts in themselves but as analogs of linguistic texts to be used in conjunction with the recordings (cf. Pederson 1974). This arrangement reflects our understanding of a more general relationship between recordings and transcriptions. Only recordings themselves have validity as texts: transcriptions serve as a guide to the contents of the recordings and as an aid in auditing them. Transcriptions of recordings are not reproductions but interpretations of texts, and like all other interpretive acts they reflect the training, biases, and linguistic experiences of the transcriber. Our own analyses of this source of data incorporate this understanding of linguistic texts: CukorAvila 1988, Bailey and Maynor 1988, and Bailey, Maynor, and CukorAvila 1990 all are based on data taken directly from the recordings. These transcripts are actually the culmination of a lengthy transcription process that involved five separate auditings of the recordings. First, the reel-to-reel tapes provided to us by the Library of Congress were copied onto cassette tapes for transcription from a dictaphone machine. The editors then reaudited and corrected the transcriptions and sent each contributor copies of both the cassette tapes and these first-draft transcripts. In addition, we sent to each a letter outlining our understanding of transcripts as analogs of the texts, not the texts themselves; explaining our transcription practices; and asking for comments about and corrections to the transcripts. We asked that each contributor regard the tapes as the final arbiter in disputes about transcriptions and explained that the final transcripts would reflect their comments and corrections. What this means is that each contributor's transcriptions may differ somewhat from ours. In cases where they differ, we have let their transcriptions stand in their essays. Since the sound quality of a majority of the recordings provided to us by the Library of Congress was poor to average, we decided to try to have more audible

INTRODUCTION

15

copies made. Tom Wilmeth, formerly of the Minnesota Public Broadcasting System, filtered reel-to-reel copies of the Library of Congress tapes to eliminate some of the background noise which frequently overlapped the informants' speech. He then copied the filtered copies onto cassettes, and contributors who asked for better recordings were given these. (Two contributors, Poplack and Rickford, worked with reel-to-reel copies of the filtered tapes.) The editors then did a third auditing of the recordings, this time using the filtered version, and made substantial revisions based on that auditing. Then, Bailey and Maynor both reaudited the filtered tapes in light of the contributors' comments and corrections, again making a significant number of revisions. Finally, Bailey compared the filtered and unfiltered versions of the reel-to-reel recordings in light of all of these revisions and produced a final transcript. The transcripts, then, are a product of nearly four years work and of a series of five auditings and retranscriptions. They take into account the collective insight and experience of a dozen people, all of whom have worked extensively with oral texts. While this process does not guarantee the absolute fidelity of transcription to text, it does minimize the limitations of the transcribers' training, biases, and experience on the final product. One important factor that is often overlooked in the use of transcripts is the effect of scribal conventions. Although seemingly trivial matters, these conventions are in fact matters of linguistic interpretation that can significantly affect both the results of linguistic analysis and also our general impression of how different a variety is from other varieties. For example, been in these texts is always pronounced [bn]. However, to spell the form bin in the transcripts would create the impression that the speech of the former slaves is more different from other varieties of English than it in fact is: [bn] is the usual pronunciation in all varieties of Southern American English. We deliberately chose conservative transcription practices on the assumptions that errors of omission are better than errors of commission; that one's impression of the degree of difference of the speech of the former slaves should be based on an auditing of the tapes rather than a reading of the transcripts; and that conservative practices are less likely to introduce the biases of the editors. We also chose to represent only morphological and syntactic variation in the transcripts (see below). As a result of these decisions, the transcripts

16

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

may look more "standard" than readers might expect. However, readers should keep these practices in mind and remember that the tapes themselves are the only accurate guide to the speech of the former slaves. Readers should notice four general conventions employed in the transcripts. First, any doubtful material or material that we disagree about is underlined; in some cases alternative transcriptions are placed in brackets. This should alert readers to problematic passages. Second, we use the notation [unintelligible] to denote text which cannot be heard, is too unclear to allow a plausible transcription, or is masked by noise. Third, as we noted above, we show only morphological and syntactic variation in the transcripts. Although we had originally planned on showing as much phonological variation as possible using the quasi-phonetic spellings often employed by linguists in orthographic texts, in working with the tapes we soon came to realize that without phonetic transcriptions we could not adequately represent even the most obvious kinds of phonetic variation, such as the "loss" of postvocalic and syllabic /r/. For example, the word four has two "r-less" realizations in these texts: [foә] and [foυ]. Linguists have sometimes indicated r-lessness by replacing /r/ with an apostrophe; however, this method does not distinguish between these two pronunciations of four. The disctinction is important because the two pronunciations carry different social meanings: ingliding [foә] is characteristic of old-fashioned upper-class speech, while upgliding [foυ] is characteristic of old-fashioned lower-class speech. Spelling these two variants with the apostrophe creates texts that are misleading at best. Further, the apostrophe is of no use at all in words like bird, word, and work, where differences in the phonetic realization of the stressed syllables is even more complex. Because of these kinds of problems in using quasiphonetic spellings, we felt the best and most consistent practice was to focus on morphological and syntactic variation and omit any attempt at phonetic representation. Fourth, we do indicate both the absence of initial unstressed syllables and final consonants with an apostrophe, however. We do this because it does not cause the problems in representation outlined above and because both features are important for morpho-syntactic analysis. For instance, what happens to final consonants in clusters is important to an analysis of weak preterites which must determine if the

INTRODUCTION

17

absence of the past marker is a consequence of a phonological or grammatical process. The initial drafts of the transcripts generated many comments from contributors, and all of the contributors sent us lists of corrections that needed to be made. Like their analyses, their comments on the first draft of the transcripts were widely divergent. Some felt that with minor (or sometimes not so minor) corrections the transcripts were accurate analogs of the tapes. Others felt that the transcripts made the speech of the slaves appear more nonstandard than it was and took issue with a number of individual transcriptions which they believed erred in that direction. Still others believed that the transcripts made the speech of the former slaves look more standard than it was, again taking issue with a number of individual transcriptions (see the paper by Rickford in this volume for such a view). In fact, the two contributors who made use of the filtered reel copies of the tapes, easily the most listenable of the recordings, reached just such contradictory views. We took the views of all of the contributors seriously and made revisions based on the suggestions of all of them. However, it is important to note that the primary correlate of contributors' comments was scholarly predisposition, with some creolists arguing that the transcripts were too standard and several scholars of other persuasions arguing that they were too nonstandard. Although a cynical assessment of this situation might suggest that scholars purposely bias their transcripts in order to make them fit preconceived notions, such an assessment would ignore the real problems of textual composition. In many instances auditors agreed without exception on transcriptions of the tapes, but in other instances passages were either unclear enough to make more than one reading possible or once transcribed, open to a variety of interpretations. It is in these instances that scholarly predispositions affect the transcripts, not in a deliberate attempt to alter data but as a consequence of expectations developed in training and research. The antidote to such a situation is to have both the presentation of the data and interpretations of it reflect as many different perspectives as possible. That is what this volume attempts to do.

18

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

The Interpretation of the Recordings and Transcripts In spite of the fact that these recordings provide our only direct evidence on earlier BEV, they nevertheless pose significant problems of textual interpretation, as we have pointed out above. The small sample size and the complexities of the social organization of slavery mean that the texts cannot be completely representative, and social conditions in the South during the 1930s and 1940s made the kind of fieldwork used in contemporary sociolinguistics difficult at best. Moreover, the recordings and transcripts often lend themselves to a variety of interpretations. Consequently, we believe that these texts are best understood in the context of other data relevant to earlier BEV, rather than as an isolated source of evidence. The structure of this volume, which provides a series of essays that provide contexts for analyzing the texts and comparisons with other sources of data, reflects that stance. In particular, the essays examine the historical (Escott) and cultural (Graham) contexts in which earlier BEV existed; the problems of field work among blacks, especially by white fieldworkers, in the pre-World War II South (Brewer); the relationship between these texts and the data in the slave narratives in Rawick, which were written down on the spot rather than mechanically recorded (Montgomery); the relationship between the texts and the two major "export varieties" of BEV, Liberian Settler English (Singler) and Samaná (Poplack and Tagliamonte); and the relationship between the texts and the creoles on the U.S. mainland (Mufwene) and Caribbean (Holm). In addition, the essays include an evaluation of the recordings and the first draft of the transcripts from the viewpoint of a creolist who has worked extensively on BEV (Rickford). (We should emphasize that Rickford's comments on the transcripts are actually comments on the first drafts, not on the final products included in this volume, and hence are not relevant to the final products. We have left his comments unaltered, however, because we believe they point to a number of significant problems in textual composition and interpretation. Readers who are interested in the evolution of the transcription process or in the effects of scholarly predispositions on transcripts might want to compare the draft transcripts and Rickford's own transcripts, provided in an appendix to his paper, with our final transcripts, which reflect the collective wisdom of all of the

INTRODUCTION

19

contributors.) Taken together, the contexts provided here should enable readers to use the texts most effectively. Finally, the interpretation of the recordings and transcripts requires some perspective on what they represent — on what they are texts of. The immediate assumption that most people make is that the texts represent early BEV and offer some insight into the origins of that variety. As Rickford and others have pointed out, while they represent a variety of BEV that is significantly older than any other on which we have direct evidence, the texts actually come fairly late in the history of BEV. As a result, the texts do not offer direct evidence on the origins of BEV, although when used in conjunction with data from sister dialects and from literary representations they are useful in the comparative reconstruction necessary to understand those origins. Rather, we believe that the texts represent BEV at the stage in its evolution when it had emerged into a distinct variety of English, recognizable as the ancestor of current black vernaculars. As evidence on the emergence of BEV as a distinct dialect of English, the texts provide a crucial benchmark for working backward to understand the origins of BEV and for working forward to explore such processes as decreolization and divergence. Given the contexts for interpretation provided by the essays presented here, the texts thus offer a unique place to begin in reconstructing the history of BEV.

BAILEY, MAYNOR, AND CUKOR-AVILA

20

NOTES 1.

The research for this project was supported by a series of grants from the College of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Science Foundation. We wish to thank Pieter Muysken and John Holm for their assistance and Cynthia Bernstein for transcribing the two letters in the Appendix.

TEXTS

Wallace Quarterman Frederica, GA b. 1844 AFS 342A1, 342A2, 342A3, 342B1

INF: [seems to be quoting from a religious text] The Lord [unintelligible] my grace with thee. Tell them he that trus' my word he shall be free. [dog barking in the background] [unintelligible]. But he that won't believest 5 [unintelligible]. I make him Great Commission [unintelligible]. Know that he is preach my gospel through by all the work that you can do, through all the wonder I will do. You must teach all nation my command, I am with you until the worl' shall end. 10 Well I think tha's enough right now. [dog continues barking in the background] FW: O.K. INF: O.K. [brief pause in the tape; then INF starts to sing] Oh let me come in, I surrender, and open the door, oh let me 15 come in. Yeah, let me come in, oh let me come in. I surrender, yes open the door, an' let me come in. I said baby don't you cry, mothers an' father are born to die. I surrender [recording gets stuck]. 20 Let me come in, I surrender an' open the door and let me come in. [singing stops] [laughs] Can't sing much. [brief pause in the tape]. Born in 1844. FW: What's your name? 25 INF: Huh? FW: What's your name?

24

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

QUARTERMAN

INF: My name is Wallace Quarterman in an' through the state of Georgia. [brief pause in the tape -- begins in the middle of the conversation] Morning I was toting in breakfas' in the house. An' the, an' the, the big gun shot, suppose to have. The big gun shot so I [unintelligible] the breakfast in the house. The overseer ask me what is that, if that is thunder. I tell him I don't know. I know what the Yankees [background noise]. An' so he shot three time an' he commence to shoot until the plate commence to rattle on the table. An' he call me an' tol' me to run down in the fiel' an' tell P. to turn the people loose, that the Yankee coming. An' so I run down in the fiel' an', an' whooped and holler [unintelligible] an' tol' 'em Mr. G. said turn the people loose because the Yankees coming. FW: And who was P.? INF: The driver. An' so he said that, uh, Wallace is lying if he, he said so, then he said so, then the Yankee be to the landing, they drunk. You understan'. [starts to recite] Way down south getting mighty poor. Say they use' to drink coffee but now they drinking rye. If they lef [unintelligible] Ό make the rebel understan', To leave our lan' for the sake of Uncle Sam. Way down south getting might poor, shot at the wildcat an' see the Rebel run. I ain't going [unintelligible] again. I've been to war already. Yeah, yeah. An' that, the people then throw 'way they hoe then. They throwed away they hoe, an', an' they call we all up, you know an', an' give we all freedom 'cause we are jus' as much as free as them. Now you understand. But the Yankees [say-saying] if we go back to the South they'll help we. Well they didn'. Of course there was so much doubt, an' [it~Ø] seems to me they would have done more, but it so much doubt in the way. They couldn' because the colored people sure [went for~been poor], an' some white people sure [went for~been poor] too. You understan' and they rather help them than, uh, help we. I had it twice so far, for the Lord has done for me, I come through, through all the, been up an' downs through the [unintelligible].

QUARTERMAN

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

25

FW: Well tell me about how they went to Hawkinsville and drove the sword down in the ground. INF: They tol' them, said now you [conversation cut off]. [brief pause in the tape as a new recording (342B) begins] FW: After they said you could go free, then what did you do? Did you run on off the plantation that day? Did you leave the plantation that day after they told you to go free? INF: Well the master had promise' to, to give we forty dollars a month in pay. Well lots silly boys say they ain't want it. They rather go free, you know. Well of course, why I up here, you understan', I get along with him you know. [unintelligible] the big boss, you know. An' uh, after they, after this they throwed down, throwed down, they just make them throwed down, an' they just get on the sword an' squash them down. You go in Hawkinsville an' you see all the swords down now in the groun'. An' after the swords was down, the tension in the South, tension. An' after the [unintelligible] then they play. Yeah play. [begins to sing while playing the washtub base] "One foot one way, one foot the other way. One foot all aroun'. So big that he couldn't cut a figure An' he couldn' go a half way roun'." "Ole master, run away, and set them darky free For you mus' be think Thy kingdom a-comin' The hour of Jubilee." So we had a big breaking up right there, you know, after it, that's right. FW: What, what about afterward, you know when, when the colored people had to [unintelligible] and everything? Tell us about that. INF: Yes, we, everything been in we hand, but they couldn' control the colored people. They do so much mischief until we have to go on back an', to the white people, we had education. You know when a man ain' got no education he ain' got no sense. All we try to show them, they wouldn' take, they'd jus' kill one another an' going on. So we had to nominate Democrat over their heads. They didn' like it, though many got kill by nominate the Democrats but we couldn't

26

100

105

FW: 110

INF: FW: INF:

115

120

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

125

FW: INF: FW: INF:

130

FW: INF: FW:

QUARTERMAN

help it, to stop them so much killing, you understand. So we nominate the Democrat, an', we had a big time from that till now. The time ain't bad like, uh, it been then because a man think nothing of killing a man an' taking a drink of water. But since we nominate the Democrat we have more 'surance, you understand. The law come in protecting them, you know, they wouldn' [unintelligible] the colored people, at all ma'am, at all. Yeah, an that's the way they come in protect them, but we had we own lawyers, judge an' everything but they just would run everything in the dust, you know, kill everything, couldn' stan' it, no. Well did you ever have a office, did you, would you ever, did you ever hold a office? I wouldn' want an office. Oh. No ma'am, a man. I wouldn' want an office. Why an office is annoyingest kind of thing. You understand. You got to go an' please the, that fellow, you know. You got to stop do what God tell you an' go please that fellow an' the [unintelligible]. Well what, what's become of your old master? Old master? He died in the yellow fever. He was a nice man to me. Yes. I wouldn't take anything for him. What was his name? Colonel F. W. F.W. Yes, he was a colonel. I wouldn' take anything, why me an' [he~him] was jus' like one, you know. Yes. Yes ma'am. Well where was his plantation? His plantation on, on, Savanah River, you know, Skidaway Island, in, you know, Chatham County, you know, Savanah. Yes. On Skidaway Island. Yes ma'am. I wouldn' take nothing for him. Well did the white folks like it when, when you were, all were in power?

QUARTERMAN

135

140

145

27

INF: Oh they liked me. They would like me all the way 'cause I protect them, you know, I protect them. I tol' the, I tol' the Yankee mysef an' they [unintelligible] destroyed them, you know. You see I just been, understand how to speak, you know. FW: Yes. INF: Tell [unintelligible], you know. FW: Uh huh. INF: I see a man gonna do a wrong thing I sure stop him. I stop him. FW: Well did the white people, did your master and all them like to see the Negroes be the judge and the jailer and everything? INF: No, you see, according to law, you know. They don't mind you be that-a-way if you know what you doing. Don't you see? FW: Yes. INF: We, we, you see they, they don' know what they doing. An' they prove that they don't know. FW: Uh huh.

Fountain Hughes Charlottesville, VA b. 1848 AFS 9990

5

10

15

20

25

INF: Talk to who? FW: Well, just tell me what your name is. INF: My name is Fountain Hughes. I was born in Charlottesville, Virginia. My grandfather belong to Thomas Jefferson. My grandfather was a hundred an' fifteen years ol' when he died. An' now I am one hundred an', an' one year old. Tha's enough. [recording stops and starts again] She use' to work, but what she made I don' know. I never ask her. FW: You just go ahead and talk away there. You don't mind, do you, Uncle Fountain? INF: No. An' when, now, your husband an' you both are young. You all try to live like young people ought to live. Don' want everything somebody else has got. Whatever you get, if it's yourn be satisfied. An' don' spen' your money till you get it. So many people get in debt. Well, that all was so cheap when I bought it. You spen' your money 'fore you get it because you're going in debt for what you want. When you want something, wait until you get the money an' pay for it cash. Tha's the way I've done. If I've wanted anything, I'd wait until I got the money an' I paid for it cash. I never bought nothing on time in my life. Now plenty people if they want a suit of clothes, they go to work an' they'll buy them on time. Well they say they was cheap. They cheap. If you got the money you can buy them cheaper. They want something for, for waiting on you for, uh, till you get ready to pay them. An' if you got the money you can go where you choose an' buy it when you go, when you want it. You see? Don't buy it 'cause somebody else go down an' run a debt an'

30

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

HUGHES

run a bill or, I'm gonna run it too. Don' do that. I never done it. Now, I'm a hundred years οΓ an' I don' owe nobody five cents, an' I ain't got no money either. An' I'm happy, jus' as happy as somebody that's oh, got million. Nothing worries me. I'm not, my head ain't even white. I, nothing in the worl' worries me. I can sit here in this house at night, nobody can come an' say, "Mr. Hughes, you owe me a quarter, you owe me a dollar, you owe me five cents." No you can't. I don' owe you nothing. Why? I never made no bills in my life. An' I'm living too. An' I'm a hundred years ol'. An' if you take my advice today, you'll never make a bill. 'Cause what you want, give your money, pay them cash, an' then the rest of the money is yourn. But if you run a bill they, well, so much and so much an' you don't have to pay. I's nothing down it's, it's all when you come to pay. I's all, you don' have to pay no more. But they, they'll, they'll charge you more. They getting something or other or else they wouldn' trus' you. But I can't jus' say what they getting. But they getting something or other else they wouldn' want your credit. Now I tell you that anybody that trusts you for two dollars or have a account with them by the month or by the week, store 'count or any 'count. They're getting something out of it. Else they don' want to 'commodate you that much to trust you. Now, if I want, course I ain' got no clothes, but if I want some clothes, I, I ain' got no money, I'm gonna wait till I get the money to buy them. 'Deed I am. I'm not a-gonna say 'cause I can get them on trust, I go down an' get them. I got to pay a dollar more anyhow. But either they charge you more or they say taxes are so much. But if I've got the money to pay cash, I'll pay the taxes and all down in cash, you know. It's all done with. So many of colored people is head over heels in debt. Trust me. trust. I'll get it on time. They want a set of furniture, go down an' pay down so much an' the rest on time. You done paid that, you done paid for them then. When you pay down so much an' they charge you fifty dollar, hundred dollars for a set an' you pay down twenty-five dollars cash, you done paid them. That's all it was worth, twenty-five dollars, an' you pay, now you, I'm seventy-five dollars in debt now. 'Cause I, I have to pay a hundred dollars for that set, an' i's only worth about twenty-five dollar. But

HUGHES

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

31

you buying it on time. But people ain' got sense enough to know it. But when you get οΓ like I am, you commence to think, well, I have done wrong. I should have kep' my money until I wanted this thing, an' when I want it, I take my money an' go pay cash for it. Or else I will do without it. That's supposing you want a new dress. You say, well I'll, I'll buy it, but, uh, I don' need it. But I can get it on time. Well let's go down the store today an' get something on time. Well you go down an' get a dress on time. Something else in there, I want that. They'll sell that to you on time. You won't have to pay nothing down. But there's a payday coming. An' when that payday comes, they want you come pay them. If you don't, they can't get no more. Well, if you never do that, if you don't start it, you will never end it. I never did buy nothing on time. I must tell you on this, I'm setting right here now today, an' if i's the las' word I've got to tell you, I never even much as tried to buy a, a shirt on time. An' plenty people go to work, down to the store an' buy uh, three an' four dollars for a shirt. Two, three uh, seven, eight dollars for a pair of pants. Course they get them on time. I don', no, no, no. I say, I got, I buy something for five dollars. 'Cause I got the five dollars, I'll pay for it. I'm done with that. FW: You talk about how old you are Uncle Fountain. Do you, how far back do you remember? INF: I remember. Well I'll tell you, uh. Things come to me in spells, you know. I remember things, uh, more when I'm laying down than I do when I'm standing or when I'm walking around. Now in my boy days, why, uh, boys lived quite different from the way they live now. But boys wasn' as mean as they are now either. Boys lived to, they had a good time. The masters di, didn' treat them bad. An' they was always satisfied. They never wore no shoes until they was twelve or thirteen years old. An' now people put on shoes on babies you know, when they're two year, when they month old. I be, I don' know how ol' they are. Put shoes on babies. Jus' as soon as you see them out in the street they got shoes on. I tol' a woman the other day, I said, "I never had no shoes till I was thirteen years old." She say, "Well but you bruise your feet all up, an' stump your toes." I say, "Yes, many time I've stump my toes, an' blood run out them.

32

100 FW: INF: 105

110

115

120

125

130

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

HUGHES That didn' make them buy me no shoes." An' I been, oh, oh you wore a dress like a woman till I was, I [be~believe] ten, twelve, thirteen years old. So you wore a dress. Yes. I didn' wear no pants, an' of course didn' make boys' pants. Boys wore dresses. Now only womens wearing the dresses an' the boys is going with the, with the womens wearing the pants now an' the boys wearing the dresses. Still, [laughs] Who did you work for Uncle Fountain when . . . ? Who'd I work for? Yeah. When I, you mean when I was slave? Yeah, when you were a slave. Who did you work for? Well, I belonged to, uh, ., when I was a slave. My mother belonged to B. But my, uh, but, uh, we, uh, was all slave children. An' after, soon after when we found out that we was free, why then we was, uh, bound out to different people. [names of people] an' all such people as that. An' we would run away, an' wouldn' stay with them. Why then we'd jus' go an' stay anywhere we could. Lay out a night in underwear. We had no home, you know. We was jus' turned out like a lot of cattle. You know how they turn cattle out in a pasture? Well after freedom, you know, colored people didn' have nothing. Colored people didn' have no beds when they was slaves. We always slep' on the floor, pallet here, and a pallet there. Jus' like, uh, lot of, uh, wild people, we didn', we didn' know nothing. Didn' allow you to look at no book. An' there was some free-born colored people, why they had a little education, but there was very few of them, where we was. An' they all had uh, what you call, I might call it now, uh, jail centers, was jus' the same as we was in jail. Now I couldn' go from here across the street, or I couldn' go through nobody's house 'out I have a note, or something from my master. An' if I had that pass, that was what we call a pass, if I had that pass, I could go wherever he sent me. An' I'd have to be back, you know, when, uh. Whoever he sent me to, they, they'd give me another pass an' I'd bring that back so as to show how long I'd been gone. We couldn' go out an' stay a hour or two hours or something

HUGHES

135

140

145

150

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

155

160

165

170

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

33

like. They send you. Now, say for instance I'd go out here to S.'s place. I'd have to walk. An' I would have to be back maybe in a hour. Maybe they'd give me hour. I don' know jus' how long they'd give me. But they'd give me a note so there wouldn' nobody interfere with me, an' tell who I belong to. An' when I come back, why I carry it to my master an' give that to him, that'd be all right. But I couldn' jus' walk away like the people does now, you know. It was what they call, we were slaves. We belonged to people. They'd sell us like they sell horses an' cows an' hogs an' all like that. Have a auction bench, an' they'd put you on, up on the bench an' bid on you jus' same as you bidding on cattle you know. Was that in Charlotte that you were a slave? Hmmm? Was that in Charlotte or Charlottesville? That was in Charlottesville. Charlottesville, Virginia. Selling women, selling men. All that. Then if they had any bad ones, they'd sell them to the nigger traders, what they called the nigger traders. An' they'd ship them down south, an' sell them down south. But, uh, otherwise if you was a good, good person they wouldn' sell you. But if you was bad an' mean an' they didn' want to beat you an' knock you aroun', they'd sell you what to the, what was call the nigger trader. They'd have a regular, have a sale every month, you know, at the court house. An' then they'd sell you, an' get two hundred dollar, hundred dollar, five hundred dollar. Were you ever sold from one person to another? Hmmm? Were you ever sold? No, I never was sold. Always stayed with the same person. [FW and INF overlap] All, all. I was too young to sell. Oh I see. See I wasn' old enough during the war to sell, during the Army. And uh, my father got killed in the Army, you know. So it left us small children jus' to live on whatever people choose to, uh, give us. I was, I was bound out for a dollar a month. An' my mother use' to

34

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

HUGHES collect the money. Children wasn', couldn' spen' money when I come along. In, in, in fact when I come along, young men, young men couldn' spend no money until they was twenty-one years old. An' then you was twenty-one, why then you could spend your money. But if you wasn' twenty-one, you couldn' spen' no money. I couldn' take, I couldn' spen' ten cents if somebody give it to me. 'Cause they'd say, "Well, he might have stole it." We all come along, you might say, we had to give an account of what you done. You couldn' just do things an' walk off an' say I didn' do it. You'd have to, uh, give an account of it. Now, uh, after we got freed an' they turned us out like cattle, we could, we didn' have nowhere to go. An' we didn' have nobody to boss us, and, uh, we didn' know nothing. There wasn', wasn' no schools. An' when they started a little school, why, the people that were slaves, there couldn' many of them go to school, '' they had a father an' a mother. An' my father was dead, an' my mother was living, but she had three, four other little children, an' she had to put them all to work for to help take care of the others. So we had, uh, we had what you call, worse than dogs has got it now. Dogs has got it now better than we had it when we come along. I know, I remember one night, I was out after I, I was free, an' I din' have nowhere to go. I didn' have nowhere to sleep. I didn't know what to do. My brother an' I was together. So we knew a man that had a, a livery stable. An' we crep' in that yard, an' got into one of the hacks of the automobile, an' slep' in that hack all night long. So next morning, we could get out an' go where we belonged. But we was afraid to go at night because we didn' know where to go, and didn' know what time to go. But we had got away from there, an' we afraid to go back, so we crep' in, slept in that thing all night until the next morning, an' we got back where we belong before the people got up. Soon as day commenced» come, break, we got out an' commenced to go where we belonged. But we never done that but the one time. After that we always, if there, if there was a way, we'd try to get back before night come. But then that was on a Sunday too, that we done that. Now, uh, when we were slaves, we couldn' do that, see. An' after we got free we didn' know nothing to do. An' my mother, she, then she hunted places, an'

HUGHES

210

215

FW: INF:

220

225

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

230

235

240

35

bound us out for a dollar a month, an' we stay there maybe a couple of years. An', an' she'd come over an' collect the money every month. An' a dollar was worth more then than ten dollars is now. An' I, an' the men use' to work for ten dollars a month, hundred an' twenty dollars a year. Use' to hire that-a-way. An', uh, now you can't get a man for, fifty dollars a month. You paying a man now fifty dollars a month, he don' want to work for it. More like fifty dollars a week now-a-days. That's just it exactly. He wants fifty dollars a week an' they ain' got no more now than we had then. An' we, no more money, but course they bought more stuff an' more property an' all like that. We didn' have no property. We didn' have no home. We had nowhere or nothing. We didn' have nothing only just, uh, like your cattle, we were jus' turned out. An' uh, get along the best you could. Nobody to look after us. Well, we been slaves all our lives. My mother was a slave, my sisters was slaves, father was a slave. Who was you father a slave for Uncle Fountain? He was a slave for B. He belong, he belong to B. Didn't he belong to Thomas Jefferson at one time? He didn' belong to Thomas Jefferson. My grandfather belong to Thomas Jefferson. Oh your grandfather did. Yeah. An', uh, my father belong to, uh, B. An', uh, an' B. died during the war time because, uh, he was afraid he'd have to go to war. But, then now, you, an' in them days you could hire a substitute to take your place. Well he couldn' get a substitute to take his place so he run away from home. An' he took cold. An' when he come back, the war was over but he died. An' then, uh, if he had lived, couldn' been no good. The Yankees just come along an', jus' broke the mill open an' hauled all the flour out in the river an' broke the, broke the store open an' throwed all the meat out in the street an' throwed all the sugar out. An' we, we boys would pick it up an' carry it an' give it to our missus an' master, young masters, until we come to be, well I don' know how ol'. I don' know, to tell you the truth when I think of it today, I don' know how I'm living. None, none of the rest of them that I know of is living. I'm the oldes' one

36

245

250 FW: INF: FW: INF: 255

260

265 FW: INF: 270

275 FW:

HUGHES that I know tha's living. But, still, I'm thankful to the Lord. Now, if, uh, if my master wanted sen' me, he never say, you couldn' get a horse an' ride. You walk, you know, you walk. An' you be barefooted an' col'. That didn' make no difference. You wasn' no more than a dog to some of them in them days. You wasn' treated as good as they treat dogs now. But still I didn' like to talk about it. Because it makes, makes people feel bad you know. Uh, I, I could say a whole lot I don' like to say. An' I won't say a whole lot more. Do you remember much about the Civil War? No, I don' remember much about it. You were a little young then I guess, huh. I, uh, I remember when the Yankees come along an' took all the good horses an' took all the, throwed all the meat an' flour an' sugar an' stuff out in the river an' let it go down the river. An' they knowed the people wouldn' have nothing to live on, but they done that. An' that's the reason why I don' like to talk about it. Them people, an', an' if you was cooking anything to eat in there for yourself, an' if they, they was hungry, they would go an' eat it all up, an' we didn' get nothing. They'd just come in an' drink up all your milk, milk. Jus' do as they please. Sometimes they be passing by all night long, walking, muddy, raining. Oh, they had a terrible time. Colored people tha's free ought to be awful thankful. An' some of them is sorry they are free now. Some of them now would rather be slaves. Which had you rather be Uncle Fountain? [laughs] Me? Which I'd rather be? You know what I'd rather do? If I thought, had any idea, that I'd ever be a slave again, I'd take a gun an' jus' end it all right away. Because you're nothing but a dog. You're not a thing but a dog. Night never corned out, you had nothing to do. Time to cut tobacco, if they want you to cut all night long out in the field, you cut. An' if they want you to hang all night long, you hang, hang tobacco. It didn' matter 'bout you tired, being tired. You're afraid to say you're tired. They just, well [voice trails off] When, when did you come to Baltimore?

HUGHES

37

INF: You know when, you don' remember when Garfiel' died, do you? When they, when they shot Garfield? No, I don' think you was 280 born. FW: I don't think I was then. INF: No, you wasn't. [overlaps with FW] Well, I don' remember what year that was myself now, but I know you wasn' born. Well I come to Baltimore that year anyhow. I don' remember what year it was 285 now myself. But if I laid, if I was laying in the bed I could have remembered. But uh, I don' remember now. FW: But did you go to work for Mr. S. when you came to Baltimore? INF: Oh no, no. I work for a man by the name of R. when I firs' come to Baltimore. I use' to, I commence to haul manure for him. The old 290 horses was here then. No 'lec, no 'lec, no, no 'lectric cars, an' no cable cars. They were all horse cars. An' I use' to haul manure, go aroun' to different stables, you know. Why people, everybody had horses for, for their use when I firs' come here. They had coachmen, an' men to drive them aroun'. Didn' have no, 295 automobiles, they hadn' been here so long. An' uh, an' then they put on a cable car, what they call cable car. Well they run them for a little while, or maybe a couple or three years or four years. Then somebody invented the 'lectric car. An' that firs' run on North Avenue. Well, uh, that run a while an' they kep' on inventing an' 300 inventing till they got them all, different kinds of cars, you know. It was, uh, horse cars. Wasn' no electric cars at all. Wasn' no, wasn' no big cars like they got now you know. I jus' can't, I jus' can't think of, uh, what year it was. But uh, FW: You're not getting tired are you Uncle Fountain? 305 INF: No, no I ain't. I'm jus' same as at home. Jus' like I was setting in the house. An' uh, see what. I was thinking 'bout oh, now you know how we served the Lord when I come along, a boy? FW: How was that? INF: We would go to somebody's house. An' uh, well we didn' have no 310 houses like they got now, you know. We had these what they call log cabin. An' they have one ol' one, maybe one ol' colored man would be there, maybe he'd be as old as I am. An' he'd be the preacher. Not as old as I am now, but, he'd be the preacher, an' then we all sit

38

315

320

325 FW: INF: 330 FW: INF:

335

FW: INF:

340 FW: INF: 345

HUGHES

down an' listen at him talk about the Lord. Well, he'd say, well, I wonder, uh, sometimes you say I wonder if we'll ever be free. Well, some of them would say, well, we gonna go as' the Lord to free us. So they'd say, well, we, we gonna sing "One Day Shall I Ever Reach Heaven and One Day Shall I Fly." An' they would sing that for about a hour. Then they, next one they'd get up an' say let's sing a song, "We Gonna Live on Milk and Honey, Way By and By." They'd, oh I can hear them singing now but I can't, I can't, uh, repeat it like I could in them days. But some day when I'm not hoarse, I could tell you, I could sing it for you, but I'm too hoarse now. An' then we'd sing, "I'm Gonna," "I'm A-Gonna Sing Aroun' the Altar." Oh, I, I wish I could, I wish I could sing it for you, "I'm Gonna Sing Aroun' the Altar." Well I wish you could too. [overlaps INF] An' they, they, well this, someday when you come over here an' I'm not hoarse, you get me to come up here an' I, I'll sing, I'll try to sing it for you. . . I'm gonna do that. This is the. Now, I heard, people here now sing about "Roll Jordan Roll." Well that's a ol' time, that's what the ol' people use' to sing in ol' back days. Is that "Roll Jordan Roll?" Yeah. But they don't sing it like the ol' people use' to sing it in them day. They sing it quite different now. An', and another one they sing, "By an' By When the Morning Come." Well they sing that different too. But the ol', they're getting the ol' people's song. I hear them come over the radio. I know them all jus' as good as they, but they sing them different. Have different names to some of them, huh? Yes. Well they cut them off shorter an' all like that. It's a, if I had my voice, I would sing jus' one for you so you go in that [unintelligible] but I can't do it on accoun' of my voice. But someday you come over here, you come in, you call me up an' let me know an' how my voice is. Ever since I took that medicine from my doctor, well it hurt my voice. I, I, now there was a preacher in my house the other night, he live right next door to me, an' he

HUGHES 350

355

360

FW: INF:

365 FW: INF:

370

FW: INF: 375

380

39

played on the piano. An' he played something an' I sung it for him. An' now he wants me to go down to his church next Sunday. I told him, I says, "Now if I go down to your church, I'll not sing nothing. Because if I do I'll get ho, hoarse I can't talk." But he said, "Brother Hughes, I don' care whether you sing or not. I just want you to go down there an' let the people see who you are. Let them see what a, what   people is." I said, "Well uh, Reverend, why I'll, I'll be glad to go down with you." So, on next Sunday I'm going down to his church if I living, an' nothing happen. But if he, if he sing something ol, I, I, [laughs]. Just sing along. [Becomes excited, slapping noise in background] I feel, I feel the spirit now, but I can't, I got to keep quiet. Now you, do you ever hear this fellow that comes over the radio? I think they call him H. Comes on Sunday night about twelve o'clock, on WFBR? No I don't know whether I've ever heard him or not. Well I, you turn him on. He comes on a quarter after eleven, on Sunday night. Well, you, you mus' have heard him 'cause he says, "Can't uh, can't, can't keep a good man down." So, it makes so much noise, look like everybody ought to hear him. But now when that fellow comes around, I'm laying in the bed, don't you know, I get just so I got to be in that, because it's, it's all ol' time business. Uh um. An', uh, somebody don' like it. They says, "I don' like H." I says, "Why?" "Oh," he says, "he make too much noise." I say, "Well, well, the, the Bible say make a noise over Jesus? Jesus said make a noise over me, so he makes a noise over him." An' I does enjoy certain of his show. Oh, he's oh everybody, he's got a big crowd an' we jus' get so happy I got to do that too. [slapping noise in background] Boy, when you feel the grace of God you've got to jump up. I lay in bed, I got to get up. Have, you have to carry on. An' then next morning I can' talk. [break on the tape for a new reel] Doctor gave me that medicine, it just tore me all to pieces.

40

385

390

395

HUGHES

FW: Uh huh, I see. I sure hope it comes back again 'cause I'd love, I'd like to hear you sing. INF: Well ol' people use' to say, "Wonder If I Shall Ever Reach Heaven or Wonder Shall I Fly." I, I use to could sing it. I can sing, well sometimes I hear the spirit, you know an' I may get to singing something again someday. People now, I [voice trails off]. FW: Do you go to church every Sunday Uncle Fountain? INF: Uh uh. Don' go to church at all. I set an' listen to the radio. FW: Listen to it on the radio huh. INF: Because I'll tell you why I don' go to church. FW: You rather not have this on? You rather not tell me or you rather not have this on when you tell me? INF: It don't make any difference. I ain' gonna say nothing wrong. I ain't gonna [unintelligible]. If I, I, I say [tape ends].

Uncle Billy McCrea Jasper, TX b. ? AFS 3975 A1

FW: What do you remember about the, when slavery was over? INF: When slavery was over, le' me see if I can't tell you about that. FW: Well you said you, they all kept going, tell be about them coming through here with cannons. 5 INF: Yes, yes. Now I'll tell you when slavery, way back in slavery time, I was standing at, tha's when the Negro was free. I would, we all would go out every day, right here in town, to see the Yankees all going back home. I can recollect just as good. They'd jus' have, they'd have, uh, six an' eight mules to a cannon, going through an' 10 bolts on them there, uh, uh cannon, cannon. Then they'd take the wagon, an' have bolts all on them wagon. Now, walk, nothing but them mules, nothing but them mules, an' one man a-riding, riding two mule, we all use to take a look at them. You understand? All day long be crossing, I 'member jus' as well, an' all the Yankees I 15 recollect was blue, was dressed in blue clothes, I can remember it, with blue junk right here, an' had a little pin on, on the coat right there. In fact I'm, an' course it was up here. You, yeah, I recollect jus' as well, day they come roun', an' they, black mules, have uh, maybe, oh I don' know how many black horses. Then they come 20 along in with lot of these ol' gray mules, on it. hitched to them cannon, cannon. An' then they come back with horses, sorrell horses. Horses to [unintelligible]. That way for two days, they was going out through Jasper, two day. An' I remember an' the Yankees stop here, an' the Yankees stop right here on the courthouse square. 25 I was a good size boy then. An' then what they call Freedman Bureau, you hear tell of it ain't you? An' they prosecuting people,

42

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

McCREA

you know, what they do, you know, an' all like that, an' I mean jus' as hard as they could. I've seen two mens they had they were punishing for what they do. An' I see them jus' take them. I, uh, uh, uh, had [unintelligible] a big tent. We, we boys would go out an' see them, an' they'd take them, hang them up by his thumb. An' just let that tip [unintelligible] hang out so many men then let him down. That's the punishment they got. I recollect an ol' man that they had in town, an ol' dep, uh, sherrif. His name was Yankee White. An' the man, the judge's name, I forgot his name. But anyhow I know you recollect Yankee White. Tha's when you was young. Well then they come, an' my old master, old Col. M., he bought one, two of the horses from him. I recollect, I rode the horse a many a time. One of those big horse they call Yankee Tom, big sorrell horse. An' another big ol' horse was a saddle horse, old Col. M. bought, an' he was called B. He was a great big black horse. Now [unintelligible] he took them all down to the farm, I recollect all of that. I was a big, big boy then. A good big boy. And the Yankees had come, an' after a while there'd be a whole troop of men come, they said they was Yankees. All walking, all walking. That crew of Yankees would go through. Next time you see, there come a whole troop of Yankees, all riding horses, big guns a-hanging on in there, an' all like that you know. Yeah. We all would stan' looking at them, all going home. An' I said, I ask them, I said, I ask them, I say. "Mama, where they, where they going?" Said, "They all going home now." An' old Col. M., that was our master, he was in there, an' he say, "Well, Harriet, all of you niggers is all free now. Yankees all going home." I 'member that jus' as well. Right, right in town where we living at. Right above the new, the new, uh, Post Office. That was my ol', ol' master's home, right, uh, up, up above the ol' new Post Office. Well that was his square, from that Post Office clean down to the Citizen Bank. All that was his whole square there. An' clean over to the ol' part, coming on up to, toward the Methodist Church. That was my old master's place. I can 'member he was a speculator. I can 'member it, I was good big boy then. He had a big ol' shed there. An' he, an' he had cotton all in that shed, an' we boys would all go up an' play in that shed everyday. An' he had, a, had wagon,

McCREA

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

43

every, everyday he'd load up all them wagon an' take all that cotton an' go off, go off. Now you see, that, that was in slavery time. I recollect just as well, an' he'd bring back whole lot the colored people. Old Col. M., they said he was a speculator. An' he sell them to all these people aroun' this country. There's lot of old people, they all dead now, what he brought there and sold. He'd go off an' bring them in. I recall that my ol', my ol', my ol' papa was his wagoner. I use' to go, he use' to carry me with him all the time. Use' to haul cotton, carry cotton from Jasper to Wise's Bluff. An', an' carry it to Wise's Bluff, an' they'd carry cotton over here an' weigh it up at a place they call uh, forgot that place now. Carry cotton there an' weigh it. I remember he use' to be, he use' to always work. I was good, big boy at the time, an' he had a oxen, had a ol', had a oxen, had a ol' oxen name Brandy. That how come he was his wagoner. He'd get tired an' sit down. "Bill." "Yes sir." "Get on, that, get this whip an' get on it." And I'd ride ol' Brandy. Ride ol' Brandy, drive the rest of them. Ride him, till I get tired an' get down, then walk side of them. I been, I own it, I been through a heap [laughs] all that stuff. That, that was in slavery time, that was ol' slavery time, it was. And I 'member I can tell you some more about slavery time. Right down, [mumbles], right down close to Miss, uh, M. M.'s place there was an ol' jail house there, ol' log jail house. 01' log jail house was there. That, tha's only, tha's all, that's the, that's the way, an' wasn't no, wasn't no court, wasn't no, uh, some kin' of courthouse, I recollect it. An' use' to put prisoners in that jail house. An' me, me an' another young white fellow I believe his name  M., [unintelligible]. An' we use' to go home to people that worked in the kitchen. We use' to go home and steal bread an' stuff an' poke it through them little bars to the prisoners. We was boys. That's right here in Jasper. An' it was an ol' log jail house. An' all aroun' [unintelligible]. An' I recollect one time, we all was looking at it. An' they, an' they brought in, had hounds. An' they brought them hound in and brought three nigger with them hound, runaway niggers, you know, caught in the wood. And they, right, right across, right at the creek there, they take them niggers and put them on, an' put them on a log lay them down an' fasten them. An'

44

100

McCREA

whip them. You hear them niggers hollering an' praying on them logs. An' there was a nigger bring them in. Then they take them out down there an' put them in jail. FW: That'll be enough. [slight pause] INF: Now I see all of that I was a boy . . . . [tape gets stuck and interview ends]

Uncle Bob Ledbetter Oil City, LA b. 1861 AFS 4777 A&B

FW:

5

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

10

FW: INF:

15

FW: INF: FW:

20

INF: FW: INF:

25

FW: INF: FW:

What was that you said, uh? What was that you said, uh, Uncle Bob? What about? Uh, then. I, the machine went off I didn't hear you. I said I'm glad N. got acquainted with you because I believe you's a good man an'I want him to be with a good man. Well, tell, tell me, where were you born Uncle Bob? I was born not far from this place. Up here south, uh, west of here. 'Bout five miles. And how old are you? Well now uh, I told you 'bout, oh, they say I'm seventy something, two or three. My daddy tol' me I was un, nineteen years ol' on eight, on the eighteenth, of, uh, December. An' tha's all I can go by. Eighteenth of Decern, December when? Well, 1880. Yeah. And you, you don't know to figure how much that is, that makes you now? No sir. I'm a poor figurer. Uh, you told me, uh, uh, you told me a story or two about yourself and about your father as we came along. What were they? Well they, mention it so I know what you talking about an' I can start it over again I reckon. Well, was your father a songster like you? Nothing but ol' hymns, hymns. He was regular church man. Well what kind of songs did you sing when you were young?

46

INF:

30

35

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

40 FW: INF:

45

FW: 50

INF:

55

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

60 FW:

LEDBETTER

Well, I didn', jus' hollered reels, jus' fiddle reels, you know, all the time, my singing. Was it, were you a fiddler yourself? No sir, no sir. I couldn't make no music at all. Well you could make music with your mouth. Oh yes sir, I could do that. I sure would do that. Everywhere you hears me you hear me singing a song, a reel. And out in the field what did you do when you were working? Tha's what I'd do. Hollering, singing reels. And, and what was it you sang about, the cotton? 'Bout uh, little Joe? Yeah. [recites] Little Joe, my Sam tol' me to pick a little cotton, the boy says don't for the seed's all rotten. Well now say it just like you did to me in the car and say it louder. [laughs] [starts to sing] My sam told me to pick a little cotton, The boy says don't, the seed's all rotten. Get out of the way, ol' Dan Tucker, Come too late to get your supper. I don' remember, I never did sing it. Well how, how did you tell me you used to call your sweetheart out at night? Let me see, I'm near forgot what I was to holler, what sort of holler . . [FW interrupts] And holler. Jus' tell me one word of it so I'll know what you talking about. You said you didn't have any starch or soap. Yeah. [starts to sing] No soap. Louder. No soap, no starch, Nobody to wash my clothes, Nobody to wash my clothes. I hate to sing to anybody. My voice, it, it broke. Well uh, didn't you say you used to sing that in the field too?

LEDBETTER

INF: FW: INF: FW:

47

Yeah I sing that in the fiel' too. Yes sir. Would your sweetheart be out there in the field? 65 No, she'd be 'joining. 'Joining fields you know. Uh huh. Well what was some of the other old field hollers that you used to have? INF: [starts to sing] I'm going home. 70 I'm going home. I'm going home. That was one of them. FW: Well when you wanted to, when you wanted to summon a boy from across the creek way far off, how would you, how would you 75 notify him? INF: I just holler that holler, you hear me a-hollering. An' he'd answer me way over yonder. FW: Well what was, what was the holler? INF: That same thing I was singing. [starts to sing] 80 No soap, no starch, Nobody to wash my clothes, Nobody to wash my clothes. That same ol' holler. An' he'd answer me way out at his field. FW2: What'd he say? 85 INF: Ma'am? FW2: What would he say? INF: Well he'd sing the same thing. FW: And how would he sing it? Sing it like he did. INF: [starts to sing] 90 No soap, no starch, Nobody to wash my clothes, Nobody to wash my clothes. An' if he took a notion then he'd say: [sings] I'm going home. 95 I'm going home. I'm going home. I knowed that he's coming soon as he got supper. At the white folk kitchen [laughs] I looking for him.

48

FW: 100 INF: FW: INF: 105

FW: INF:

110

115 FW:

120

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

125

130

LEDBETTER

Now you told me about the, the man that you worked for for ten or twelve years. Mr. N.? Yeah, and you said he was the meanest man in the country. Well they said so. Them N.'s would work for the meanes' people there was 'round. Well, how'd they treat you? They treat me all right. Nary a one of them never did cuss at me the whole twelve year. And didn' care what I went to them for, I got it. Barrels of flour, middlins of meat, kegs of molasses, money any time. Now that J. N., that was the oldes' boy. An' his store would be full of hands you know, an' he wouldn' want them all to know what he's doing. I jus' tell him, give me a pencil an' piece of paper. He'd hand it to me an' I'd write on there, I'd tell him I want five dollar, please sir. I'd hand it to him an' go on 'bout my business. Firs' thing you know he'd come on by me, touch me, and give it to me. He'd do me that-a-way just as sure as he is, just as sure as I'm living. Well now what was it the old merchant, what was it the old merchant told you? You told the old merchant down here that. . . Uh, Mr. [FW interrupts] M. Me an' him was talking now one day and uh, wasn' nobody in there but me. Now say exactly what you said now. Yes sir. Wasn' nobody in there but me an' him an' his son an' his son's daughter. And I say "Mr. C , " I forgot what jus' exactly how ol' I was, but anyhow I said, "I'm sixty-one or two years old, an' I never had no trouble in my life." I say "I never ask the N.'s for a nickel what they didn' give it to me, in my life an' nary a one of them never did cuss at me." An' say "I ain' never been summoned an' ain' never been 'rested, an' ain' never been to the jail house but twice in my life an' I ain' been to the courthouse but twice." He, he looked at me an' he cussed. He said, "Well, Bob, I be damn if that ain' too much for a nigger to say." Said "There ain' nary a white man can say any better than that." Said, "There ain't." I say,

LEDBETTER

135

FW: 140

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

145

150

155

160

165

FW: INF:

INF2: INF: INF3: FW2: INF: FW2: FW: FW2: FW: INF: FW: INF:

FW:

49

"Well, I'm telling you the truth," I say, "You can ask these people all around M. that know me, and they'll tell you I ain' never been no trouble since I been there." Well you said you hadn't been in, to the jail house but twice. Did they put you in jail twice? No sir, no sir, jus' went by there. Went by the jail. Down the street, yes. Well when you had friends in jail, didn't you go see them? I didn' go see them 'cause I always said practice makes perfect. [laughs] I was proud I said so, and I jus' wouldn' go to see them. I says no I ain' going see them. I said practice makes perfect. I ain' going there. Well Lord knows I'm telling you the truth what I said. Uh, uh, how much, how much school did you go to? I never went to school a day in my life, not a hour. [someone enters the room] Hey, hey, hey, hey, howdy, howdy, howdy, howdy. is that you? Yeah. How you folks feel? All right. We're gonna have to get some more chairs. Well N. here can tell you I never went to school a hour in my life. See if I can get you a chair. Well is it still running here? Yeah. Well go ahead. Talk to Nora. So you never went to . . . . I, I say, he can tell you, I never went to school a hour in my life. Not a hour. Well, you, you, then could you read and write? I could read and write too. I do, I can send a letter all over this worl' if I jus' knowed where to send it. Course I can't write it pretty like people do do, but anywhere I know where to send it, I can send it. Well, uh, how did you learn to write?

50

170

INF:

FW: INF: 175 FW:

180 INF:

185

190

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW:

195

INF:

200

FW: INF: FW: INF:

205

FW:

LEDBETTER

Well my daddy jus' taught me how to spell a little at night. Well after that then he kep', uh, copies, an' I take copies an' jus' learn myself. And how you learn to read? Well he learn me at night. He said he, he wasn' no educated man. He could jus' read printing. An' he set up at night and teach his children. Tha's the way we learned. I heard a story about, uh, a judge asking a colored boy on the witness stand, he said, uh, "Jim, can you read writing?" He said, "No sir, Judge. I can't even read reading." [all laugh] But you can read reading and writing both. Yes sir. [coughing in background] They had a, they had a preacher treated us fine. He could make a, uh, preacher out of him. An' they ask him could he, did he know, did he know theology. He said, "No sir, I never knowed that man in my life. I, I never have been 'quainted with him." [laughs] So I don' know nothing 'bout no, nothing like that. Uh, how old were you when you joined the church? I was, uh, nineteen years ol'. And how old were you when you got married? I was, uh, just, just in my twenty. Jus' started in my twenties. Well did your wife make you join the church? No sir. Jus' joined myself. Jus' took a notion an' join myself. Well how have you got along so well in life? What, what, what, what's been your principles? Well people 'round, ask the people, anybody you know around here, as' them 'bout my principles. I jus' went on, jus' knowed, I jus' knowed what was right to do and I always try to do wha's right. Well that's a mighty good way to do Uncle Bob. Yes sir, I know what's right and I tried my best to do what's right in everything I do. How many times have you voted? Ain' voted but twice. Vote for whiskey once an' voted President election once. What President election? [tape ends]

Joe McDonald and Woman Livingston, AL b. ? AFS 4033 B3 FA 4034 A3

5

INF-M: FW: INF-M: INF-F: INF-M:

10

15

20 FW:

25

INF-F: FW: INF-M:

Yeah. All right. Yeah. I was raise in the house with him. Mr. F. M. Mr. F. M., and uh, they taught me mighty good, they teach me good. They said, I remember, says, "Joe?" I say, "Yes sir." "When we are dead and in heaven," they said," we wants to raise you as an intelligent nigger. We wants you to have good friends like we have got." Say, "You'll never be scratched by good rich, sensible white folks because they can tell who you are by your raising and your compliments. That show that you been raised," he said, "not by the colored but by the white." I washed and ironed. Some days I'd wash a hundred peices. Some, every morning I'd have five beds to make up, five fires to mix, an' the childrens to dress and churning to do. An' after that, well then I'd have some parts of the day. But I had all that to do every day. Raised right up in the house, you know, I, I, I remember telling one story. You know they, now, I slep' like in this room in here and they slep' 'joining rooms to me, you know. Say, "Joe, if you get col', come in our room by the grate." [recording gets stuck and repeats]. Can't you tell a story about the, uh, when, about your girlhood days, and about who raised you? Go ahead. Talking about James? No you. Yeah you, you.

52

INF-F:

30

FW: INF-F: FW: INF-F:

35 INF-M: INF-F: INF-M: 40

45

50

55

60

INF-F: INF-M: FW: INF-F: FW: INF-F: FW: INF-F: FW: INF-M:

McDONALD AND WOMAN Oh I always was a good girl. I don' know any stories on me, you know. [laughs] Well did you work in the field or you work in the house? I work in the fiel' an' the house too. Both places. But I like the fiel' the best. Uh huh. Why did you like the field the best? Well just 'cause I catch more good breeze an' more good fresth air out in the fiel' than I does in the kitchen, uh, in the house. Now you know that. I didn' go the fiel' till I was nineteen years old. I know the field. I, I wen' to the fiel' when I was nineteen years ol'. I remember the ol' boy says, "Well Joe," we, we always had three Jims there. We had, uh, one Jim, that two Jim M. an' one Jim ., . An' uh, my brother Jim M., he was a colored fellow, an' the white Jim, you know, he went with my ol' boss look for the Jim K., you know. An' they put me plowing, you know. Says« "Joe." Says, "Sir." "I want you to go up yonder while the baby's asleep and plow." Say, "When Mrs. D. call, you go back to the house and see if the baby stir." Baby went to sleep, you know, slep' two or three hour an' I plowed till the ol' boss got back. [laughs] But I didn' like the fiel', didn' go the fiel' till I was nineteen. I love the fiel'. Didn' go to the fiel' till I was nineteen. What kind of work did you like best in the field? Picking cotton. Picking cotton. Picking cotton. How much could you pick in a day? Well a hundred an' fifty, sixty, seventy. Uh, you weren't picking very hard. Now in them day, as I, Mrs. D. had a horse name John. An' say, "Joe, you reckon you can plow ol' John?" I say, "Yes sir, I know I can." "Which had you rather do? Go down in the fiel' plow ol' John or nurse the baby?" And I say, "Oh, I want

McDONALD AND WOMAN

65

70

53

to go to the field." He looked at me and laughed. [laughs] He knowed I's telling a story. He knowed I'd rather be in the house than be in the fiel'. He said, "Well you go out there, an' catch οΓ John an' go down there an' plow Mrs. D.'s patch. An' you know I went, caught οΓ John, hitch him to the turning plow, went down there, plowed the pasture, he come down, I was sitting there by a big ol' oak, bigger than that yonder tree. I was sitting down there asleep. And he said, "Joe," I said, "Sir." "Did you plow Mrs. D.'s patch?" I said "No, yes, yes sir, yes sir, no sir." [laughs] He say, "Take out ol' John, go in the house, feed the baby." That was a time. I 'member that day so good.

Isom Moseley Gee's Bend, AL b. 1856 AFS 5091A

INF: My name is Isom Moseley. Raised up in οΓ time without a mother. My οΓ master an' mistress raised me. My master was named L. M. My mistress was name . . Well, are you ready for me to talk? FW: Yeah, that's fine. 5 INF: An', uh, an' uh, after, my mother was a house woman, an' uh, after she died, my father was a fiel' han', an' white folks kep' me aroun' the house to tote cool water. Houseboy like. An' uh, they had two weavers weaving, had two looms running every day. Well you know I'd go out in the quarter to play with them childr, other children. 10 An' if I hurt one an' they caught me, they would wear me out. Well the, the white folk tol' me, when they get at me, make it to the yard. Well sometime I'd go out there an' get to playing, one would hit me, I'd get a brick [unintelligible] it to him an' to the yard I made it. Don' nobody say nothing after that. An', uh, I, went on that-a-way 15 an', uh, I never can, uh, my master was name L., you got that, an' my, my mistress had a master name, a young master named L. M. He was a doctor. B. M., he was a farmer. F. M., he was a farmer. J. M., he was a farmer. Well, I had two mistress, B. M. an' M. J. M. They was my mistress. An' then, as I wen' on to tell you about, they 20 made 'lasses way back then, an' uh, they had no iron mills like they got. They made wood, the carpenters made wooden mills. An' they'd grin' that 'lasses an' they had a vat, big kettle to make it in, you know, had [unintelligible] put the kettles on. An' when that 'lasses was made, they had poplar trough to pour that 'lasses in. No 25 barrels at all. I never seed a barrel 'long then, nothing but troughs.

56

FW: 30

INF:

35

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

40

45

50

55

60

MOSELEY

An' when you get your 'lasses made, they had plank to cover them troughs. [mumbles a few words] Uh, you told me something about the way they made soap in the old days. Yes sir, I've explain that. Now I was large enough to tote water to the soap maker, put on ash hopper. They had a barrel, uh . . . . [tape gets stuck] You ready? You were telling about the soap making. Huh? You were talking about the soap. Now, when I was a boy they use' to make soap. Well I was large enough to tote water to the soap makers to put on ash hopper. Now they didn' have no barrels, they had boards, you know. An' uh, them boards come in that-a-way, you know, that-a-way, boards was there. Well, all these here an' you'd lay some crossway to hol' the ashes. An' then I'd tote water an' put on that ash hopper for the soap maker. Now he'd make soap for the whole plantation, an' uh, make about two or three barrels. An' 'long then captain, I ain't seed none, no bar soap. They might have had some but I never seed none. An' uh, they uh, had, uh, something dug in the groun', hole, deep hole an' board up one each side, it was plank. Well it was about three foot deep I reckon, as nigh as I can come at it, an' about eight or ten foot long. Well, they'd tan leather. They'd lay a, lay a bark down in that hole, an' then they'd lay, lay a hide over that bark. An' then they would lay another layer of bark an' another layer of hide, till they got it like they want. An' then they'd full that thing up with water. But now, now 'fore they'd tan that, that leather, they had a place to put it in to get, lay a while an' get the hair off. An' when they got done with that leather i's jus' like any tan leather, an' they had a man there to make shoes for all us. Now we was children, good-size children, going about, that shoemaker make shoes for we children. An' the ol' folks too. We had mighty good white folks, my memory, far as I can remember, you know, mighty good, mighty good. You know they must have been good. After the

MOSELEY

65

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

70

75

FW: INF: FW: INF:

80 FW: INF: 85

90

95

57

country surrendered, didn' none move, more move there after surrender. More moved on the place. What happened after the surrender? Sir? What happened after the surrender? What happened? Yeah. Well now, they tell me it was a, a year 'fore the folks knowed that, uh, they was free. An' when they foun' out they was free, they worked on shares, they tell me. Worked on shares, didn' rent no lan', they worked on shares. Now you know I was a boy, I'm about explaining to the best of my understanding. They say they worked on shares. I think they said it was, was it fourth, or third I think. They got the third, I think they say, what they made, after surrender. How many children do you have? Me? Yeah. Ain' got, didn' have but one an' it died. None but one an' it died. Now we was living twenty mile this side of Selma, in Dallas. That where I was birthed, I weren't birthed down here. No sir, I weren't birthed down here. How old were you when you came into Gee's Bend? How ol' I was? Seventeen year ol'. Seventeen year ol' and I come in the Ben' here. A man here name, J. P. was here when I come, but the firs' owners of this place, that I don' know nothing about it but I beared the older peoples, M. P. Now uh, uh, S. Gee was the firs' owner. But that was F., ol' man M.'s brother-in-law, tell me. Well, after ol' man Gee, M. took place, Mark P. An' then tha's when I come here. They say his son, J. P., I don' know nothing about ol' man M. and C. Gee, but ol' man J. P., he was, he was a good man. He stayed here, I stayed here with him. Then he died, he been dead for forty some odd year. An' uh, another thing 'bout him. No, he had ten wage hands an' uh, four plowers an', an' six hoe han'. Never had a ride over them the whole time. Now he'd get up soon of a morning an' ride 'round. Now uh, what we would be, the sun be a half hour high 'fore you lef home, he'd be in the fiel'. That he

58

100

105

110

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

115

120

FW: INF: FW: INF:

MOSELEY

would. An' you know he'd make good crops. Now he'd go soon of a morning, 'bout eight o'clock he done been all aroun' to his renters an' to his wage hands an' making it out to the house. An' late in the evening, he'd go back again. Now he had a colored man for his foreman an' the hoe hands an' a colored man head of the plowers. Tha's what [unintelligible]. Now he make plenty corn with them ten hands, an' forty an' fifty bales of cotton. An' he never had no rider over them. What's the government doing for you now? Sir? What is the government doing for you now? For me? Yeah. They giving me clothes, something to eat, an' giving me five dollars a month. They treating me all right. I don' fin' a bit of fault on it. Yeah, I got, I don' have to buy no clothes at all. Well I buy, they give me five dollars a month, I buy my uh, uh, flour. Well they give me some flour some time, an' some sugar an' coffee, I'm a coffee drinker, an' tobacco. I have that to buy, but clothes, things I don't buy that. Well I buy some, they give me some meat sometime. You're about eighty-five now aren't you? Sir? You're about eighty-five years old? Yes sir, eighty-five. Yeah they treating me fine, I don' fin' a bit of fault on it. I ain' had no clothes to buy since I been on the project. And I've been on it I think, 'bout nine, 'bout eight or nine years I believe. [tape gets stuck]

Alice Gaston Gee's Bend, AL b. 1853 AFS 5091 B1

INF: We was talking 'bout in the old war time, the ol' slavery time. I can remember when, uh, I can remember when the Yankees come through an', uh, they carried my father away an' carried away, my si, two sisters an' one brother. An', uh, they lef me. An' I can 5 remember when my missus use' to run in the garden, from the Yankees an' tell us if they come, don' tell them where they at. Tol', don' tell nobody where they at when they come. They all come an' they tol' me, don' get scared now an' tell them, where they is, where they is. I tol' them no, we tol' them no. An' uh, when they come an' 10 ask for them I tol' them I didn' know there they was, an' they was in the woods. An' this was at the house. An' my father, when my father lef, he carried with the, he wen' away with the Yankees, an' carried two, carried two, two girls an' one son, the oldes' one. Carried them with him. An' he with the Yankees. An' I can 15 remember that. An' uh, my ol' missus was named Mrs. M., an' the master was name Mr. F. I. Mr. F. I. FW: They treat you pretty good? INF: Yes sir, they treat me nice. They treat me nice as they could treat me. An' then after they left, after they died, then I heard, still here 20 an' am here until yet. An' the white folks all been treating me mighty nice ever since that knowed me. They treating me all now, that knows me, they treating me nice. I came up here over here from Mr. Y., from over to [unintelligible] and come to Mr. Y.'s place up here. And he kep' me there until he, he died, him an' his 25 wife. An' then I come on then from that, on down here, an' I'm here yet. An' they all treating me mighty nice, all the white folks

60

30 FW: INF:

35

40

FW: INF:

GASTON

that know me, they treats me nice. An' if I want anything, I'll as' for it. I was taught in that-a-way by my οΓ master. Don' steal, don' lie, an' if you want anything, as' for it. Be hones' in what you get. That was what I was raised up with. An' I'm that-a-way today. What's the government been doing for you here? They been treating me fine. Ever since I been, ever since I been here with the government they treat me nice. I was in a ol' house down there, took me out the ol' house an' put me up there in a good house where they could take care of me. An' I'm in there yet. I don't fin' no fault. Give me enough food to eat, give me clothes to wear. They been treating me jus' as nice as they can. I can't fin' no fault. Pretty, pretty happy then. Yes sir.

Laura Smalley Hempstead, TX b. ? AFS 5496A&B, 5497, 54982

INF:

5

10

15

20 FW: INF:

25

Ten' to all the children, ten' to the children. Jus' like, you know, you bring a whole lot of children you know, an' put them down, you know, at one house. Well there somebody have to look over them you know an' ten' to them, that-a-way. Just a house full of little children. And if one act bad, you know they'd whip him, they'd whip him too, the ol' woman. An' if the  woman didn' ten' to the children they'd whip, they'd whip her too, you know, to make her ten' to the children, she wasn' doing nothing. Well she wasn' a crippley woman like me you know. She wasn' no ol' crippley woman, satisfied she wasn' no ol' crippley woman like me. An' they'd whip her. An' they had trays, I don' know whether you see a tray. Wooden tray, dug out you know, oh about that, that long. An' all of them, you know, would get aroun' that tray with spoons. An' just eat. I can recollect that 'cause I ate out of the tray. With spoons you know, and eat, such as like mush or soup or something like that. They'd feed them you know 'fore twelve o'clock. An' all them children get aroun' there and just eat, eat, eat, eat out of that thing. An' that ol' woman, you know, she would ten' to them. Her name Aunt T. Yeah I know that woman, ol' woman, name Aunt T. An' she [FW interrupts] Just like slopping hogs, wasn't it? [INF interrupts] Jus' like a tray, no jus' like a tray, you know, you'd have, made just like a hog pen, hog trough you know. An', an' uh, clothes, you know, they'd wash them thing and scal' them out for the children. I didn't see them scal' but that what they told me, they scal' them out you know, for children. An' uh, young children eat out of that,

62

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

SMALLEY

that, that thing, an' tha's with wood spoon, an' one, if one reach his spoon over in the other's han', over in the other's plate, he gonna hit him. Hit him you know, knock that, knock that there spoon back, you know, on his side, on his side. An' that was when we was children you know, wasn' able to, to ten' to, uh, ten' to no other children. And uh, you know, jus' sit them down in a corner, an' put this chil' between his leg, an' then hold his han' 'roun' this chil'. Tha's the way he nursed him. Couldn' stan' up with him, couldn' you know, just enough, you know, shake him this-a-way in the arm. I, I can 'member that. I had a brother, he name W., an' he jus' would shake that chil', set him in the floor, an' . . [FW interrupts] FW: He was too little to pick him up. INF: Yes sir. An' that chil' kick much, he'd fall, kick him over too you know. An' the old woman come there an' spank him an' give him the chil' back in his arm. An' they had certain time to come to them childrens. [tape gets stuck] A cow out there will go to the calf, you know. An' you know they'd have certain time, you know, cow come to his calf in, at, at night. Well they come at ten o'clock everyday, ten o'clock to all them babies. Them what nurse you know. Them what didn' nurse, they didn' come to them at all. The ol' lady fed them. They wasn' big en, wasn' big enough to eat, you know. She'd uh, the ol' mother had time, you know, to come. When that horn blowed, they blowed a horn for the mothers, you know, they'd jus' come jus' like cows, jus' a-running, you know, coming to the children. FW: Out of the field INF: Out of the field. FW2: How long did they nurse a baby? [INF interrupts] INF: Ma'am? FW: Couple of years? How long would they nurse a baby? Till it was big enough to walk I guess? INF: Yes ma'am, well nine months or something like that, you know. They'd nurse them until it be, get big enough, you know, to eat. Till they'd eat. An' they'd come to, come to everytime come there

SMALLEY

65

FW: INF: FW: INF:

70

75

80

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

85

90 FW: INF: 95 FW:

63

an', an' uh, nurse that baby, ten o'clock, ten o'clock in the day [FW interrupts] Everyday. Yes ma'am. Ten o'clock in the day an' three o'clock in the day. They' come to that baby an' nurse it. Twice a day. Yes ma'am, twice a day. Come there an' nurse that baby. She couldn' eat you know. But one could eat, he wouldn' come till dinner time. But one little one what couldn' eat, they'd come to it. That ol' woman had a time in there slopping them children. [laughs] Yes sir. An' I know that. An' I 'member, you see a scar right up in my forehead? Uh huh. Kin' of a scar? Yes, uh huh. I was, I had slipped out in, uh some boys was throwing an' knocked this scar on, in, uh, my head when I was little. Uh, it's way up here. Yes ma'am. Right underneath your hairline. Yes ma'am. Uh huh. When I was little. Slipping off out there, ol' woman slopping room. [laughs] I call it, 'cause you know that was where she fed us. Yes sir. An' that scar 'cause a boy throwed a rock an' hit me here. When I, when uh, I was, uh, young, you know, an' hit me. When I was little. Coming on out there, I call it, ol' lady slopping room. It wasn' no slopping room but it was a house, you know, where they fed all the children. An' I call that a slopping room, where they fed all the children. Now who did the cooking for the plantation? I don' know what the old woman's name done the, the cooking. Miss  did tell me here not long ago who done the main cooking. You know they didn' cook, cook in them uh, kitchen like here. They'd have a off, off kitchen, off from the house. Outside huh?

64 INF: 100

105

FW: INF:

110

115

120

FW: INF:

125

130

FW: INF: FW: INF:

SMALLEY Yes ma'am. An' they'd pack the vittles, you know, to the kitchen. Pack it to the kitchen. They didn' have, they wasn' cooking in the, in the kitchen, dining room. I was a great big girl when I knowed, uh, Miss B. an' them had a, had a kitchen an' a dining room mixed together. I was a big ol' girl. They cooked it all outside. Right in the yard, but you know, they cooked it out, out there, an' brought it to the kitchen. When I was a chil'. Well they had some of the, some of the slaves who worked in the house and then some who worked on the yard. Isn't that right? No ma'am. They, they they uh, them work in the, in the yard, men work in the yard some nights. But them there what, what work in the kitchen, they didn' have nothing to do in, in the yard. An' they had one [hushes children] one you know to make up beds, had one to make up beds, you know. An' one to cook, an' then they go, had six at the time to make up bed, an' then they go to the fiel'. An' they had a regular nurse, you know. Nurse, you never did see old missus with the baby, never no time. They had a regular nurse. I's like, you know, you'd hire somebody to nurse, but be a grown woman nurse, ten' to that baby. An' you'd keep him in the, never did, never did carry it to old missus, without it was hungry, night or day. Not without it was hungry. They carry it there to her. You ten' to that baby. That baby slep' with the ol' nurses an' all. Huh. Yes sir. Slep' with them. Didn't have nothing to do. Carry that baby an', uh, an' uh, sit there until uh, he'd till, uh, he'd nurse. An' then after he'd nurse, you know, then you carry it back, ten' to it. She didn' have to, jus', she ten' to it you know an' give it to you. You go give it to her an' nurse it, don' care how col' it is, an' you carry that baby back on in that bed, that room where you was. An' I know [FW interrupts] Well did the mistress nurse the baby, or did she have? She, she nurse from the breast. Uh huh. But see see, she'd nurse this baby that, that he would be hungry. Well this here nurse would bring it to her. An' let her nurse it, an' then when she'd nurse she'd han' it right back, night or day you

SMALLEY

135

140

145

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

150

FW: INF: FW:

155

INF:

160 FW: INF: FW: INF: 165

FW:

65

know. Had to ten' to that baby night an' day, han' it back to her. An' that baby was any kin' of sick that nurse had to sit up there at night an' ten' to it. Uh huh. Yes ma'am. Well more than [FW interrupts] Never did uh. Ma'am? Never would take care of it like that. No, ma'am. The nurse had to do it. No'm. Well, you see that's done now might near. That's right. That's how it's done now might near. 'Cause my niece said, uh, granddaughter here, she take care of baby, an' the mother hardly ever take it her hand, jus' leave it to her. [laughs] She never do hardly ever take it. I know a lot of women do that. Yes ma'am. Don't ten' to them. Don't ten' to them. Well do you remember, remember any of the slaves being sold? Do you remember any slave sellers, you know men that would just buy and sell slaves? No sir. I never did see it. I never, us children never did know that, you know. We heard talk of it, but then I reckon that was after, after slavery, I reckon. We heard talk of it. I, we see them talk about, you know, you putting on stumps you know or something high, you know, an' bidding them off like you did cattle. Bid them off like you did cattle. Well none of your folks were ever sold then. No sir. None of them never was sold. You were born right there, never did leave? You were? Born right there an' stayed there until I was about nine, ten years ol', maybe even more. Stayed right there. We didn' know where to go. Mama an' them didn' know where to go, you see, after freedom broke. Jus' turn, just, like you turn something out you know. Didn' know where to go. That jus' where we stayed. Uh huh. That's right.

66 170

INF: FW: INF:

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

FW: INF:

SMALLEY Didn' know where to go. Turn us out jus' like, you know, you turn out cattle. [laughs] I say. We didn' know where to go. Do you remember when the Civil War was being fought? Well, I, I can' 'member much about it, but I 'member this much. When, uh, Mr. B. was gone a long time, look like a long, long time, an' I 'member all the nex' morning, it's when he, he got up [addresses child in background] Now don', don't knock with that back there. [addresses FW] Well uh, he, he, uh, we all got up, an' all of them went to the house, went to the house to see old master. An' I thought old master was dead, but he wasn'. He had been off to the war, an' uh, come back. But then I didn' know, you know, he went to the war I jus' know he was gone a long time. All the niggers gathered aroun' to see ol' master again. You know, an' ol' master didn' tell, you know, they was free. He didn' tell you that? No, he didn' tell. They worked there, I think now they say they worked them six months after that, six months. An' turn them loose on the nineteenth of June. Tha's why, you know, they celebrate that day. Colored folks, celebrates that day. [tape repeats - begins again in the middle of a sentence] taken, Mrs., Mrs. Α., our mistress you know, an' jus' catched her by her wrist, this way you know, both of them, an' pushed her down in the rocking chair. And when she, Mr. B. come home, she was crying. An' Mr. B. ask her what was the matter, you know. She told Mrs. Α., Mrs., Aunt M. A. hurt her, hurt her wrist. An' uh, she, he ask her then, says uh, "What you doing in this house here, hurting her ol' mistress?" Say "She wasn't hurting no ol' mistress, she was jus', when mistress started whoop her, she sat her down." But they taken that ol' woman, poor ol' woman, carried her in the peach orchard, an' whipped her. An' you know, jus' tied her han' this-away, you know, 'roun' the peach orchard tree. I can member that just as well, look like to me I can, and 'roun' the tree an' whipped her. You know she couldn' do nothing but jus' kick her feet, you know, jus' kick her feet. But the, they, they jus' had her clothes off down to her wais', you know. They didn' have her plum naked, but they had her clothes down to her waist. An' every now an'

SMALLEY

210

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

215

220

225

FW: INF: 230

235

240

FW: INF:

67

then they'd whip her, you know, an' then snuff the pipe out on her you know, jus' snuff pipe out on her. You know, the embers in the pipe, I don' know whether you ever see a pipe smoking. Blow them out on her? Uh huh. Good Lord have mercy. Blow them out on her. Would she scream? Yeah, I reckon she would. I reckon she did. But you we, we, we, we was dared to go out there, where it was you know. Because uh, our old master would whip us an' then Uncle S., Uncle S. would whip us. You see that was the overseer, Uncle S. Her papa was the overseer. Well he had to whip her. He whipped her too. Man he sure did whip her. Well he uh, he uh whipped her so that at night they had to grease her back, grease her back. I don' what kin' of grease they had, but they sure grease her back. At night, you know, that-a-way. They jus' grease her back. An' uh, so after they whipped her so long, so, whipped her then so long that way, they quit. They quit an' give her her dinner. Late that evening they give her her dinner. Lay there and watch [unintelligible] she was whipped so bad, you know, she didn' want to eat, you know. If they whip you half a day, you ain't want to eat. Not at all. No. That's right. [laughs] 'Cause a little chil', you can whip a little chil' now, hell get mad, you know, an' don' want to eat nothing. [train whistle in the background] So Uncle S., then he, he was gonna whip my mama. We had a brother, oldes' brother named C , an' he was gonna whip my, my mother's boy [who] pack water. An' she was gonna fight him. [laughs] Is that right? Yes sir. She was gonna fight him. You see one portion of the people belong to Mr. ., an' one portion you know, belong to, belong to his wife. Wife, you know, jus' like, you know, you'd have a lot of niggers, you know, an' they give you portion of them. Her people give you, people heap of them, an' then your people give you some. Well that makes two parts. You got part an' your

68

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

FW: INF:

FW: INF:

SMALLEY wife got a part, you know, of colored folks that-a-way. An' so Miss A. wouldn' let my, let uh, Uncle S. whip her. That was her side, you know. That was one of her niggers. She wouldn' let Uncle S. whip her, that-a-way. Well then they call her a sassy nigger, sassy 'cause wouldn' let Uncle S. whip her, about the boy packing water. You know, he pack water, you know. All day an' if Uncle S., if they stayed late, you know, an' when they got to the water where Uncle S. was, the overseer was, he jus' pitch it out, just pitch it out, jus' as fas' as the children could get to him. An' he'd whip them if they let him. Yes, he'd whip them if they let him. Now, an' uh, an', an' uh, so, Uncle J., you know, he wasn', stepdaddy, he wasn', wasn' uh, he wasn', [addresses child] now don' get in the way [addresses FW] he, he wasn' born, he wasn't, he wasn' one of Mr. B.'s niggers. He was a P., my ol' stepdaddy, yes sir, he was a P., yeah, he was a P. An, uh, he'd do anything you know, he, he would, they couldn' whip them. Uh uh, couldn' whip them. An' he head, his head was red an' he was red. Well where did he come from? Well, I think he come from at Louisiana, somewhere. Anyhow, he come from somewhere. I couldn' 'xactly tell where he come from, but my mama come from Mississippi. An' uh, when he, he, he'd back up, you know. I don' know where you all ever see a [unintelligible] fence. Yes, one of these rail fences. Yes sir, yes sir. Well he'd back up in that, an' they wouldn', they wouldn' whip him. He'd get him a stick an' keep them off. Yes sir. An' uh, he was a great big ol' man, you know, an', an' they, he wouldn' let them whip him, you see, an', an' the master wouldn' let them hurt him 'cause he wouldn' let the, the uh, the, you know, the uh, overseer, you know, they'd whip you. The master would make them whip you what overseed you in the fiel'. An' they wouldn' let him whip him at all, wouldn' no. An' the, the ol' master would tell him rather than to kill him or something like that, don' hurt him. But don't, don't kill him, you know, but whip him. He wouldn' whip him, I tell you. No, he wouldn' whip him. No siree, he wouldn' whip him.

SMALLEY FW: INF: 280

285

290

295

300

305

310

69

Well how would they, how would they punish him then? Give him an ear of corn. [laughs] Give him a ear of corn. Jus' like you know, uh, you, you'd give me a ear of corn an' uh that would be for my, my dinner or my breakfas'. When I come home to dinner, he say to give me a ear of corn, say he shell it off, an' plow along an' eat it, just plow along an' eat it. Night come, they'd give him a ear of corn, an' uh, tha's the way they fed him, you know, punish him you know wouldn' give him nothing to eat. An' say look like he was moving along too slow, too fast with that, you know, too good, too good with that you know, jus' giving him corn, and he's eating it, you know an' drinking water an' going jus' the same. Got so they wouldn' give him none. Give him none. Wouldn' give him nothing, you know but let him drink water, you know. An' uh, he live jus' the same. An' he, an' he live with mama, thirty, thirty-two years, an' before he died, 'fore he died. An' he, an' he never did have a scar on him uh, that, the ol' boss put on him. FW: Did he talk like you all do or did he talk [INF interrupts] INF: No'm. He had a broken language. He had broken language. FW: Huh. INF: Some kin' of broken language. He [FW interrupts] FW: I wonder what that was. INF: I don' know sir. He was right red, an' his head was right red. His head was right red. An' uh, then my sister, you know, we was jus' only sisters, you know, half sisters, you know, to him. Well, they are red an' their head red [laughs] now. FW: Huh. Well I declare. INF: They live in Bellville, over to Bellville. FW: They do? INF: Yeah, Bellville. FW: Well we ought to go over and see them sometime. Yeah, we go through Bellville. [INF mumbles something here] FW2: Well we'll go over and see them. FW: Well uh, wonder what they paid for this, this, your stepdaddy. How come uh, [INF interrupts]

70 SMALLEY INF:

The P's., you know, he uh, uh, he was a P., just a [unintelligible] what he was called. But you see, I don' know what they paid for 315 him. They bought him, you know. FW: And I guess he was worth so much they didn't want to hurt him. INF: Didn' want to hurt him. An' uh, it, you see he had belong to two, two, two sets of folks, two sets, of people you know. You see he had, he had, he had belong, belongs to a P. Then he belongs to a, 320 to uh, some people, you know, in Brenham but they stayed, but you see, he wouldn', wouldn' do right an' they'd sell him. Jus' sell him, you know, jus' like, you know, I was your nigger, you know, I wouldn' act right, you'd sell me to somebody else, an' wouldn' act right, well would be a-fighting, knocking good han', you'd sell him 325 somebody else. That' the way they would do, he'd be [FW interrupts] FW: I see. INF: Tha's the way they done them. FW: Well what about getting married. How did they go about marrying 330 the slaves? INF: Well they tol' me they jumped over a broom backwards. [laughs] I don' know. They told me they jump over the broom backwards. I don' know. FW: Well did they have church? 335 INF: No. FW: Did the slaves have church? INF: I never 'member no church. Mama said, the only church, I didn' 'member that part of it, all the church they would have, be a tub, a tub of water sitting jus' like this thing is, you know, an' that would 340 catch your voice. An' they would, they would have church aroun' that tub, all of them get aroun' the tub, get aroun' the tub. FW: The old master didn' want them having church. INF: Didn' want them having no church. No, they didn' have no church. An' uh, ol' master come along with one of them, one of them was 345 uh, was there, having church 'roun' the tub, an' he was down praying. An' said he was down there praying, jus' a-praying, ol' master come in, he jus' a-praying, he come in, he did, an' tol' him get up from there. He didn' get up, he jus' a-praying. An' say the

SMALLEY

71

οΓ master commence to whipping him. He quit praying an' then 350 ask the Lord have mercy on ol' master. Say ol' master sure would hit him with a bull whip. He's holler have mercy on ol' master. Until ol' master whipped him an' he kep' uh, wouldn' get up, you know, when a person hit you, you know, you flinch. He just praying for ol' master. 01 master step back and said, "I'm good 355 min' to kick you naked. I'm good min' to kick you naked." The nigger never did stop praying, you know, he had, he had to go off an' leave him praying. He had to go off an' leave him praying, 'cause he wouldn' stop. Well uh, that was through the Lord, you know. That cause that. 360 FW: Yeah, the Lord works a lot of things. INF: Yes sir. 'Cause the Lord was, uh suffered him to stay down there an' get that whipping an' pray. You know, jus' keep a-praying. An' I think Ld jumped up, I don' know. Seem like to me I'd jumped up. 'Cause they was whipping me that way, I'd have 365 jumped up. [tape repeats] FW2: Tell me about the business of, of, uh, taking, carrying some of the Negroes, the good hands, you know, and good women, good men going off and breeding them like cattle. Do you remember anything about that? 370 INF: No'm. I didn' know any, you see, they wouldn' let children know of that, you know. But I heard it after. After that they'd do that. But see, when we was coming up they wouldn' let us know nothing but like that. But they say that was sure so. You know, jus' like a big fine looking woman, big fine looking man, you know, old 375 boss wants, you know, children from them, you know. They just fasten them up in the house or somewhere, you know, and go on off and leave them in there. Wan' to breed them like they was hogs or horses something like that I say. FW: Well sounds like it. 380 INF: Yes sir. FW2: Sounds like it all right. INF: An' they say tha's the way they use' to do in slavery time. FW: Did they whip the slaves much? Do you remember how, whether they whipped them or, [INF interrupts]

72

385

INF:

FW: 390 INF:

395

400

405

FW: 410

415

420

INF: FW: INF:

SMALLEY The, the biggest whipping that ever I knowed they give to Aunt M. A. The biggest whipping, that ever I knowed. Mr. ., they didn't whip his niggers much. They had to do something mighty, mighty, you know, bad for him to whip them. Well did the slaves ever try to slip away? They ever try to run off? No, not, not, not on, on the place where we was. I never heared them say they run off over there, you know. Other places I hear them stay in the woods, and uh, so long until they'd wear the clothes off of them, slip up. Now I heard mama say when she was a girl, you know, she, she, she was brought from Mississippi, when she was a girl, that, that, that one ol' woman run off. She did run off. They beat her so she run off. An' every night she slip home, an' somebody'd have her something to eat, something to eat. An' she get that vittles, an' go on back in the woods, go on back stay in the woods. An' then, you know, jus' uh, they'd tell the others, you know, "Could you see," I don' know what their name, "See so an' so, ever see them?" Say "No." "Well you tell them if they come home, we ain' gonna whip them. We ain' gonna whip them if they come home" Well that be all the way, you know they'd come. Said once this man stayed in the wood so long, tell you his hair on him long like a dog. Well jus' go up, you know, an' stayed in the woods, jus' stayed in the woods. An' they couldn' get him out. Would any of them run off and get plum free where they, did you ever hear [INF interrupts] I'd hear talk of them. . . . . talking about them? Hear them talk about they going off you know. Going off the places where they's free. [unintelligible] what I heared her say. I didn' know that. She say it just like, see it be some white people you know. When some nigger come along, you know an' he jus' get him off you know, take an' carry him off where he wouldn' be no, tell him wouldn' be no slave, or wouldn' be beat up, you know. An' carry him off that-a-way. There's still two or three that say that white folk would carry some three or four, you know, colored people off that-a-way. Uh, pick up, children, say, use' to go in a

SMALLEY

425

430

FW: INF: FW: INF:

435

FW: INF: FW:

440

INF:

FW: INF: 445

450

455

FW:

73

wagons, you know, go out wagon with the covers on them. I, I've seed covers since I've been big enough, on the wagon, with covers on them. Jus' take them an' go on. An' when I was a chil' I see a little boy, an' a man jumped out of the old covered wagon, an' caught the chil', an' caught him. An' got far as Bellville with the chil'. Well I reckon that was after slavery, I don' know. After slavery. But they caught him. Caught the chil'. An' I had a grandchil' that they taken off. Is that right? Who took him off? One of the show people, I reckon, took him off, I don' know. Just took him off. They steal him. What do you know. Yes sir, they took that chil' off an' I didn' have but that one. An' they took it off. Well I declare. Took him off with them. Took him off. But they got it [unintelligible]. Well can you remember how the, what, what happened when they set you free? Do you remember how the old master acted when they [INF interrupts] No sir, I can' 'member that you know. Can' 'member that. But I, I 'member, you know, the time they give them a big dinner, you know, on the nineteenth. Is that right? On, on the nineteenth, you know, tha's 'cause they said they give them a big dinner, on the nineteenth. But now we didn' know, ourselves. I don' know how the other side of the folks know we was free, but we didn' know. We jus' thought, you know, jus' feeding us, you know. Just had a long table, an' jus' had, uh, jus' a little of everything you wan' to eat, you know, an' drink, you know. An' that was, an' they say that was on the nineteenth. An' everything you wan' to eat an' drink. Well, you see I didn' know what that was for. I jus', you know, children wasn't wise like the children is now, you know. Anything go up now, a chil' six, seven years ol' can tell you. That's right.

74

INF:

SMALLEY

Yes sir. We wasn't wise, we. uh. Tha's the way they done us. Give us a big dinner, Mr. B. an' them. Mr. B. got, Mrs. M. is Mr. B.'s granddaughter. Stay right across town, an' uh she got a daughter stay out here in the country, out here on this place. Out 460 here in the country. [tape pauses, picks up in the middle of a conversation] I, I was just a [FW interrupts] FW: Have you ever been down in the Brazos Bottoms any? INF: Me? Yes sir. I stayed down in the Brazos Bottom. Leas' I didn' say stay right down in it, but then see I worked down there. I 465 worked down there a-cropping there. An' when I moved over here, I jus' move out of the bottom, working on it, right on the banks of the river. Yes sir. FW: Bet you ya'll made some crops down there. INF: Yes sir. Couldn', I couldn' uh go close to the river on accoun' of, 470 you know, afraid the horses would get scared, look down in the river an' run off with me. An' I use' to plow. Yeah, I would work down there in that Brazos Bottom. FW: On whose place was you working, at P.'s? INF: No, I, I'd been working on P.'s, but I working then on, on uh, the 475 B. place. They call it the B. place. Uh, orphan, you know, uh, orphan children I call it. They had will it to orphan children. Then, they call it the . place, had willed it to the orphan children, schools, you know. An' tha's where I worked, 'bout four or five years. Down there on the . place. 480 FW: Well, they're claiming some parts of the Bottoms they won't let the folks leave the place they living on. Colored folks. You know just make them stay there and work year after year, to pay their debt. INF: Yes well, well, that must be some, way down in the Bottom somewhere. Well that uh, down there on the uh, B. place, they, 485 some places was. They'd let you go jus' as far in debt as you wan' to go you know. An' then see, uh, uh, they, they know your crop wasn' gonna, gonna clear it you know, an' then, then so next year you'd have to stay an' work out your debt. If you didn', you know, they'd take all your horses, cows an' everything away from you. 490 FW2: And leave you with nothing.

SMALLEY

INF:

495

500

505

510

FW: INF:

515

520

525

FW: INF:

75

Yeah, leave you with nothing. You see, tha's why they, they keep them there, you know, that way. So they, you know, they could get everything they had if they didn' work. And wouldn' wait for some of them. They jus' take an' give everything they had up, and go on off. Give everything up. They see you is going, sure enough, they'd beg you to stay, you know. Another year, get anything you wanted, any kin' of money. But now you gonna stay there next year 'cause your crop ain' gonna clear it, you know, ain' gonna clear it. Theyld let you stay. An' feed you to the highest. An' I have children like this girl here, jus' any kind of dress she wanted, they'd let you take it up. But now when the crop come, they take every bit of that crop. You wouldn' have nothing to live on, uh, uh, live on, you know, nex' year till, nex' year come. Well, they open account right there before Christmas, you know, get jus' what you wanted. Tha's the way they'd do, in places over there. But they was sure fine white folks over there, where they work at. I jus' had, I had one roun' over there. An' that was, was about some Johnson grass. What was that? John, John, uh, you know, the Johnson grass, after a flood you know, jus' seeds wash all over the fiel'. Well nex' year, they'd come up jus' thick as that. That white man wouldn' want you to pull it up, to cut it up. He wanted you to go over the fiel' an' pull it up. Jus' all over the fiel', pull out every sprig, you know. It comes up, you know, like so, an', uh, pull it up. An' I wouldn' pull it up. I'd go across the fiel' an' dig it up like. An' he wanted me to pull it root an' all up, you know. Told him I was too ol' for that. I couldn' do it. What did he say [INF interrupts] He said, "Well if you can't, you can't pull this up, when you get this crop off, you leave, leave my place." I say, "Thank you sir." [laughs] Whenever I got the crop, you know, made a good crop that year, got the crop in, belongs to his wife, an' his wife come down there one day, says uh. "Laura." I say, "Ma'am." "Didn't Mr. P. tell you to leave?" I say, "Yes ma'am. Jus' time I get this crop out I'm gonna leave, too." Says, "Mr. P. was drunk, I

76

530

535

FW: INF: FW: INF:

540

545

550

555 FW: INF: 560

SMALLEY

wouldn' leave." I says, "Yes ma'am, I'm gonna leave. I leave this place. Mr. P. come in the fiel' sometime, you wouldn' be with him, jump on me an' kill me. [laughs] Beat me to death." Say "Oh no," she says, "I wouldn' leave." But see, I'd done got scared then, you know. He tol' me to leave. An' I, I'd been there then, I'd been on his place then sixteen years. An i's the firs' time he ever tol' me to leave, you know, an' I jus' got scared you know an' I lef anyhow. I lef anyhow. Well sometime those landlords will whip them they say. [laughs] He'd fight them. They, he'd fight the hands. He would? Yes sir. They wouldn' let him whip them. They'd fight him. Mr. P. wouldn', he wouldn' try to hurt none of them, but he'd jump down on, off of his horse to fight them, you know. An' the hands would fight him. The, the men folk would fight him. An' he, he sure was a good ol' white man though. An' he'd go to the house on his, his horse [makes horse sounds] gonna get a gun. Get a gun after them. An' uh, he, he'd uh, ride way out in the fiel', when he'd come back with his gun you know, ride up where they was. "ΟΓ A. fought me while ago, ol' so and so fought me while ago, and I'm going back to kill him." "Well, Mr. P., I wouldn' do that." I say "I wouldn' have the name of a-killing my hands on the place. I wouldn' have it to say, I hurt none of my hands on the place an' they stay there, an' you don' have no troubles there." "Yes, tha's so. By God, though, they do it again, I'm gonna kill them." [laughs] Well, he sure was a good ol' white man. Well he jump, once we was in the wagon, he jump once an' got his gun, [addresses a child in the background] quit baby, [addresses FW] got his gun, shooting the wagon with me an' my children. An' his wife hanging to the Winchester, by the door. Well, what, who's he gonna shoot at? They was gonna shoot at that wagon at us. Said my boy, you know, put the dog on his dog. You know how dogs is if you go crossing by the road. Said put it on his dog. He gonna shoot at us. An' she hanging to him say, "Don't you shoot that wagon. Youll kill Laura and them childrens." "I'll kill all of them. Darn dog, jump

SMALLEY

565 FW: INF:

570

575

580 FW: INF:

585

FW: INF:

590

FW: INF:

595

77

on my dog." An' j u s 'time she got the gun away from him, he went right back an' laid down. Never said another word. He was jus' [FW interrupts] She must of had a time handling him. Yes sir. She, he was, he was good, they was good people. But he was fractious. Whooee, he was fractious. If you brought out a load of corn, and there was one just level, you better not bring out another load out all level. Don't. You'd have to take some off of that corn. Third and fourth, you know so he could give you the little one. Like you say, "Mr. P. there your corn." "No sir, I don' want it, by God, I don' want it. That corn ain't, ain't, ain't full load. I don' want it." He wouldn' have it neither. No sir. But he was sure good folks. But he sure was fractious, whooee. He was too fractious, but he was good, people. An' uh, if, uh, he'd been aroun', been drinking that way, his, his wife wouldn', uh, stay at the house when he come to the fiel'. He'd have to come with him, because she know he gonna have a roun' with some of the colored folks. [laughs] Is that right? Yes sir, yeah. Right down there in that Bottom too. Have a roun' with the colored folks. Well she'd come along with him. She'd come along with him every time. If he walk, she walk with him. If he uh, rid in a wagon or anything, well she'd come too. Oh he was so mean, fractious that-a-way. When he go drinking, you know. [FW interrupts] Did he ever try whipping any of them with a whip? No sir. Never tried whip them with no whip or nothing like that. But he'd jump right down, be a-plowing, he, his, [unintelligible] had a half-hand worked by the [unintelligible], be plowing, you know an' they wouldn' talk to suit him. He'd jump right down by the plow, wouldn't know whether the mule gonna, gonna run off or not, an' commence knocking them, you know. And they'd quit an' commence knocking an' tussling with him too. [laughs] But anything after he, why he'd fight one of them they'd fight him too. Fight one of them an' he go on to the house, would come to the lot

78

600

FW: INF: 605 FW: INF: 610

FW: INF: 615

SMALLEY [unintelligible]. Say, "Here they come. Le's go to town, drink it off. Le's go to town boy an' drink it off." They had a roun' with him there, all of them [laughs]. He was good folk though. They'd go to town. Would he let them go to church anytime they wanted to? Yes sir. They went to church. He didn' bother them about no church, nothing like that. Had church right there on his place. Right there on his place. He must have had a lot of hands working for him. Oh, he had a big plantation. I think he had seven hundred acres. He had, he had fourteen houses on the place. That was over there they call, uh, P.'s place. He'd never would bother them. Ain' but one white man try to objec' church and that was Mr. M. He tried to objec' us colored folks from having church. Why? Didn' want them to have church on the place you know. Didn' want them to have it.

Harriet Smith Hempstead, TX b. 1851 AFS 5499A&B, 5500A&B

INF: An' you ask me any words you want to as' me about a slave, you know, back, an' uh, I can remember. FW: Well Aunt Harriet about how old are you? INF: Well I don't know Mr. Faulk. I really don' know my age, only be 5 the, the children telling me, of course. My ma died, an' she, an' she didn' know nothing about our age. But the children traced back from the ex-slave up to now. FW: Well how old were you when you were [INF interrupts] INF: Well, I was about thirteen years ol' at the break up. 10 FW: Uh huh. Can you remember slavery days very well? INF: Of course. I can 'member all our white folks. An' all the names of them, all the children. Call every one the children's names. FW: Who, who did you belong to? INF: J. ., the baby boy. 15 FW: Where was that? Where did he live? INF: Back, out here in Hays County. FW: Sure enough? How many, how many of, how many slaves did he have? INF: Well, he had my grandma, an' uh, an' my ma. My ma was the cook, 20 an' grandma, you know, and them they worked in the field, an' everything. I remember when she use' to plow oxen. I plowed, I plowed oxen myself. FW: Is that right? INF: I can plow an' lay off a corn row as good as any man. 25 FW: Is that right? INF: Course I can.

80

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

SMITH

FW: Well good for you. [FW and INF overlap] INF: Chop, an' chop, pick cotton. I use' to pick, I've pick [unintelligible] here since I been here. I've [unintelligible] pick, pick my five hundred pounds of cotton. FW: Knock out five hundred pounds. INF: Knock out around five, five hundred pounds of cotton. Then walk across the fiel' an', an' hunt watermelons, pomegranates an' [laughs] FW: That's a [unintelligible]. INF: Yeah. FW: Well Aunt Harriet, do you remember church times? INF: Yes, I remember church time. I remember how [FW interrupts] FW: You remember during slavery times [INF interrupts] INF: Yes, I remember how our folks, they had prayer meeting from one house to another. FW: Uh, the colored folks. INF: Yes, I think it was [unintelligible]. An' over at the houses you know, tha'd be in the section, a house, an' at different places they'd go an' we'd have prayer meeting. Ma an' pa an' them would go to prayer meeting. An' dances too. FW: And dances too? INF: Yes. I've seen pa an' ma dance a many a time. FW: Is that right? During slavery times? INF: Right. My grandma too. My grandma was name R. P. FW: R. P. INF: Yes. But she belong to the B.'s. [mumbles] That's, that's what she went by, her husband's name. Sure is, that's way back. Now in slavery time, there was my sister, my brother was a slave back. An' all of them stayed but me an' one, one of the girls an' she lives in San Antonio. A. T. FW: A. T. She, she was your sister? INF: Yes. She's in the young bunch. Sister Ida, an' she was the next, brother George an' sister Ida an' myself were slaves. An' the others was born free. An' all of them, we the only two in slavery times. FW: Well I declare. Did you go to meetings? Did you ever go to church?

SMITH

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

81

INF: We would go to the big house, prayer meetings you know. We children would put us in the comer you know. We was dared to cut up too. FW: Is that right? INF: Yes, they'd carry us to prayer meetings. FW: Well did you go to the white folks' church any? INF: Yes. I went to Mountain City to the white folks' church many a time. You see the white folks would have church in the morning, then they'd let the colored people have church at their church in the evening. FW: That was during slavery time. INF: During slavery time, yes. During slavery time. I can remember that jus' as well as [FW interrupts] FW: Well what would the preacher preach about in them days? INF: I don' know. I didn' go. He'd preach about you know, maybe something or 'nother. FW: They didn't preach like they do today? INF: No. They wasn't educated, you know, an' they uh, uh, would, would tell you how to do, an' how to get along, you know, an' how to treat the white people an' so on. An' they'd read the Bible then, you know, [mumbles]. Yeah, I remember all about in slavery time. Ma an' them used to go to dances with the white folks. FW: Well did they treat, did the white folks treat you good? Did you [INF interrupts] INF: Why, the B.'s? FW: Uh huh. INF: They was good to us. Good. They never whipped none of their colored people, our colored people. They'd take big saddle horse, Mrs. B's saddle horse, big gray animal, an' she'd have them riding. Grandma would ride to Mountain City to church. They had white preachers there. Mr. P., he was one of the preachers that lived across from us. FW: Well would the white preacher tell you to behave yourselves and be [INF interrupts] INF: Oh yes, they [FW interrupts] FW: Be good to your master and mistress?

82

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

SMITH

INF: Oh yes. That's what they preach. We, sure, didn' know there was any such thing as God an', an', an' God, you know. We thought that was a, a different man, but he was our master. Uh, our white folks, you know, preachers would refer to the white folks, master, an' so on that way. Preach that way. Didn' know no better. All of them, all of them would go up there to church. Then after we come to be free, you know, they begin to, preach us, you know. They, we begin to know, you know, there was a God an' so on. FW: Well, well, while you all were slaves did they teach you to read and write? INF: Nuh huh. FW: Did you all go to school any? INF: Nuh huh. Uh, uh, they didn' know nothing about reading an' writing. All that I knowed they teach you is mind your master an' your mistress. FW: They sure didn't teach you any reading and writing? INF: No, they didn'. No. When I picked cotton, I remember then picking cotton, farming [FW interrupts] FW: Well did you ever hear of any slaves being mistreated? That, were there any tales going around in those days about that? INF: Uh, nuh huh, uh, yes, I know of times they, when, when they mistreated people, they did, an' I hear our folks talk you know, about them whipping you know, till they had to grease their back to take the holes from the, the back. FW: Good Lord have mercy. INF: Them white folks were that-a-way. But them B.'s sure didn' 'low their colored people be whipped. Their horses, their saddle horses, Mr. B's saddle horse an' ma an' pa an' them wanted go anywhere, they rode their horses an' the saddle. Mountain City to church, an' the children stayed home [unintelligible]. Then, that on then, from one to another they begin to learn, town preachers in amongst us. They'd have prayer meeting, you know from one house to the other you know how the house, like there's a house sitting here in a section, in line, you know, an' people would come to prayer meeting. An' then they, Sunday in the evening the white folks would let the preacher preach, let our folks go to their church for preaching.

SMITH

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

83

FW: Well do you remember any of the songs they sang in those days at churches? INF: No. I, I, if I had the books, I could maybe look, look an' see. I know they sang the song, they sang the song, "Are We Born to Die?" They'd sing that the colored church. FW: "Born to Die." How did that go, you know? INF: [mumbles] FW: Yes, a little louder. INF: Yeah, yeah. FW: How'd it go? INF: Yeah. They'd sing "Are We Born to Die?" [unintelligible] I was little. I would sit back. I never went much. We children, we stayed at home, parched corn an' play you know. Little children. Ma an' pa an' them an' grandma would ride the horses, about two miles from our home, white folks' home, where they stay, an' go to the white folks' church. I use' to hear them laugh an' tell it all the time, you know. We didn' know anything about freedom at all. There was three. There, there was me, an' my oldest, next oldes' sister an' my brother George. He was, uh, [they~they're] all dead. All of them's dead but jus' two of us. FW: Well, uh, can you remember when the war was going on? INF: Course I can. I've sat on the fence at the time, me an' cousin M., an' cousin S., an' all of us. Our yard had white picket fence aroun' it. The road went right along by our house like this road goes along by my house. We sat on that, stood on that picket fence. All day long we seen them soldiers going back to San Antonio an' different places. I had the [unintelligible] they'd blow them bugles. Them horses was hoping an' dancing an' all jus' like that. FW: Well what do you know. INF: Colored soldiers. FW: Colored soldiers? INF: Poor colored soldiers in droves. Went right along by our house. Our home, it was a two story house, the white folk's home, you know. An' we stayed on the home until we bought a home, uh, it was over across the creek where we living. [unintelligible]

84

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

SMITH

FW: I remember a long time ago you told me about during the big break up, the soldiers came by and uh, riding horseback. And you all were sitting on the fence, you children. Can you remember that? INF: Yeah. FW: Lean this way just a little bit and tell about it. INF: Yes, I remember, that's, the, the, jus', sit there, sat all day an' look at them. They play the pretties', pretties' music you ever heard in your life. An' the soldiers would, you know. An' them horses, they'd sing, you know. An' them horses dart an' follow the music just like that. FW: Well I'll declare. Had them trained. INF: Yeah, had them trained. FW: Well what about this girl you told me about there one time. INF: Well, N. P. was the one that uh, belonged to Mrs. P., the one that our white folks' neighbors. An' she got her arm ground off in molasses mill, feeding molasses mill. FW: How was that? How do you mean feeding a molasses mill? INF: Putting that cane in there for it to grin' out to make molasses. FW: Oh yeah. Ground out juice, uh huh. INF: Yeah, juice. They had them wooden, what you call things, you know, mash the cane with them. FW: And they hitch a mule to it wouldn't they? INF: Yes. FW: And he'd walk in a circle. INF: Yes sir, yes. He'd walk in a circle. FW: Kind of like a hay baler? [FW and INF overlap] INF: It have a, it have, it have a lever to it, you know, an' go 'roun' an' 'round. FW: Uh huh. INF: We've made molasses that way. I've made molasses myself. FW: You have. Well, now this girl got her arm ground off in molasses, uh, mill. INF: Yes, feeding the molasses mill, uh huh. That was the, that was the neighbor girl. [mumbles] FW: Well how old was she?

SMITH

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

85

INF: Oh, she was a great big girl. She was about, big enough to feed the mill. 'Bout ten or twelve years οΓ I reckon. Maybe that ol', maybe even a little older than that. The neighbors had a molasses mill, the P.'s. She made molasses for everybody nearly. That girl had that mill to feed. Cane, would have cane you know, great big piles, piled up. She had to reach down an' get that an' put it in between them cork grinders an' let it grin' out an' when that grind out, she'd pick up another handful an' put in there. FW: Well did they have good doctors for them in those days? Was, when it ground off her arm what did they do? How did they get her out? [FW and INF overlap] INF: I don't, I don' know. I guess they carried her to [unintelligible]. I, I remember Dr. M., and, an' uh, Dr.  I 'member them. FW: Well, when the soldiers came by what, where, where was she? INF: Who M.? FW: Uh huh. INF: She was on the other side. She lived the other side of us. She was living, she was living with our white folk. But this road went right along by our white people's house. I can go right today where I was born there. An' they was coming right along by the house an' they'd all day for weeks at the time. Them soldiers was traveling going south to San Antonio. [mumbles] We children stand on the fence and looked at them. Oh they had the pretties' horses you most ever saw. FW: Well now what, what did those girls, what would this girl M. do. INF: M. P.? FW: Uh huh. INF: Well she, she fed the mill. She [FW interrupts] FW: Well I mean though when, when the soldiers came by. INF: Why, she's on the fence there with us looking at them. She lived right across from us you know, an' that was the road an' she [FW interrupts] FW: Well I thought she went off with a soldier or something. INF: She did. She went off with a soldier. Soldiers come along, we all setting on the fence, an' uh, or standing at the fence, setting an' a colored soldier come along an' ask her did she want to go with him.

86 240

245

250

FW: INF: FW: INF:

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW:

255

INF: FW: INF: FW:

260

265

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

FW: 270 INF:

SMITH An' she said yes. An' she mounted one of them horses an' [FW interrputs] Right behind him huh? Uh, uh, no, rode a horse to herself. Is that right? That's right. We could ride horses. We could jump on them horses, saddle sometime, ride them sometime. We learn how to do, I could stan' flat-footed on the groun', jump on a horse sideways. Is that right? Tha's right, yeah. Well you were a rider. Yes. All of us, all of we all was raised to ride horses. Pa had horses of his own, chickens of his own. Well now what happened to M. P. after she and this soldier [INF interrupts] I, she wen' on with him. I never did see her an' hear tell of her no more. She was going toward San Antonio. Going towards San Antonio. Yes. She rode on with them down there. Well, what did she do? She didn't even tell her mama she was going or anything, huh? She didn' have any mother. Oh, I see. Yeah. And it's all, she'd already been freed hadn't she? Yes, yes. That was the time the soldiers was going back you know after the freedom, back. An' she'd always come over to our house an' stay with us an' play aroun'. An' she got on that house an' lef that day. [FW interrupts] Well, can you remember the times right after the, after the big break up very well? Do you remember were times pretty hard then? Yes. Times was hard. We worked an' our white folks wasn' mean to their colored people. They was different from, there was seven brothers of them. 01' man S. ., an' J. ., an' B. B. An' they had one more ., that was name Kentucky Joe an' so on. Whole passel of

SMITH

275 FW:

280

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

285 FW: INF: FW: 290

INF:

295

FW: INF: FW: INF:

300 FW: INF: FW: INF: 305

FW:

87

them. Seven brothers of them, I know. Some of them lived at Cedar Creek. Ma knowed them all and grandma knowed [FW interrupts] Well what did you all do after the big break up? Did you all leave the place? No. We stayed on the place, an' rented on the half. Oh rented on the half [INF interrupts] Yes. All, all our white folks was dead. An' the overseer was old uh, ., Tom, Ira B. Ira . At Mountain City. That was our uh, uh, over, overseer over the place there, you know. And y'all rented on the halves. Rented on the halves till we bought our home 'cross the creek. Oh you bought your home. About how long after the big break up did  all buy your home? Oh, I didn' buy. We didn' buy, Pa bought the home from ol' R. 'cross the creek. An' he stayed down there. An' I use' to stay with Aunt Rose an Uncle George. They was ol' folks, had no children, you know. They use' to get me to come stay with them. An' when I married they give me a home on the place. Well were they white folks? No, colored folks. Oh, colored folks. Well, how old were you when you married? I don' know, 'bout seventeen, eighteen years ol'. Well maybe not that ol'. I didn' know my age. But ma an' them knew. They didn' tell us though. We just guessed at it. Who did you marry? J.S. J. S. Had he been a, had he, had he been a, a slave? Oh yes. He was a slave. After the break up they sent him, he come from Blanco an' bought a home over across the creek where we bought homes, 'joining our home. His father and mother did, you know. [mumbles] Uh, well, he, he had been freed then, I guess, the, uh, same time you had.

88 310

SMITH

INF: Oh yes, yes. They lived at Blanco. They bought them a home over in the colony. R. had sol' the colored people all the homes there. I don' know. FW: Who was R.? INF: A white man name R. lived right down the hill from us. They sold 315 P. B. a home, an' uh, pa had a home, Uncle Dave a home. All, all of them jus' all of them [FW interrupts] FW: Well I declare. Uh, that was right after the big break up was it, uh? INF: Mmmm. About two, three years after the break up. FW: Huh, and you just had a colony of, uh, colored folks? 320 INF: Yes, all that colony, where we, where I come from, has got homes out there. At Buellah, they call it now. It wasn' nothing but woods when we bought it. FW: And they call it Buellah now? INF: Yes. 325 FW: Oh I know where Buellah is. INF: Yes, yes, yes [mumbles]. FW: Did you know Mr. T. in those days? INF: I reckon I did know Mr. T. FW: Huh. What was he [INF interrupts] 330 INF: He was a deputy sheriff there for a while. FW: Is that right? INF: Yes sir. He was a mighty fine man too, tha's right. FW: Yeah, he sure is. [tape pauses] Lean up this way a little. And you remember, can you remember churches very well Aunt Harriet? 335 Were you a church goer? INF: No. We was jus' children then, when slavery time. My mother an' father, I can remember when they went to church. Our white folks, they'd ride, go to church in the morning, you know, an' they'd go in the evening, my grandma, to the white folks' church. In Mountain 340 City, ride their horses. FW: Well now what do you, when did you start going to church? INF: Oh yeah. I never started to going to church. We never had any church till, uh, much after I married. FW: Well, and you started going, didn't you? 345 INF: Yeah.

SMITH

89

FW: After you got married. INF: I went to church, an' [mumbles] FW: Well, who, who do you, how did you marry? Did you have a preacher to marry you? 350 INF: Course. A white preacher married us. FW: He did, huh. INF: Uh huh. White preacher married all of us girls. There wasn't any preachers much when I married. FW: Well, who did you uh, uh, when did you first start going to church 355 then? INF: Well we'd go to church then. We had church before. It wasn't like, you know, preachers didn't know unlessen, you know, only what they heared [FW interrupts] FW: Was he a traveling preacher? Or was he just, he was a colored 360 preacher wasn't he? [FW and INF overlap] INF: Yes, jus' traveling, you know, an' stop there an' preach. There was a H. an' G. an' so on. That was our preachers' name. [mumbles] FW: Well what would they preach about? Can you remember? INF: Well, they just preached that we had a God an' a soul to be saved an' 365 so on. FW: Did they preach as good as preachers preach today? INF: Oh no. No, they didn' know nothing, you know, only read the Bible sometimes in places they could read a little. No they wasn't, the preacher wasn't educated at all. 370 FW: They weren't huh. INF: No. Only [FW interrupts] FW: Some of them couldn't read and write at all. INF: No, they would spell letters an' so on. Couldn' read an' write at all. There's some of them couldn' read an' write at all. Jus' only 375 preached what they heared others say, you know. Then some of them, after getting older an' wiser, you know they [FW interrupts] FW: Well what about the songs that they sang. That's what I'm interested in. [FW and INF overlap] INF: Oh. I didn't go much when they sung them songs and uh [FW 380 interrupts]

90

SMITH

FW: Well did they sing these old One Hundreds? Do you know what an old One Hundred is? INF: One of these ol' time songs? FW: Uh huh. 385 INF: Yes, yeah. FW: Where they'd write off one you know. "Must Jesus Bear the Cross Alone, and All the World Go Free?" You've heard that haven't you? [FW and INF overlap] INF: Yes, yes, that's it. Tha's the wind blowing, I think. I don' know 390 what it's fixing to do out there. See them trees a-bowing down. Yeah, yes we'd sing them songs. But I had the old, ol' timey books, hymn books, I'd be [FW interrupts] FW: Well where would you get those books? INF: They had them, sell them. Ma an' uh an' grandma an' them bought 395 them you know. An' my husban' bought each of us a hymn book. FW: Was your husband H. S., uh, much of a [INF interrupts] INF: J.S. FW: Uh, oh, J. S. INF: Hmmm. 400 FW: Was he a church man? INF: Yes, he was [FW interrupts] FW: What happened [INF interrupts] INF: Church man, church man, an' a politic man too. FW: Oh you were, y'all voted in those days. 405 INF: Yes. My husban' was uh, he was known by white folks. He was well, uh, when he got kill them white folks was just crazy about him. He'd gone through [unintelligible]. That boy that killed my husban', I nursed him when he was a baby. FW: How come him to kill your husband? 410 INF: Well he just mean, just mean you know an' he, they didn' like people up to date you know. An' course there jus' thirteen months in the difference in my husban' kill and his brother. Stole [FW interrupts] FW: Killed your husband's brother? INF: Uh huh. He'd been to church. I think he went to gin that night to 415 carry a bale of cotton. An' this W. B. sat down on a seat an' a whole passel of them was setting down talking. An' when the time to come

SMITH

420

425

FW: INF:

FW: INF: FW: INF:

430 FW: INF:

435

440

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

FW: 445

INF: FW: INF:

450

91

to his cotton, they killed him an', an' they killed my brother, my husban' on the way from the cedar break. I could go right to the spot now nearly where he was killed at. Shot him or cut him [INF interrupts] Shot him, shot him on the way from the cedar, see, we have a cedar break at home, at the ol' home. [mumbles] Shot him on the way from the cedar break. Well what kind of politicking did he do? Well, he worked for white, white people when they want to be elected, you know, anything that time. He'd work amongst the colored folks. Amongst the colored people. Then speak, an' white folks, you couldn' get in the house when he spoke hardly for white people, all that section there. He had a good learning. Uh, all of them boys did. And he'd round up the votes, and that's how come them to kill him. Uh huh. He roun', when he set the night for a speech, people from Austin, from San Marcos, from every which way, white an' colored, to hear him speak. He'd go to court house an' speak for them. Hmmm. Uh huh. Hmmm. Yeah, he was forever speaking. Well, he uh, did the colored folks not like him? No. The colored people all went too, but these white people, this boy that killed him, ol' W. ., I nursed him when he was a baby 'fore I was ever acquainted with my husban'. Well what I was, what I'm trying to, to find out is, how come him to kill your husband. Was it over politics? Uh huh, politics and different things you know. [mumbles] Poor white people. Did the white folks have your husband killed or did uh, did he just, W. B. just go shoot him [INF interrupts] No, my husban' went to cedar break that day, an' uh, an' on his way back from the cedar break, uh, he lay by. the road an' killed him. An' let's see, there was something about a horse, I don' hardly, how they done, but the white people, W. K. an' them, was the first one

92

455

FW: INF:

460

FW: INF: FW: INF:

465

FW: INF:

470 FW: INF: 475

480

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

485 FW: INF: FW:

SMITH

got to him when he was killed. They had to shoot him, you know. An' they brought the news to us. My brother an' them. What did they do to W. .? Well, you know how that was. He lived up in there, you know. They would tell any kin' of tale. Didn' do nothing, didn' hang him up, put him in jail about, seemed like [unintelligible]. But his brother-in-law killed him. Is that right? Sure. They must have been a-shooting a lot of folk up in them days. Oh yeah. Them peoples was poor peoples you know. Rich white people don' bother nobody. Oh, it was the poor white folks. Uh yes, it was poor. When they come down, an' his brother-in-law S. L. killed him. S., his father moved away. Had a good home over there, an' then moved away, said they'd steal his life jus' like they stole B. an' J's. So, an' his boy's life, so he left an' went to Oklahoma. Yes. His brother-in-law kill him. He rode up to [unintelligible] to kill his brother-in-law. And his brother-in-law shot him instead. Yes. His mother tried to keep him from killing him but he jus' said, I ain' gonna let him kill me like he did Uncle J. Him an' my boys all raised together. [mumbles] Y'all must have all been kin folks in those days. Which? Well all of you seem to have been [INF interrputs] White folks? and all. No, they was white people. [tape ends and the conversation begins on a new reel] Oh W. . was a white man? Was poor white persons. I know, I can go right to that place now where he was born. Oh, I didn't know he was a white man. Yes, he was. Why do you reckon he want to shoot your [INF interrupts]

SMITH

93

INF: Jus' 'cause he didn' like him. Because our boys was well learned, an' 490 they'd have speakings, you know, at the school house, you know, for white folks would want to run for office or something. And so [mumbles] [brief pause in the tape] FW: [addresses someone in the background] Quit H. [addresses INF] Did you raise many uh, did the white folks uh, poor white trash and the 495 colored folks have many fights back in the, after the big break up? Have many run-ins? INF: No. We never had nothing to run in to, but wagons and teams. FW: Well I mean did they have many uh, you know, quarrels and uh, fusses. 500 INF: No. No, they jus' have these white, these B.'s that they kill our white, our, our boys, my husban' and his brother, was poor white people. They didn' like. An' let me see how that did come up. I done forgot now, you know, all about that you know. I know my husban' was on his way from the cedar break. 505 FW: Well did the white folks meddle? Did the poor white trash meddle much with the colored girls in those days.? INF: Not, not, not at our home. I don' know where they did it. At other places. FW: Well I did, I didn't mean at your home. I mean around though. Did 510 you hear of any, anything like that going on in those days? INF: No. Yes [mumbles]. Well, the girls, we didn' run with them. They had different classes you know. Girls run, colored girls running with white boys, an' white boys would come over at night. But we didn' associate with them [FW interrupts] 515 FW: Well did much of that go on in those days? INF: Very little of it. I's going on more now than it did in my raising up days. FW: Is that right. INF: Yes sir. Yes sir. 520 FW: Well I, I think this might have gone on. INF: Yes. They, they uh, we didn' go with them. Didn' associate with their kin' no how. I's going on more now than it did in my raising. My, my sisters and me [FW interrupts]

94

SMITH

FW: Yeah, you know that little J. Jr. across the street from you looks, 525 he's got almost blonde hair. INF: Yes. FW: His hair's white looking. INF: Uh huh. His mama, yes, his, his mama, Miss F., is his grandma. Yes, Miss F.'s son P. M. is his, is his father, her oldes' son. 530 FW: Well her name's B. though. INF: I don' care what her name is. Her name's F. ., but she married a B. But B. wasn't these children's father. FW: Oh I see. INF: Uh huh. M. was these children's father. 535 FW: Well now who was your second husband Aunt Harriet? INF: Who was my second husban'? Let me see, who was my second husban'? FW: You married again after uh, uh, your what's his name, Smith. [FW and INF overlap] 540 INF: 01' man, ol' man, uh, oh, I married B. S., was my second husban'. FW: . S. INF: Yeah. And uh [FW interrupts] FW: How long did you live with him? INF: Oh, 'round about a year I reckon, two years. He, he had a good, he 545 had Indian blood in him. FW: He did. INF: Uh huh. Indian blood. An' then my next husban' was ol' man [voice trails off] FW: Well now what happened to B. S.? He die or did you divorce him? 550 INF: He, he wouldn' sign the divorce but I got my divorce from him jus' the same. FW: You did. INF: Yeah, yeah, he, he, he never, he didn', he, he lived a long time after, after me an' him married. 555 FW: Well after, after you separated from him who did you marry? INF:  l 'man P. FW: What's his name? INF: Ol' man P. FW: Uh, how old was he?

SMITH

560

95

INF: Oh, he was, he was eighty something. He was older than I was. He was about, I, I was his second wife that he married. FW: Well I, didn't y'all have trouble? Didn't you and he have a little trouble? INF: Who? 565 FW: You and old man P. Didn't he kind of cut up and carry on? INF: Yes. He cut up an' carried on an' I quit him. Come on back home. FW: Uh huh. Did daddy get you that divorce? INF: Uh huh. FW: I thought so. What was the matter with him? 570 INF: 01' man P. was all right. He was all right, but his son, tha's what we had trouble with, A. He come to comman' the place, you know, tried to put me off of the place. He couldn' do it. I stayed there as long as I wanted to, an' when I got ready, I come on home. FW: Then who did you marry? 575 INF: Uh, let me see, who was the las' man I married, ol' man C. over here. FW: Old man . INF: Uh huh. FW: Well did you and he, did he try to whip you one time? 580 INF: Yes, yes. He couldn' whip me. FW: Speak a little louder Aunt Harriet. INF: No, he couldn' whip me. He tried, but he couldn'. I put him [FW interrupts] FW: What, what did you do to him? 585 INF: [laughs] Put him outdoor. FW: [laughs] Well he was about a hundred years old wasn't he at that time? INF: I don' know how old he was. He was in the Army. FW: In the Civil War? 590 INF: Yes. FW: He fought in the [INF interrupts] INF: Yes, he fought in the Civil War. FW: And you married him in the 1930s didn't you? In the 1930s? INF: Yes.

96

595

600

605

610

615

620

625

630

SMITH

FW: Well you see that would make him, that would make him close to a hundred anyhow. INF: Yes, but you see, you know there was another party between him, me an' him tha's the cause of our trouble. FW: Is that right. INF: Yes. [phone rings] Jus' answer, answer over here. FW: Was he running, was he chasing girls old as he was [INF interrupts] INF: Yes. FW: He was? INF: Yes. FW: He just could hobble around [INF interrupts] INF: Just could hobble 'roun'. They was chasing him for his money, you know. FW: Oh I see. INF: 'Cause he got, us see, he got, uh, when he quit the Army, got ol', you know, he got his, his money, from the Army. FW: Well the girls uh, uh, must have made a fool out of him. INF: Yes they did. Got his money, all his money. He got sixty or seventy dollars a month, every month. FW: Hmmm. INF: Yeah, [mumbles] FW: Well do you still go to church Aunt Harriet? INF: Yes. I go to church all the time nearly. Our church up, the Methodist Church up there [FW interrupts] FW: Oh that must be [INF interrupts] INF: At Saint Anthony. Yes, I, I join that church. After I come here we built that church, we built that church [FW interrupts] FW: Well who is your preacher up there? INF: I haven' never met him, no. This, this we got a new preacher here, you know. I forget his name. [mumbles] Me an' J. belongs to that church up there. FW: Is he a good preacher? INF: I've never ask J. what sort of preacher he is. This Sunday I was preparing to go to the church, some of the folks from [unintelligible - place] come, an' I didn' go. FW: Well what do you think about Reverend R. as a preacher?

SMITH

INF: FW: INF: FW:

97

Well Reverend R., he's uh, Reverend R. is Miss F.'s preacher. Uh huh. Over at the Free Will Baptist Over at the Free Will Baptis'. He's just a good friend of mine. I just wondered whether you liked 635 him. [INF interrupts and overlaps] INF: Yes. He's a good fellow. I like him fine. He's been to my house. FW: He has? INF: Yes. FW: Well he thinks a lot of you too. 640 INF: Yes. He's been to my house. I like him fine. Yes. Been to my house several times. FW: Aunt Harriet, what, how has times changed since you uh, came to Austin? INF: Hmmm. I don' know. Times is changed [mumbles]. We've had 645 churches, an' different things like that. FW: Did you ever think you'd live to see the automobile? INF: No. I never did think I'd ever live to see the automobile. An' the thing is, that I heard talk of them. I heard my husban' talk of them. He went North with a herd of beefs with some white folks an' he 650 seen them up there. FW: Is that right. He was a cowboy. Well which husband was that? INF: That was J. S., my first husban', all of these children's father. FW: Oh, he saw, he saw automobiles then when he went up with the, a herd of cattle [INF interrupts] 655 INF: Yes, yes. He'd come back an' say, uh, I saw these airplanes an' things. FW: Is that right. An' came back and told you about that. INF: Yes. We didn' know what nothing was. FW: Well Lord, he was killed before the turn of the century, before 1900 660 wasn't he? INF: No. He was kill in nineteen hundred an' one. FW: 1901. INF: But he had been up North with a herd of beefs, you know, for cattle [FW interrupts] 665 FW: Who'd he work for?

98

670

675

680

SMITH

INF: Well he worked for different people. Worked, we worked for ourselves then. We bought a home of our own. [slight pause] Yes, the white folks [FW interrupts] FW: Did you ever, you, you've plowed in the field haven't you? INF: Sure, I reckon I did. Plowed an' chop cotton up there. I could drop corn just as fas' as I walk that-a-way. Grandma too. FW: Plow oxen. INF: Uh huh, yes. FW: What was the name of your oxen? Do you remember? INF: Oh, I forgot them. One of them name Jerry an' the other name Broad. FW: Uh, named what? INF: Broad, they called him. FW: Jerry and Broad. INF: Uh huh. Yes, we'd pop them whips an' them oxen would go 'roun' there an' plow. Yes. I, I don' know if my children ever seen any oxen.

Celia Black Tyler, TX b. 1859 AFS 17,476

5

10

15

20

25

FW: The following is an interview by Elmer Sparks with Celia Black, former slave of Tyler, Texas. This being October 11, 1974. Many years have passed since Mrs. Black first arrived in this world on September 10, 1859. [pause in tape] Just like to ask you a few questions about your early life, and . . . . INF: Yes sir. FW: Uh, uh, how, about from the time you were born and your schooling, and you go ahead and tell what you might and we might ask you a few more questions. INF: Oh, I had my birthday. My birthday I had a, a nice time. I had a nice time. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it, enjoyed all the good nice white people that was there, an' the President was there an' his, his wife, an' shook hands with me, an' jus' I don' know. I jus' enjoyed it. I did. I enjoyed it. Was so many people there. Oh, an' I been thinking, if I had, uh, oh I had, had, had to name the [unintelligible] that didn't recognize nothing but to, to go on the air. I didn' think I'd be able to recognize enough to go on the air. Well, I've always have been, been a woman would carry myself in a way that white an' colored both of them would care for me. Well if my, my colored or white had called for me to do anything, have anything to do with them, I's always there ready. Ready. Clean, care for myself, clean, an' I always tried to treat them nice an' I was good to them, I was good to the children, an' I, I jus' couldn' be no better to them than I was. An' I could. I didn' care when they call for me to do anything, I was right there ready to do it 'cause I'm going to try to do what I could. Everybody knows. So tha's the way I carried myself. An' tha's, I'm so proud to know that I been recognized enough to, they

100

30

35

40 FW:

45

50

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF: ???: INF: ???: INF:

55

60

FW: INF: ???: INF: ???:

BLACK

care for me. Oh, an' in Texas an', in the United States. I'm thrilled an' proud to know that I'm cared, that I'm cared for in the United States. Oh, oh, that I'm an ol' poor worn out colored woman down, an' can' help myself. If I was up, why I could go cut hair. I'd always be ready. I be ready. I'd be ready to help. Oh God, i's true. I'd help white or colored. I'd be ready to help. So, I'm down now an' can't, but I've got a good desire. I've got a good mind. Oh, to be [unintelligible] trying to do what I can, by the help of the Lord. If I can' do, if I can' do, I can speak well. I can speak well, oh, trying to help. Oh, as I can speak well of trying to help, oh, in my speech. An' I trus' my Heavenly Father. If I can be honored enough to keep my, oh, keep my recommendation [i.e. reputation] up as long as the good Lord will help me, let me, spare me. As long as He spare me. Well you're, you're speaking of your, of your uh, birthday celebration. Do you remember anything about your folks a-talking about, back when you were borned and, and that days? Do what? And, back, your mother telling about from the time you were borned and where you were borned at? Born? Yes. I don' understand. Celia, Ma'am? Tell him about when you were a little baby and a little girl. Oh. When I's a baby I, well I, I couldn' remember nothing. I couldn' remember nothing from when I was a baby. No sir. You remember your mother talking about it though don't you? Yes sir. Mama, [unintelligible] You remember when you use' to, tell him about the days when you was [unintelligible] was uh, baby girl and you use' to ride the oxens and things.

BLACK

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

101

INF: Yeah. Oh, my grandfather had some big ol' oxen. He had one with, uh, big with wide horns. Oh, looked like a house. [laughs] Wide horns, an', an', an' I use' to set up there in 'tween them homs. An' he, his name was Corley. His name was Corley. An' the other one was named Let. Oh. An' grandpa an' them drive them to church, an' he carried where he went. An' put us children in the, in the ol', ol' ox wagon an' carry us on his ches' just as big as he was in the, in a, in a carriage. An', an' I'd get up there an' on, an' on, an' on Corley, clinging on Corley's horns, an' sit up there. Sit up there jus' as big as I was setting in a house. Well, the furtheres' of the my grandfather went to, went to, to lumber. Want to get some lumber, an' he had to go 'cross the river. It was in the summertime, in June, an' the, the, the ol' oxens got hot. They got hot. Oh, an' then, uh, when we knowed anything, grandpa knowed anything, them old oxens done run off in, runned off in the river with us, with us, with that, with that wagon. An', an' there I sat up there in the ol', ol' Cor, ol' Corley's horns, horns. Sit up in ol' Corley's horns. Oh, an' he's wading through the water, an' I was setting up in there. I stayed in there too. I held to his horns. I hel' to his homs. I didn' fall off in the river. I held, I'm telling you, I held it too, yes I did. Oh, oh, my grandpa was just a-whipping with that whip, trying to get them out of that uh, river. An' we was, an' ol' Corley an' Let was coming through. They come out too. Yes they did. ???: Celia? Tell him about when you were born in Mrs. C.'s bed. INF: I did. I was born behind a rich white woman. I sure was. She wasn' no poor woman. No, she wasn'. Her husband was living then. Oh, she wasn' no poor woman. Mama, she, she brought my mother up here from South, oh from one the other, in this country. She brought my mother here in Texas, when she was young. Oh, my mother was young. She wasn' grown. Oh, she brought her here. Oh, way up Texas, didn' get grown. Oh, we've heard, we've heard tell. Oh. Well, my pa, my father an' that, they, hired him to help her. Her white man, was name Mr. R. Mr. R. was a white man, an' papa, papa was a jus' a boy. An' he raised, Mr. C,'s boss, boss, uh got, hired him to be his yard boy. When mama, she was at Mrs. C.'s here uh, uh, uh a house girl there. [unintelligible] papa an' mama

102

100

105

???: INF: ???: INF:

110

115

120

125

130

???: INF: ???: INF: ???:

BLACK

got, got together somehow. I don' know how they got together. But anyhow, my, my papa an then mama, uh. Mr.  hired my, my father be a yard boy. He stayed there till he was a grown young man too, with Mr. C. There they kep' in her yard and kep' her house, her yard an' her horses. Oh. An' you was born in Mrs. C.'s bed? Huh? Were you born at Mrs. C.'s? I was born right be, behin' Mrs. C. on a Tuesday morning, my mother said. My mother said it was on a Tuesday morning. Mama. I was born right behin' Mrs. C., in her bed. She always, my mother always slep' with Mrs. C. when she was young, was young, 'fore she was married. An' Mrs. C., after she was married, my papa, Mrs. C. wouldn', wouldn' agree for my papa to take her away from there. No, she wouldn'. She wouldn' 'gree for her, to try an' take her away from there. Oh, oh. In them days, them days the white people had control over the, when they had, uh, uh, uh colored help, they wouldn' hardly, wouldn' 'gree, 'gree for you to take them away from them. Then, an' my, Mrs.  brought my mother to this country, she wouldn' let no, wouldn' let, wouldn' let nobody take, take her away from there. She raised here there, with, with her children, with her children. She raised her there with her boys an' girls. She didn' have but one girl. Oh, but she had five or six boys. She had, had, she had five boys, Mrs. C. did. Oh, but Mama was jus' the onlies' one, uh, onlies', an' uh, an' uh, Mrs. C.'s girl, she didn' have but one girl, an' she, an' she was a little. She was little. She wasn't no big girl. Oh. Oh, but she stayed there till, till she got to be a young missy. Oh, with, with, with mama, with mama an' then, uh, I was a, she growed up to a big [unintelligible] when I was grown. [unintelligible] 'Fore she, ever think about time to get aroun' amongst her boys. Mama, you remember Abraham Lincoln? Oh, ma'am? You remember Abraham Lincoln, the President? Who? Abraham Lincoln.

BLACK 135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

103

INF: Oh, I heared my mother talk about him an' my father, but I never did know him. I didn' ever know him myself, but I hear them talking 'bout him all time. ???: What did they say about President Lincoln? INF: Oh well, they, they give him a good name. They give him a good name. Oh, oh, an', an' President [unintelligible]. Oh, oh, they, they give him, oh, pretty good name. They give him a pretty good name. There's another one I know but I done forgot it, forgot his name. I jus', Abraham Lin, Abraham Lincoln, tha's it. Oh, oh, Abraham Lincoln. They thought Abraham was, was the bes', they thought, everybody thought Abraham was the bes' President there was. They thought he was the very best. Oh. FW: Did you, uh, do any, uh, picking geese for feather beds an' things like that in them days? INF: Did I have any? I wasn' nothing but a kid. I didn', didn', you know, didn' have sense enough to think like I gots now. I didn' have sense to think. Nothing but just to play in the block with the children. I didn' know nothing, know nothing 'bout them, none, none of the Presidents. FW: You didn't pick cotton or nothing? INF: No, no sir I didn'. Oh, oh. Not, not until Mrs.  raised me up, to be a young, young missus. A young missus. Tha's the only time I knowed anything about courting. An' then, an' then my papa had this, oh, to marry her. Mrs.  didn' want him to have her then. Didn' want him to marry her then. ???: He said did you ever pick cotton. INF: To marry. ???: Celia. INF: Ma'am. ???: Did you ever pick cotton out in the fields? ???: Pick cotton? INF: Uh huh. INF: Oh, good gracious alive. Pick cotton. I was raised in the fiel' [unintelligible]. When Mrs.  lef, got, got, my ma an' my, I was raised in the fiel' after I growed up an' got away from Mrs.  Oh, I didn' do nothing but work in the fiel'. Worked in the fiel',

104

175

180

FW: INF: ???: FW: INF: ???: INF: ???: INF:

185

190

195

200

???: INF: ???: INF:

???: INF: ???: INF: ???:

INF: ???: 205

BLACK

goodness, goodness, every year I would go out an' out [unintelligible] work for myself. We'd go, my, me, an' my husban' would go out, out Wes' an' pick cotton. Pick cotton. Go out Wes' every year. We wouldn' miss a year going out there picking cotton. Well that was hard work. Didn't you have some entertainment, do any dancing or anything? Huh? You dance, didn't you Mama? When you were young? Ma'am? Did you dance? Dance? Yeah. Oh. I use' to dance, but I don' do it now. No, I don't dance now. I try my best to serve my master. I'm trying my best to serve my heav, Heav, Heavenly Father. [others talk in background] Try, trying my best to serve God. Oh, I ain't, I don' study about no man, no dancing now. He wants to know Mama, if you danced in your young days? Oh, in my young days? Yes'm. Oh, I went to balls when I was young. Oh, when I was young I went to dances. I didn't tell, I ain't gonna tell no lies. I went to dances when I was young. Oh. Celia. Ma'am? Do you remember going to town when you were young? Were there any big buildings back then? Who? Big building, Mama. When you went to town when you were young, were the streets dirt? When, did you go to town in a wagon when you were a young girl? I don' know. Mama, you know you use' to tell us you use' to go to town in the wagon.

BLACK

105

INF: Oh, oh. Oh, we use' to go in, in a horse wagon. I thought you was talking about something else. Oh, yeah we use' to go in the wagon. ???: Celia, did you ever see a stage coach? INF: Ever see what? 210 ???: A stage coach. ???: A stage coach, where the people rode in the stage coach and the horses pulled them? Did you ever see one? INF: Yes, I did. You call them in such a funny name, that I didn' know, know what you was talking about. 215 ???: What did you caU them? INF: I call them horses. Horses. Mules an' horses. Mules an' horses. Tha's what they, what my, my grandpa call them. Hor, mules and horses. ???: What, what did Mr. and Mrs.  ride in when they would go 220 somewhere? INF: What, in a, in carriage, what they called it. Carriage. ???: Carriage. You know, you've seen those carriage, you know. FW: Yes, I know. INF: She rid in what she called a carriage. Tha's what the, what the, what 225 C. an' them, they, rid in. A big ol' thing look like a, a, look like a, a cart, look like a cart. FW: Did you hear anything about the uh, uh Indians in the days when you were young and the things that they did? The Indians? INF: No, no, Lord no. 230 ???: He's talking about Indian, Mama, the Indian people. The people. INF: Oh. I have seen them, but I didn' know them. I've seen them, but I didn' know nothing about them. Never did. I never did get any kin' of, any kin' of, no contact with them, with them. I never did. FW: The Indians were pretty well gone at that time down here I think. 235 But not farther north. Is there anything else that you want me to put there? ???: Whatever you'd like. FW: Well we thank you anyway. And, uh, we sure hope you have a few more birthdays. 240 INF: Well. FW: And we'll come up in the Panhandle. So we'll be thinking of you.

106

245

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

BLACK

Well. Well be thinking of you. God bless you all. Goodbye. Good bye. You, you folks are leaving here. If, if we don't meet in this, this worl', then I hope we'll meet in yonder worl'. Meet in the new worl'. FW: Well [unintelligible] [tape ends in the middle of his sentence]

Charlie Smith Houston, TX b. 1844 AFS 17,510

5

10

15

20

25

FW: Ready? The following is an interview between Eimer Sparks, Texas ranchman and historian, and, with Charlie Smith, old-time slave of Bartow, Florida. Uh, we've already got on the introduction on it. INF: O.K. FW: Is it turning? INF: Yes. FW: Uh, Mr. Smith, what is your full name? INF: Charlie Smith. FW: Charlie Smith. INF: The man that raise me name me Charlie Smith. My first name, first name what my mother name me, is Mitchell, Mitchell Watkins. Tha's what my mother an' father name me, Mitchell Watkins. I was raised in that, uh, born in Africa. An' come to the United State. You see that was in slavery time. They sol' the colored people. Sol' the colored people. An' they bringing them from the Africa. An' they brought me from Africa. I was a chil', a boy. The colored folks wan' to throw me off the boat coming from Africa. "Throw him overboard!" I was in cuffs. "Throw him overboard, let the damn whales swallow him like they done Jonah." Hadn' have been, the colored one wan' to throw me off, hadn' have been for L. an' the Captain of the boat, L. was a white man an' the Captain of the boat was a white man, but the colored's the one wan' to throw me off the boat. An' D. J., when they bringing me from Africa, Liberia Africa, where I was brought from. An' put in the United States. The no, the northern people bought colored folks, put you up on a block an' sell you, bid you off. The highes' bidder gets you. Highes'

108

30

35

40

45

50

FW: INF:

55

60

FW: INF:

FW: INF: FW: INF:

SMITH bidder gets you. Well the northern people bought colored folk an' the South bought colored folks. An' the northern people didn' carry you with them, colored people to the North. Say that it was too col' for them you know to stan' the col'. But they got southern white folks, they got southern white folks to look after them, an' they pay the uh, colored, the white folks, southern white folks to look after them. An' they got to mistreating them, so, an' they come down, the North to the South, firs' fought a war to free the colored. North and Souths fought a war. An' that was slavery time. An' freedom [unintelligible]. I ain' reading for it 'cause I couldn' read. I knowed when it was done. An' the man, they put you up on a block to sell you, to bid you off. An' when they come down here an' freed them, they bought the, the North bought the whole state of Louisiana an' give it to the colored people for their territory. An' make the laws an' rules theirselves. An' the colored people sol' their rights, sol' out to the white, sol' to white. An' that freed them, an' the North freed them. The North an' South fought a war, the firs' war it was in the United State, North an' South fought a war that, that freed the colored people from slavery time. I ain' read for it 'cause I couldn' read. I know it 'cause I raised through it. The colored, the colored people always did hate me from a chil'. Bringing me from Africa, the colored wan' to throw me off the boat. "Throw him overboard," cuss. Throw him overboard." Let the, cuss, let the [FW interrupts] Now how did, how did you come to be on the block, get out and brought over here? Was you brought over by surprise? Yeah, they, they, they brought me over here. The, the, the North, the peo, sol' the colored people. Did they trick you to get you on the boat? What? They fool you on the boat. They fool the colored people on the boat. I as' my mama could I go down to the boat landing to see that white man. I was raise in Galina, Africa. That was in Africa. Yeah. Tha's where I was raise, borned at, in Africa. Yeah. An' the white folks, didn' no white people stay in Africa, south part of Africa.

SMITH

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

109

FW: Yeah. INF: They stayed in the north part of Africa. An' that where they sol' the colored people, in the south part of Africa. They put you up on a block an' bid you off. An' the way they got us on the boat, he said, "Come right in here!" That what they said. "Come in here! Colored in here, all the colored. Over in that country, you don' have to work. If you get hungry, all you got to do go to the fritter tree." Had the fritter tree on the boat, claim that the fritter tree. "You go to the fritter tree." Same thing now we hear people call in the United States, call them pancakes, they call them flitters. An' them flitter tree, beared the, the tree beared the flitters, they claim. "Here the fritter tree. It's on the boat." We got on. Carried show us the fritter tree on the boat. "Come on down here!" Called the lower deck on the, called the flitter tree. Then he show us the syrup tree. "Here the syrup tree," an' it was on the boat, too. "Come on down here!" An' the hole on the lower deck on the boat, they keep call it the hatch hole. "Come on down here in that hatch hole!" They showed us something down there. Got down in the hatch hole, we should have felt the boat moving, but we thought we was going back up there to the fritter tree. And it was leaving. An' when it landed, it landed in New Orleans. That where the colored people was sol' at. Sol'. They bringing us from Africa over here, the colored folks wan' to throw me off. "Throw him overboard, throw him overboard." An' the white, Mr. J., Mr. J. say, "Don' you throw that boy out there!" "Throw him overboard! Goddam, let the damn whale swallow him like he done Jonah." That what they said. Gonna throw me off the boat, bringing me from Africa in the United State. That was when we had the slavery. Jus' put you on the block an' sell you. Put you on a stage, but well they called it a block. Put you up on a stage. Than man would buy you. The highes' bidder gets you. Bid on you. [FW and INF overlap] FW: I've heard of that. INF: The highes' bidder gets you. He'll carry you to his plantation. Put another one up there. The highes' bid, which ever one bid, gives the most, he'll carry him to his plant, that's the white, in the South. An' they went to mistreating the, the colored. Getting children by the

110

100

FW: 105

110

115

120

125

130

INF: FW: INF:

SMITH

colored women. An' all such as that, getting colored. An' the white fin' it out, how they was treating them. They hurt them. An' they come down here, the firs' war ever was in the United State was the North an' South fought a war to free the colored. And who was it that bought you? Do you remember who bought you? Bought me? Yeah. Oh. I was in, in uh, when they went to New Orleans, tha's where they sol' the people. The man that [raise~raised] me, he didn' buy me. The man raised me. They would try to put you up on the block to sell you. He was Jake. The man was Jake. He name me. That's the name I go in now. Charlie Smith. He name me. When he, uh, I, uh, when he took me. He raise me, in Texas, Galveston, Texas where I was raised in. An' the man that raise me, he name Charlie Smith, an' tha's the name he give me. He gave me Charlie Smith. An' always teach me an' his children. He treated me jus' like he treated his children, in everything, not one thing, everything. We ate together, we slep' together. All the boys now, we just talking not about the women now. All we the boys slep' together. I was, uh, raised with a cattle man. Charlie Smith raise me. He had all kind of cattle. An' all of us toted pistols an' something to shoot. An' I was the onlies' colored cowboy. I got on a cowboy shirt now that I brought from Texas. Been have it all my days. I was raise up a cowboy. I was the onlies' cowboy, colored cowboy he had, was in Texas. His name was Charlie Smith. An' he always teach me an' his children, anything you got to have don' never let it give out. He say, "An' enjoy your money when you living. You can't carry none of it with you when you dead." He said millionaires dies an' leave all they got. Everything they got, they ain' carry nothing with them. An' that, his name was Charlie Smith and he name me Charlie Smith. An' he always tol' me don' change my name. An' when he died, all us, he had three, uh, three or four of them, [unintelligible]. He didn' put no money in no bank. He had these little ol' money safes. People tell me, people got them now in some places, in the houses, you know. He had two, two in the drugstore, in the dry goods store,

SMITH

135

140

145 FW:

150

INF: FW: INF:

155

160

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

165 FW: INF: 170

111

an' two in the grocery store. That made four. That where he kept his money an' all us cowboys' money, what we didn' tote. We, all cowboys wore boots. Half a leg boots, knee, what they call knee boots that come clean to your knees. Well, we toted our, what he didn' keep for us, we toted in our boots. An' I was the onlies' colored cowboy he had. All the rest of them was white. We toted pistols an' rifles. We carried them, we carried them. We killed bears an' panthers an' things like that, what was eating up the stock. He was a cattle man. He had plenty of cattle. An' all them animals, bears an' panthers an' things like that an' lions, they'd eat up the little pigs an' real young stuff. That's what [we~makes], the cowboys was carrying their pistols an' rifles, to kill them. Now what did you do after the slaves were free? After you was with him [INF interrupts] With him Yeah, you just went ahead a-working huh? [mumbles] When they freed the colored, we just stay. The man would. [clears his voice] When they freed the colored, they, they bought the whole state of Louisiana an' give it the colored people for their territory to make their laws an' rules. An' the colored people sol' their rights. All that [unintelligible] an' property, anything, they have to get it approved by the white. Now, tha's the way it was done. They ain' got no, can' make no laws, can' make no rules. If they make them, the white let them have it. They sol' out. Now after he died down there, where did you go then? After who died? After this Charlie Smith. He ain' dead. Well I mean the one [INF interrupts] Oh, he dead all right, but where I went, I went, he sol' the colored folks. After free, after he sol' the colored people. After slavery, slavery time, they sol' the colored folks. Well did you go out in the [INF interrupts] An', an', an' the firs' war was in the, in the, the North an' the South fought a war. The North bought colored people, an' the South bought colored folks, an', an' in the North they got the, the Southern

112

175

FW: INF:

180

FW: INF:

185

190

195

200

FW: 205 INF:

SMITH

white folks to look after them an' to take care of them. They wouldn' carry them north, say it was too cold for them, an' got the southern white folks to look after them. An' the Southern white folks was uh, went to mistreating them. Did, did, did you go out West then or stay there? [FW and INF overlap] No, I wasn'in the West. I wasn' in the Wes' [mumbles]. I was in the Wes' when they freed them. That's what I mean, after they freed them. Yeah, after they freed them I was in the Wes'. That was when we call ol' man Charlie. When they went to selling them. He'd object, uh, selling me. Put you up on a block, he'd object. 'Cause he rule that part of Texas. He was a cattle man. An' they rule that part of Galveston. He rule that part, an' what he, he said, he, he, went. [FW interrupts] An' when they want, wan' to sell me, put me on, on the block, an' then he project. An' they didn' do it. An' he raise me. Carried me to his house. An' raise me. He name me Charlie. His name was Charlie and he name me Charlie. [FW and INF talk at once] Tha's the name he give me, tha's the name. My name what my mother an' father name, my name Mitchell, Mitchell Watkins. But he sol' me an' he got me, an' he name me Charlie. Tha's the name I go in. And when he died, he died. An' when he died he always teach me an' his children. Didn' teach us one thing, he teach us all. He say, "Anything you got to have, don' never let it give out." He say, "Enjoy your money when you living, 'cause you can' carry none of it with you when you dead. Enjoy your money when you living." He teach us that all the time. An' I didn't go to school much. 'Cause I thought I hadn' been, when you's toting those pistols an' nothing to shoot with, an' I was so full of loading my pistols an' rifles I had to carry, an', an' didn' learn anything else. But I was the onliest colored boy. All his cowboys was white. We all ate together, we slep' together, an' everything. Wasn' no difference in the treatment at all. None.  man Charlie. Did you, did you move up to Mississippi? Didn't you go to Mississippi? Eventually? Oh, I been all over, all the way down . . . . [FW interrupts]

SMITH

113

FW: You, you worked, you worked in Mississippi didn't you? INF: I'm a, I'm a state man mister. I work for the United State. I go get bad people. I'm a state man an' will as long as I live. Here my 210 folders right here. I'm a state man. I'm the man went with, me an' Billy the Kid, the man went an' got the man kill the President. An' the state name me. I got three name. The United State, I work for the United State now. Name me "Trigger Kid." Me and Billy the Kid, went an' got the man kill the President, went an' got him. Had 215 a five hundred dollar reward, anybody go get him. He kill the President. Guiteau killed Garfield. Garfield the first President ever was killed of the United State. An' the man killed him name Guiteau an' went back over in his state where he come from. FW: That was Charles Guiteau wasn't it? 220 INF: An' when they, put out the five hundred dollar reward anybody would go get him. There was six mens right at the line of the states. You had to get your 'thorities from them to go over there. Everybody go over there and get them five hundred dollars, them mens would kill them. Kill them. There was six . They'd kill 225 you. If you go over there an' get that man, the man done the killing, he went back in that state 'cause that was the state he was born an' raised in. An' there's six men right at the line of the United State. You, you, you had to get authorities from them to go any further in that state. An' they done it. an' we, me an' Billy the Kid, they sen' 230 us over there. The United State name me "Trigger Kid," but that's a name I've hated. I been working for the United, I work for the United State now. If you bad, I get all bad people. That's my job now. White or black. If you be do the wrong thing, an' they sen' me after you, only reason I won' get you, I won't see you. They sen' 235 us after him. The man kill the President. [break in the tape] FW: You then, you picked some fruit didn't you? You done follow the fruit picking? INF: Oh I've done all kinds. 240 FW: Yeah, yeah. You INF: Here, right here. Here, here, here's, here my picture. Me an' this man, tha's my, my picture, an' tha's my age, an' this [unintelligible].

114

245

FW: 250

255

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

FW: 260

265

INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

270 FW: INF:

275

SMITH

Tha's a white man. Me an' him was the two oldes' people in the worl' at that time. I was standing at the County Court [unintelligible]. There it is right there. An' I was picking fruit. [unintelligible - typing in the background] Yeah. [FW and INF overlap] They told me you, they told me you were a-picking fruit when you was a hundred and thirteen. Is that right? Oh right, don't you see? Uh, I see. Tha's it. Tha's if I tell folks that, tha's the reason the state printed an' sent to me to show people. Yeah. In United State. I might be work for the United State now. I'm a state man. I work for the United State. I go get bad people. White or black. Don't care how ol', who you is. If I got, if you do the wrong thing I go, I'm a United State man an' as long as I live. Uh, were you, uh, interviewed by Robert Ripley? Do you remember that, Robert Ripley? Robert. Ripley. He's right there. That's [unintelligible]. Well I 'member all, all bad people. I 'member them white or black. This Ripley's the man you're pictured with there Charlie. Yeah, yeah. Yeah that's him. Tha's the reason I carry it. I show it to people. Me an' this man was the two oldes' people in the world, an' required us to meet. That's a white man. An' the state name me "Trigger Kid." Me an' Billy the Kid went an' got the man kill the President. Guiteau killed Garfield. Garfield was the President of the United State. He, he, he, he would know, and I've read about it. An', an', an' we were, he killed him. Guiteau. Killed Garfield. An', uh, an' uh, everybody go over there to get him, for them five hundred dollars, they kill them. There was six men right at the line of the states. An' then everybody go over there to get the man what kill, killed the President. Tha's what state he was raise in, the man done the killing. He'd go back in that state. See, that's the state he was born and raised in.

SMITH

280

285

FW: INF: FW: INF: FW: INF:

290 FW: INF:

295

300

305

310

115

Do you remember what state that was Charlie? Where? The state where this, where this Garfield went back in, Guiteau. Yeah, I don' know. I don' 'member 'cause I forgot it now. But I know he went back in the [FW interrupts] [unintelligible - names states] Yeah, yeah. He went, went back in the state he was, he was born an' raised in. An' the, when he got to, to kill the man, he went back in that state. Well there was six mens there at the line, at uh Baltimore. Six men was killing everybody going there to get him, after this man wen' down to kill him. Guiteau killed Garfield. Garfield is the firs' President ever was kill of the United State. They wrote a book about it, you know. An' Guiteau killed him an' went back in that state what he was born an' raised in. An' anybody that went there over there to get him, them six mens was there at the line, they'd, they'd kill them. An' they killed them, an' they sent me an' Billy the Kid. The state name me "Trigger Kid," and Billy the Kid, that was a white man. We went over there, jus' rid up there, an', said. "Hi, where you going?" There by them six men. Call them six mens hooking bulls. They had to get 'thorities from them to go any further in that state. "Where you going?" "Going 'cross the desert." "All right, you get 'thority form us. You got 'thority?" So we cuss. Say, "We got 'thority. We got 'thority from the United State." Showed them this, "Here it is. An' here our, here our god, an' here our goddamn 'thorities." Tha's what we tol' to them six men. Call them six men hooking bulls. We rid on. "All right, go ahead!" Said, "We damn sure going." Rid on off. Got to the camp, with a guard. Tol' us they want to search. Guards all come to, guards that, that was there. "Y'all come by the hooking bulls?" We cuss. Say, "We come by some damn bull or another." "Well you got 'thorities from the hooking bull to search. The boss of the camp ain't here. [FW talks in the background] The boss of the camp ain't here." He said, "If you want to search, the boss of the camp ain't here, an' the guards was there." [FW talks in the background] The guards was there.

116

SMITH

FW: Well, uh, coming back to the uh, modern day, or later. Did the 315 Social Security people, did they come see you? INF: Social Security? FW: Yeah. INF: Yeah. FW: They did. And, you remember how old you were then? 320 INF: The man raise me, yeah, the man raise me. The man that raise me name, give me the name I got. Charlie Smith. FW: Well I mean [INF interrupts] INF: I was raised in Galveston, Texas.] FW: Well I mean later, later, the, uh, uh. Were you about a hundred and 325 thirteen when the Social Security people come and say [INF interrupts] INF: [INF is quite irritated here] Well don't you, I done show it to you. There it is, down there. FW: That's what I'm trying, that's what I'm trying to say. [FW and INF 330 overlap] INF: I done showed it to you. FW: And you're not [INF interrupts] INF: Keep on asking them question, that's the reason I showed it to you. I show it to you. My age, yeah, I'm older now than I was then. I'm 335 older now. I'm a hundred an' forty-four, last, last year, fourth of July. A hundred an' forty-four years old now. My birthday, I gets a birthday card, I'm a hundred an' forty-four last fourth day of July, last year. I'm a hundred an' forty-four. FW: And you don't, you don't wear glasses. 340 INF: No, I ain't never wore none. FW: And you don't wear a hearing aid, is that it? INF: I got hearing. I hear jus' as good now as I ever been hearing. FW: Oh, I believe that. INF: I can see good as I ever have. The United States takes care of me. 345 The United States. If I, if they sen' me direction, only reason I don' get you, I don' see you. I'm the man straightened up [unintelligible a place]. Sent me there. Colored people didn' pass through there. You could go up-town but you couldn' stay in [unintelligible]. I straighten it up. The state sent me there to straighten it. Now the

SMITH 350

355

360

365

FW: INF: 370

375

380

385

FW: INF:

117

colored people own property there. Right 'tween here an' [unintelligible - place]. The colored porter couldn' get off the train there. White folks didn' allow him to get off the, colored porter on the train couldn' get off there. The state sent me there, to straighten it up. I straightened it so the colored folks can get off there. Now colored, colored people own, own property in, in [unintelligible place]. I had to go to near [unintelligible - place]. Sign was printed up there right at the depot. What the sign say, "Read Nigger An' Run." That what was on the sign. The state sent me there. Say, "Go tear that sign down." Said, "If you need any help, let us know." I went there. The sign was right up there, right at the depot. Said, "Read Nigger An' Run." He say, he ask me, "You, you got authority?" I said, "Yeah. I got 'thority." "Present your 'thorities." "Here my goddamn 'thorities, an' here my help. He's forty-five." I tore it down. At, at, at [unintelligible - place]. I tore it down. Anywhere the States tell me to go an' do, I does it. Now. Always did ever since I been working for the Un, I been working for the United State a hundred years. But I'm grow older now. Do you belong to the Mason Lodge? Yes. I was made a Mason. I been, first time I got old enough, I was put in it. The man that raise me put me in the Masons. I been a Mason hundred years. If I wasn't a Mason I couldn' join [unintelligible]. An' you, an' any other man get my age, any, anybody white or black. You can get too ol' to join the Masons. You can get too young to join. I, I got old enough, the man put me in the Mason.  man Charlie. He put me in the Mason. If I weren't one, I couldn' go, tha' tha's in the ring, but just the set dropped out of it. The square an' compas. He dropped that out, out [FW interrupts] Well I'm a Mason. That was this ring that, that the set was in that ring, an' it dropped out. I was been a Mason a hundred years. 01' man Charlie put me in the Mason. I'm the first colored man ever to be made a Mason here in the United State, in Louisville. [FW and INF overlap] If I weren't nary one, not only me, nobody my age. You can get too ol' to join the Mason. An' you can get too young to join the Mason. If I

118

SMITH

weren't nary one now, I couldn' be, because I'm too ol'. An' anybody my age, white or black, you can't join the Masons you that age. I know it. I been a Mason a hundred year. I know Mason. FW: And you're speaking of cowboys, we're, we're both cowboys. We're 390 right out of the [INF interrupts] INF: Oh yeah, I'm the onliest colored cowboy ol' man Charlie had. He had plenty cowboys, but I was the onliest one he had. He raise me. FW: How many were there in your family originally? INF: Oh in my, my family? 395 FW: Yeah. INF: Oh do [FW interrputs] FW: Your mother and your children and your sisters. INF: I, I, I didn' have but uh, one brother an' two sisters, three sisters with the baby sister. My two oldes' sisters was, uh, one of them was 400 name, one of them was, both of them was married all right. My oldes' one, my baby sister, she jus' a little ol' kid. She was the baby of all us children. I had one brother. His name was Simon Watkins. My name, what my mama and daddy name me, Mitchell Watkins. The name where, the one that name me, Charlie Smith, that's the 405 white man raise me, in Texas. Charlie Smith. An' he treated me jus' like he treated his children. In everything. We ate together, slep' together. Yeah. An' when he died [slight pause] FW: Well,uh INF: People bragged on preachers. So good an' so hones' an' all like that. 410 When he died, I give them the money, to a preacher, to preacher [i.e., people] bragged on preachers. I give my money to preachers 'cause I, I didn't want to tote it myself. All the cowboys toted it, wore boots an' what money they, old man Charlie didn' keep for us, we kep' it ourself in our boots. An' I was the only colored cowboy. 415 We all rid together. We all ate together. An' not at one time, all the time. An' I was treated jus' like one of the white. FW: Did you, did you, were, see, you worked in, in Mississippi at one time did you? INF: Oh yeah. I worked everywhere I went. I, when they took that 420 picture there was took, I was standing right down over there over

SMITH

425

119

there toward Auburndale. When that picture was took. [FW and INF overlap] Sent us, sent us to Denver, Colorado. FW: Is t h a t . . . . I wonder if we haven't about covered this, and we'll take some pictures. That all right? And so, thank you and we will take some pictures here.

COMMENTARY

Speaking of Slavery: The Historical Value Of the Recordings With Former Slaves

Paul D. Escott

The Federal Writers' Project Slave Narratives produced the rarest form of historical data: information that otherwise would not have existed at all. Moreover, it vastly enlarged the small quantity of sources that depicted slavery from the slaves' point of view. Serious study of slavery required such sources in addition to the voluminous collections of letters and diaries written by slaveholders. Yet the Federal Writers' Project Slave Narratives encountered a hostile reception from historians. In 1929 the profession's leading authority on slavery, U. B. Phillips, had condemned slave narratives as biased and unreliable. At that time many historians shared Phillips' racism and pro-Southern sympathies. Many others shared his discomfort with interviews conducted years after the events described. Consequently, after their deposit in the Library of Congress in 1941, the Federal Writers' Project narratives sat ignored and virtually unexamined for decades. Due to national racism and professional reverence for traditional archival materials, historians overlooked a golden opportunity to expand and broaden their knowledge of a critical American institution (Woodward 1985: 49). As change came to American race relations, however, historians also changed. As they questioned the old interpretations of slavery, they began to look for new sources. Norman Yetman, George Rawick, John Blassingame and others demonstrated the value of the slave narratives and progressively unearthed a growing body of slave testimony (Yetman 1970;

124

PAUL D. ESCOTT

Rawick 1972, 1977; Blassingame 1972; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976). By the late 1970s, the Slave Narratives had assumed a central role in the rewriting of the history of slavery (Genovese 1974; Blassingame 1977; Escott 1979). What role can these recordings, some of which are associated with the Federal Writers' Project, play? What contribution do they make to our understanding of slavery? Eleven taped interviews, obviously, will not eclipse a much larger body of slave narratives and other slave testimony. Yet the tapes are valuable for two reasons: they illustrate the vital importance of the slaves' perspective; and they shed new light on the nature of Federal Writers' Project interviews. Studies continue of the process by which a FWP Slave Narrative took shape. Undoubtedly scholars will want to listen to these tapes, for hearing an interview helps one understand its dynamics and subtleties in a way that analysis of the written words cannot.

The Tapes as History Most of the eleven recorded interviews are substantial and informative. The former slaves, as they answered questions about their experiences in several states, revealed their character and point of view and rendered some telling comments on slavery. Despite individual variation, the informants voiced many themes that characterize the much larger body of written FWP Slave Narratives. These themes include hatred of slavery's denial of human rights and human dignity, anger at physical abuse, suspicion and caution toward whites, and the slaves' sense of themselves as an oppressed racial group (See Escott 1979). In surprisingly clear language, and often with eloquently direct imagery, the recorded former slaves gave poignant examples of slavery's cruelty and the abuses they suffered. Some condemned both slavery and white racism with striking candor, although others gave evidence of compromises they had to make with the realities of power. Despite the oppressive weight of segregation, despite their financial need and dependence in the 1930s, these informants went on record with some powerful denunciations of the wrongs they endured.

SPEAKING OF SLAVERY

125

"We were slaves," said Fountain Hughes. "We belonged to people. They'd sell us like they sell horses and cows an' hogs an' all like that" (FH: 142-143). Lest his listeners think that purchase of valuable slave property ensured good treatment, Hughes went on to tell how he was sent on long errands in chilly weather. "You couldn' get a horse . . . An' you be barefooted an' col'. That didn' make no difference. You wasn' no more than a dog to some of them in them days. You wasn' treated as good as they treat dogs now" (FH: 244-248). "Colored people tha's free," said Fountain Hughes, "ought to be awful thankful," though "some of them now would rather be slaves" (FH: 264-266). His questioner then asked, with a laugh, "Which had you rather be Uncle Fountain" (FH: 267)? Hughes's reply spoke volumes: "Me? Which I'd rather be? You know what I'd rather do? If I thought, had any idea, that I'd ever be a slave again, I'd take a gun an' jus' end it all right away. Because you're nothing but a dog. You're not a thing but a dog" (FH: 268-271). A slave had to work at any time of day or night for as long as his master required, regardless of pain or exhaustion. No matter how weary, explained Fountain Hughes, "You're afraid to say you're tired" (FH: 275). But overwork was not the worst kind of mistreatment. Masters almost universally used whipping as the primary means to enforce their power, and slaves deeply resented the cruelty, coercion, and pain of physical abuse. Laura Smalley recalled the fate of an elderly house servant who dared to stop the mistress from whipping her. "They taken that ol' woman, poor ol' woman, carried her in the peach orchard, and whipped her" (LS: 197-199). With her hands tied around a tree and her clothes removed to her waist, the woman "couldn' do nothing but jus' kick her feet you know, jus' kick her feet . . . they'd whip her, you know an' then snuff pipe out on her you know, just snuff pipe out on her" (LS: 202207). Laura Smalley also told of lacerated backs that had to be greased after a whipping and of a black overseer who had to whip his own daughter. Not surprisingly, the eleven recorded interviews suggest what was clear in the total collection of Federal Writers' Project Slave Narratives — that the amount of whipping and other physical abuse was the chief criterion by which slaves evaluated their masters (Escott 1979: 42).

126

PAUL D. ESCOTT

Harriet Smith judged her owners with the words, "They was good to us. Good." Then, in immediate explanation, she added, "They never whipped none of their colored people, our colored people" (HS: 88-89). Escaping the worst abuses meant that one had a good master, comparatively speaking. Slaveowners naturally treated their slaves, however, without human dignity. The devaluing of black humanity began almost at birth. Laura Smalley described a common type of care given to slave children in her plantation's nursery. Under the supervision of an old slave woman, who tended children because she was too weak to perform physically demanding tasks, slave children ate with spoons from one large tray or trough "made just like a hog pen, hog trough you know" (LS: 22-23). She called the room where this took place the "slopping room," and all the babies and young children ate there. Laura Smalley also suggested the loneliness that new mothers, who had been sent back to the fields, felt for their babies. They were allowed to come to their children at ten o'clock everyday to nurse them, and Laura Smalley remembered the sight. "You know [how] cow come to the calf in, at, at night [ ? ] . . . When that horn blowed . . . for the mothers . . . they'd jus' come jus' like cows, just a-running, you know, coming to the children" (LS: 45-52). In contrast to the restricted opportunity slave mothers had to care for their children, the slaves who nursed the mistress's babies faced roundthe-clock drudgery. "You never did see old missus with the baby, never no time" (LS: 113-114). The slave nurse took the child to its mother only when it was hungry. Then the mistress would "nurse it" and "han' it right back, night or day you know. Had to ten' to that baby night an' day . . . An' [whenever] that baby was any kin' of sick that nurse had to sit up there at night an' ten' to it" (LS: 122-136). White Southerners often claimed that the master-slave relationship had been a close one, and one ex-slave, Celia Black, gave an example of the personal intimacies that could grow up under slavery. Her mother had grown up with the mistress, the two girls sharing a bed through the years before they married. When it came time for Celia to be born, the mistress brought her slave companion back to her bed, and Celia reported that she

SPEAKING OF SLAVERY

127

was born there, "right behind" the mistress "on a Tuesday morning" (CB: 107). But even this apparent human warmth was far from an unalloyed blessing. Celia Black went on to explain that she and her mother were with the mistress because as owner she had broken up her slave's family. The mistress had refused to let Celia's father keep his wife with him and instead brought Celia's mother with her to Texas. For Celia words could hardly express the extent of this wrong: "Oh, oh. In them days, them days the white people had control over the . . . colored help" (CB: 114-115). Another aspect of control that rankled Fountain Hughes was the pass system. Explaining how it worked, Hughes described the pass system as being "the same as we was in jail." It restricted him completely. "I couldn' go from here across the street, or I couldn' go through nobody's house 'out I have a note, or something from my master" (FH: 128-130). Even in areas of the slaves' lives that they considered private, such as religion, whites worked to enforce their control. Harriet Smith reported that the white ministers preached only obedience to one's master and mistress. "We sure didn' know whether there was any such thing as God," she said (HS: 98-99). Only after emancipation did "we begin to know . . . there was a God" (HS: 104-105). Asked if she and other slaves were taught to read and write, Harriet Smith replied, "Nuh, huh. Uh, Uh, they didn' know nothing about reading and writing. All that I knowed they teach you is mind your master an' your mistress" (HS: 110-112). Nevertheless, religious faith was vital to many slaves as they endured bondage and hoped for freedom. Fountain Hughes recalled "one ol' colored man" who would "be the preacher" and "talk about the Lord." He would raise the topic of freedom, and all present would "ask the Lord to free us " (FH: 311-316). Another sign of how important religion was to a separate, sustaining slave culture was the fact that many met or prayed around a tub of water "that would catch your voice" (LS: 339-340). George Rawick has shown that belief in the efficacy of a tub or pot of water stemmed from the ubiquitous role of such vessels in African religious rituals (Rawick 1972: Vol. 1, 39-43). Although slaves on Laura Smalley's plantation had to meet and pray in secret, their religious faith was most important to them. Discovered in prayer one day, one man defied the master by ignoring an order to get up.

128

PAUL D. ESCOTT

As the master began to beat this slave with a bullwhip, he stayed on his knees, calling out to God, "Lord have mercy on ol' master." Although the slave eventually fainted from the whipping he suffered, he "never did stop praying" and the master "had to go off and leave him praying." Laura Smalley concluded, "That was through the Lord you know. That cause that" (LS: 348-357). When emancipation came, there was joy in the slave quarters. Wallace Quarterman recounted how "the people then throw away they hoe then" (WQ: 50), and Harriet Smith remembered that she and two cousins sat on a fence and watched black Federal soldiers march down the road celebrating the Union victory. "They'd blow them bugles," she explained, and put their horses through fancy paces, making some of the horses "danc[e] an' all like that" (HS: 160-161). But immediately the former slaves noticed many signs of continuing hostility on the part of whites. Isom Moseley and Laura Smalley both told of slaveowners who tried to keep the news of freedom from their slaves. Relying on what others had told him, Isom Moseley recalled that "it was a, a year 'fore, the folks knowed that, uh, they was free" (IM: 68-69). When Laura Smalley observed that 'ΌΓ master didn' tell, you know, they was free," her interviewer challenged her with the words, "He didn't tell you that?" But Laura insisted: "No he didn't tell" (LS: 185). She went on to explain that the slaves worked on for several months until they finally were liberated on June 19th. "Juneteenth," as it was widely known, was in fact the day on which most slaves west of the Mississippi River received their freedom, and in all parts of the Confederacy it was common for masters to keep the news of freedom from their slaves as long as they could. Reconstruction brought black people the right to vote, but politics after emancipation contained many dangers as well as opportunities. Although few of the recorded informants spoke of Reconstruction, Wallace Quarterman provided considerable detail on the gauntlet that circumstances had forced him to run. With great emphasis he spoke of "the tension in the South, tension" (WQ: 76-77) that arose after the Confederacy's defeat. He recalled that "many got kill[ed]" and frankly admitted how he had helped "to nominate Democrats over [the] heads" or against the wishes of other blacks. "But we couldn' help it," he argued, "because a man think nothing [more] of killing a man than taking a drink of water. But since we

SPEAKING OF SLAVERY

129

nominate the Democrat we have more 'surance, you understand" (WQ: 96102). The determination of whites to regain power placed black political prospects under a dark cloud. Economically, too, most ex-slaves began freedom under less than favorable circumstances. "We jus' turned out like a lot of cattle," said Fountain Hughes. "You know how they turn cattle out in a pasture? Well after freedom, you know, colored people didn't have nothing," he added (FH: 118-121). Laura Smalley used the same image of cattle turned out to forage for themselves, but she added recollections of how it felt. "Didn't know where to go," she said. "We didn't know where to go" (LS: 166168). And even if the former slaves had no specific complaints, most agreed with Harriet Smith's simple comment: "Times was hard" (HS: 271). For decades thereafter blacks faced a struggle to earn a living as sharecroppers in the post-Civil War South. Fountain Hughes explained at length his philosophy toward money. He had two cardinal rules: "Don't spen' your money till you get it" and "When you want something, wait until you get the money an' pay for it." These principles were necessary to evade the dangers of debt, which trapped "so many people" (FH: 14-18). With evident pride Hughes stated, "I never bought nothing on time in my life" (FH: 19-20). Laura Smalley explained why many other sharecroppers could have benefited from Hughes's caution. They'd let you go jus' as far in debt as you want to go, she said. An' then . . . they know your crop wasn't gonna clear i t . . . so next year you'd have to stay to work out your debt. If you didn't, you know, they'd take all your horses, cows an' everything away from you (LS: 485-489). Thus blacks faced a continuing struggle with the hostile white world to survive, to protect their freedom, and to gain as much independence as possible. Even as an older woman Laura Smalley had to deal with a threatening employer. When a flood washed Johnson grass seed over her fields, the landowner ordered her to pull the sprouting grass up, rather than dig it up. Laura "told him I was too ol' for that. I couldn't do it." Although she had "been on his place these sixteen years," the owner peremptorily replied, "If you can't. . . pull this up, when you get this crop off you leave." Laura simply answered, "Thank you sir," because she feared the man might sometime "beat me to death . . . I'd done got scared then, you know" (LS: 517-531).

130

PAUL D. ESCOTT

In the case of Charlie Smith, one story was enough to depict the hostility that black people lived under for generations after slavery. Working for a government law-enforcement agency, he arrived in a town whose railroad station had a sign "printed up there right at the depot." The sign read: "Read Nigger and Run." "Colored porters," he explained, could not even step off the train when it stopped in that town. With pride in his voice Smith reported that he accomplished his mission. "I tore it down," he said (CS: 356-364). Like many other former slaves who resisted oppression in other, often quieter ways, Charlie Smith had endured and struggled to uphold his dignity as a human being.

The Tapes and the Interview Process The incidents recounted above provide examples of the kind of historical material available in the Federal Writers' Project Slave Narratives. The eleven recorded interviews merely add a few examples to the much larger body of material found in the entire collection of Slave Narratives; they are not distinctive in content. But in a different way — in their form — the eleven recordings make a unique and very welcome contribution. They are direct evidence of the atmosphere and dynamics of the interview itself, and they open a window on the precise manner in which these historical sources were created. Other scholars will want to hear and analyze the recorded interviews, comparing them if possible with any written reports on the same informants. The narratives published thus far (Rawick 1972, 1977; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976) do not contain reports on the eleven individuals whose voices were recorded, but hundreds of previously undiscovered narratives have been brought to light in the last decade (Rawick 1977; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976). If written versions of these recorded interviews can be found, scholars will gain an opportunity to analyze how the interviews were used, or possibly altered and misused. Even if written reports on these informants do not exist, the recordings offer valuable insight into the realities of the interview situation. Listening to tapes of the original recordings provides a sense of the relationship between the interviewer and the informant and of the

SPEAKING OF SLAVERY

131

influences to which both were subject. With this knowledge it becomes possible to understand how the former slaves told their stories and how some were able to make the strong statements that appear with surprising frequency. The interview situation was far from ideal. Segregation gripped the South of the 1930s, and the former slaves typically were poor and dependent, eager during the Depression to qualify for the welfare or Social Security payment that a federal worker might bring. The fieldworkers were, by the standards of modern social science, casually trained, of varying quality, and certainly not unbiased. Rules of racial etiquette had to be observed by both parties, and sometimes former slaves had to offer gestures of respect to a powerful relative of the white interviewer (Escott, 1979: 7-11). Yet, somehow, many candid comments emerged on paper and in the recordings. How does one explain that? As the recordings make clear, the Federal Writers' Project interviews took place in a personal atmosphere. Often both fieldworker and informant knew each other; in some cases the informant seemed well known by reputation to the fieldworker, even if the two individuals were not previously acquainted. The personalism of the situation was crucial. It allowed the former slaves opportunities to express themselves candidly without offending segregation's mores. The background of these informants encouraged fieldworkers to treat them without intimidation. The ex-slaves' long presence in the locality conferred on them an accepted and safe status. Their personal relationship with the fieldworker, whenever it existed, strengthened that image. Thus, they were not giving information on slavery as strange and unreliable outsiders, but as individuals with a long record of fitting into their community and living in conformance with its power structure. Moreover, the former slaves were old people, entitled by their age to two kinds of latitude in the way others treated them. They received, in many instances, respect due to their advanced age. In other instances, disrespect for the elderly could protect them and their opinions. What they said might be discounted, ignored, or passed over in silence because they were old and, it was supposed, likely to say incorrect or unreliable things. Either way, the situation allowed the former slave freedom to introduce his opinions.

132

PAUL D. ESCOTT

Through the personalism of the situation, ex-slaves could present themselves as interesting, and possibly unusual, but above all nonthreatening individuals. Southern blacks had learned how to accommodate white presumption through years of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship. Thus the informants knew how to take the sharp edges off what they said. Laura Smalley inserted a laugh in the midst of a description of how frightened she had been of her employer. This laugh gave the white fieldworker license to attribute her terror to the eccentricity or silliness of an old woman, but for Laura Smalley the laugh could mean something else or simply be a way to get her opinion out. The recordings suggest that many informants did not feel highly constrained or uncomfortable, but all of them knew how to assuage white feelings, if necessary. The fieldworkers, in these recordings, do not seem to be especially concerned about the information adduced on slavery. They showed no signs of awareness that prevailing interpretations of American history would be damaged. In many cases their manner comes across as somewhat impatient and uninterested. Polite in a somewhat gruff, direct way, the fieldworkers often seem a bit bored. In these eleven interviews, at least, they did not approach their task with the attentiveness and excitement that would characterize a modern-day oral history researcher. What the interviews were disclosing probably seemed less important to the fieldworkers than it now is to scholars. Thus, for a variety of reasons, there was room in the interview situation for candor. From very unpromising circumstances surprisingly valuable material emerged. Historians will continue to use the Federal Writers' Project Slave Narratives to study history, and now ~ thanks to the existence of these recordings ~ other scholars can use the recordings to study black speech and other aspects of black culture.

Slave Narratives, Slave Culture, and the Slave Experience

Joe Graham

In assessing the value of these recordings to the folklorist and/or student of black culture, one must put them into the broader context of the large volumes of slave narratives already published, such as the 40 volumes of narratives edited by Professor George Rawick, narratives told by some 3,500 former slaves from throughout the South. As historical documents and sources of information about a culture, these recordings reveal the same strengths and weaknesses of the other slave narratives. They are idiosyncratic in that each narrative reflects one individual's experiences and/or observations in a relatively restricted area of the slave South. Consequently, they are not necessarily representative of the experiences of most or even many of the other slaves. Sometimes, as we shall see, the observations and conclusions drawn by some of the informants are inaccurate for the aggregate. Nevertheless, they have power as the testimonies of eye-witnesses who saw and experienced one of the sadder chapters in America's social history. Where they are frequently idiosyncratic, they are all pieces to the complex puzzle that was slave life. Too, these narratives emphasize the differing value that the same documents can have for different disciplines. Because these interviews were recorded, they provide an especially valuable source of the study of the black dialect of former slaves. Even the best-trained fieldworkers working without some recording device cannot provide the kind of thorough documents necessary to the student of language. Thus, in spite of the volumes of slave narratives already published, these tapes are an important new resource for the linguist. As Charles Joyner, who relied

134

JOE GRAHAM

extensively on slave narratives in his excellent Down by the Riverside, lamented about the language of the community he studied: "It is now impossible to say with any certainty what Gullah sounded like as spoken by the slaves. The Gullah speech of present-day All Saints Parish is probably no more than a pale reflection of antebellum slave speech" (1984: 197). Surely he would have appreciated recordings like these of interviews with those whom he studied. While the value of slave narratives as useful historical documents has been rather hotly debated over the last two decades (e.g., Blassingame 1979), Joyner (1984) has shown in his study of the All Saints Parish in South Carolina that the WPA slave narratives provide a valuable resource for the folklorist and cultural historian. What made them so valuable to his project was the focus of the fieldwork done by Genevieve Willcox Chandler — her interviews with over a score of ex-slaves from the same region, the Waccamaw Neck plantations. As Joyner notes, some scholars have inaccurately assumed the unity of slave society and the integration of their culture: "Too many scholars of slavery, as of other fields, attempt to describe and analyze abstract wholes without having investigated concrete parts. Too few construct wholes from empirically researched parts" (1984: xvi). Thus, the fact that Chandler focused her interviews on a specific group of former slaves provides a coherence to Joyner's data lacking in many of the other narratives. This lack of focus on a single community limits the value of these present recordings to the folklorist. While one may question the value of the testimony of a single former slave, if this testimony is evaluated in the context of similar testimonies of other former slaves, the value is enhanced. As Joyner notes, "If such sources are individually suspect, once tested against one another they may speak collectively with authority and eloquence" (1984: xvi). Inasmuch as the present narratives were told by former slaves from many parts of the South, they lack the kind of coherence of those used by Joyner in his excellent study. Their value, then, must lie in their use as corroborative evidence of the slave experience in Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and other parts of the South. Furthermore, the usefulness of these recorded narratives is affected not only by the great diversity of informants but also by the fieldworkers' purpose and methodology. As with the WPA slave narratives, some

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

135

interviews are very short, while others run to many pages. Some of the interviewers were clearly not skilled at getting detailed information about the many facets of slave life; others focused narrowly on one topic and refused to allow the speaker to elaborate on any other subject of interest to the narrator. These factors limit the value of the various tapes to the student of traditional culture. What is clear from these recordings is that, when taken in the context of the thousands of other narratives, most of the narrators tell of experiences common to at least some, if not most, former slaves throughout the South. Except for some idiosyncratic stories told by Charlie Smith and Fountain Hughes, most of the information provided is consistent with and corroborated in other slave narratives. While these recordings provide no coherent view of life nor any great detail about any specific aspect of slave culture, they do provide further evidence about a number of elements of interest to the folklorist: the slaves worldview, slave/master relationships, treatment of slaves, slave duties, their religious experience, their folk material culture, their pastimes, etc. Below I shall examine a number of specific aspects of slave life discussed in the recordings and provide some analogues from other sources.

Slaves As Chattel In her narrative, Laura Smalley remembers that slaves were treated like animals in almost every respect. She recalls slaveowners who bred slaves like livestock. "They just fasten them up in the house or somewhere, you know, and go off and leave them in there. Want to breed them like they was hogs or horses" (LS: 375-378). This same pattern of treatment was noted by 104 narrators in Rawick's edited narratives, and is noted frequently in other studies (e.g., Escott 1979: 44-45). Smalley uses the same animal image in describing the way slave children were nursed. She recalled that at ten o'clock in the morning and three o'clock in the afternoon, a horn sounded, and "When that horn blowed, they blowed a horn for mothers, you know, they'd jus' come jus' like cows, just arunning, you know, coming to the children" (LS: 50-52). Joyner (1984: 63) and Blassingame (1979: 179-81) describe similar feeding practices, but

136

JOE GRAHAM

while they refer to the place for feeding children as the "chillun house," Smalley remembers it as the "sloppin' room" (LS: 84-85). And like animals, slaves were given different names by different masters, though they had their own names in the slave quarters (Blassingame 1979: 182-83). Joyner (1984: 222) notes the importance to human dignity of one's right to name his own children, a right often denied the slave. Charlie Smith claimed that his mother and father had named him Mitchell Watkins, but when he was sold, his new name became the same as his new master's - Charlie Smith (CS: 10). Escott (1979: 50-51) shows that, unlike Charlie, most slaves took names other than their masters' names — only 462 of 2036 he studied took their masters' names. When it came to punishment, however, the narratives reveal that slaves had it much worse than animals. They were punished by hanging them up by the thumbs (BM: 31), a practice also noted in other sources (e.g., Blassingame 1979: 262). Whippings were by far the most common punishment mentioned. Laura Smalley remembered that one woman slave was taken to the orchard, stripped to the waist, tied to a tree, and whipped and burned with pipe embers — all for refusing to allow the 01' Missus to beat her. She was beaten not only by the master but also by the overseer, who was her own father (LS: 197-219). Whippings were discussed by over 1700 of the roughly 3500 slaves represented in Rawick's slave narratives, and others have noted that women were further humiliated by being stripped before they were beaten (Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 267). Smalley recalls that after being beaten, the slaves were taken to their cabin, where family members put grease on their backs to ease the pain and prevent infections, a practice also noted by Harriet Smith (HS: 120-121) and in other slave narratives (e.g., see LS: 219-222; Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 47). Harriet Smith also notes that some slaves were mistreated to death (cf. Blassingame 1979: 262-63; Escott 1979: 40-41; and Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 43). Less extreme punishment took the form of giving the slave nothing to eat for a period of time, though Smalley noted that "if they whip you half a day, you ain't want to eat" (LS: 226-227). Joyner (1984: 33) also records that starving slaves was a means of punishment. One of the worst threats, though, was to be sold to the "nigger traders." Fountain Hughes claimed that "An' they'd ship them down South an' sell them down South . . . . If you was bad and mean an'

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

137

they didn't want to beat you an' knock you aroun', they'd sell you what to the, what was call the nigger trader. (FH: 153-157), a practice also noted by Blassingame (1979: 277).

Slave Attitudes Toward Masters In spite of the treatment reported by many slaves, the present slave narratives, like others which have been published, indicate that many former slaves held positive attitudes toward their former masters. Alice Gaston claims that her "marster" was kind to his slaves — treated them nicely, fed, clothed, and otherwise took care of them (AG: 18-30). Isom Moseley claimed that "We had mighty good white folks . . . far as I can remember, you know, mighty good, mighty good. You know that they must have been good. After the country surrendered, didn' none move . . . after surrender" (IM: 58-62). He later states that the man he sharecropped for (perhaps the same person) was a good man who never tried to "ride over them" the whole time he sharecropped for him (IM: 93-94). Even Laura Smalley, perhaps the most outspoken critic of slave treatment in these narratives, has good words about her mother's owner, who would not allow the overseer to whip Smalley's mother (LS: 242-245). Blassingame (1979: 263-64) notes a similar tendency for many of the slaves to remember their masters as kindly people. In the Rawick narratives, former slaves spoke kindly and positively of their masters three times more often than they spoke of them in negative terms. Whether this comes as a result of the natural tendency to remember the good things longer than bad ones is a matter of question. It may be a sad commentary on the norm for treating slaves -- that if a slaveowner was not outright brutal to his slaves and treated them with a modicum of human decency, he was thought of as a "good" master. Two other former slaves in these narratives claimed a close relationship with their master. Wallace Quarterman claimed that he genuinely liked his master: "I wouldn' take anything [for him], why, me an' him was jus' like one, you know" (WQ: 123-124). Charlie Smith, who has a tendency toward hyperbole, was most outspoken in his admiration of

138

JOE GRAHAM

his master, claiming that the man who bought him raised him with his own children and treated him just like one of his own: An always teach me an' his children. He treated me jus' like he treated his children, in everything, not one thing, everything. We ate together, we slep' together. All the boys now, we just talking not about the women now. All we the boys slep' together. I was, uh, raised with a cattleman, Charlie Smith raise me (CS: 115-119).

This kind of treatment, as one might suspect, was very rare. My reading, though not exhaustive, has uncovered only one similar situation, where a white couple raised a slave girl, Daphne, whose mother had died. During a post-Civil War lawsuit, the girl clearly looked upon the white couple as her mother and father, rather than her biological black father and his new wife (Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 33).

Slave Duties and Occupations Almost every study of slave life touches, naturally, upon the duties and occupations of slaves. Perhaps because the interviewers asked the relevant questions more frequently than other questions, most of the narrators in this study touch upon the slaves' jobs on the plantations. The division of labor by sex among slaves was apparently not a particularly important consideration, as it was in the white community, where there were clearly defined sex roles. As Laura Smalley observes, slaves — both men and women - -tended children, cooked for field hands and their children, made beds, worked in the field and in the plantation yards, and worked as nurses (LS: 107-119). Joyner cites similar duties on the Waccamaw plantations in South Carolina (1984: 60-61; 80-81). Women worked at about every job but overseer and driver. Harriet Smith's grandmother was a field hand, as was Harriet, who claimed that she could "plow an' lay off a corn row as good as any man." She did other jobs common to field hands, including chopping and picking cotton, noting that she could pick 500 pounds a day (HS: 24-33). Similarly, Joyner found that on the Waccamaw plantations, 44.7 percent of the slave women were

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

139

prime field hands (1984: 62). Harriet's mother, on the other hand, was a cook on the plantation, another fairly common task which fell mostly to women. Cooking for the slaves was done outside, often near the field, in order to keep the slave at work as long as possible. (LS: 95-104; cf. Joyner 1984: 78). Men, on the other hand, were often assigned duties most often associated in white culture with women. For example, Joe MacDonald, who was raised in the plantation house, was given housekeeping chores. He washed and ironed clothes, some days washing as many as 100 pieces. He made five beds every morning and fixed five fires in various parts of the house. He dressed the children and churned butter. He was nurse to a white baby, even sleeping with him. He recalls that at times he also had to go to the field and plow while the baby was asleep. The baby would sleep two or three hours at a time, and when the mistress called, Joe had to go and lie down with the child. He clearly preferred working in the house to working in the field (JM: 13-20; 43-49). Women were more commonly assigned as nurses to white children (Blassingame 1979: 266; Joyner 1984: 80). Laura Smalley recalled that the black nurses took care of all aspects of childrearing, taking the child to its mother only for nursing (LS: 121-136). Sometimes, as Davis and Gates note, black nurses nursed white babies and white women nursed black babies (1985: 56). The nurse slept with the child from infancy into young adulthood. Celia Black's mother slept with one plantation owner's daughter until the daughter was married, and was then given to her. Celia was bom in the new mistress's own bed (CB: 109-114).

Folk Material Culture and Crafts While these narratives give only the sketchiest picture of the folk material culture of the slaves and of the crafts they practiced, they do touch briefly upon the subject. As to costume, Fountain Hughes claims that boys didn't get shoes until they were 12 or 13 years old. Boys didn't wear pants during this time because boys' trousers were simply not available. Instead, boys wore dresses (FH: 99-104). Escott clarifies what Hughes meant by dresses, noting that:

140

JOE GRAHAM

young slaves, both male and female, wore long cotton shirts which hung down to their knees with a slit up the side to allow movement. Later (some complained not until puberty had become embarrassingly evident) the boys got a coarse work shirt and their first pair of britches, usually made by female slaves on the plantation (1979: 39).

The only other specific mention in these narratives of costume is the description that Charlie Smith gives of the cowboy boots he wore. "We, all cowboys wore boots. Half-a-leg boots, knee, what they call knee boots that come clean to your knees. Well, we toted our, what he [the master] didn' keep for us [i.e., money], we toted in our boots" (CS: 136-139). Laura Smalley, who provided considerable information about slave childrearing, describes the utensils used to feed the children, who usually were all fed together (Joyner notes that the "chillun cook" on the plantations he studied cooked for about 130 children « 1984: 93). The children would eat from large wooden trays hollowed out from a log. Sitting around the common tray, they would eat mush or soup or whatever was served, using handmade wooden spoons (LS: 11-16). While there are few descriptions in slave narratives of the eating utensils, the wooden spoons are frequently described (Joyner 1984: 95). Only four folk crafts are mentioned by these former slaves: soapmaking, molasses making, leather tanning, and shoemaking. Isom Moseley claims that as a child he carried water to pour into the ash hopper used to leech out the acid for making homemade soap. The ashes were placed in a handmade box, since no barrel was available. They made soap for the whole plantation, since no one had store-bought soap (IM: 37-45). A number of others who have studied slave narratives have discovered a similar practice (Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 105; Escott 1979: 3031). Moseley also tells of having helped make molasses on the plantation, providing a brief description of grinding the cane in wooden mills, cooking it in a big kettle, and pouring it into poplar troughs [i.e., troughs made from poplar trees], since there were no barrels available. A hand-hewn plank was used to tightly cover the trough (IM: 19-27). Harriet Smith remembers a young slave girl who had an arm crushed while feeding cane into one of the mills. She includes a brief description of how a mule-

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

141

driven wooden mill is used to squeeze juice from sugarcane to make molasses (HS: 183-211). Molasses was an integral part of the slave diet, each slave receiving a pint to a pint and a half per week. Used as a sweetener, to make candy, and as a drink when mixed with vinegar and water, molasses was important as a dietary supplement of iron and calcium (Joyner 1984: 98). One of the more detailed descriptions of any folk craft in these narratives is that given by Isom Moseley about tanning leather. The process was rather simple. First, the slaves had to remove the hair from the hides to be tanned. Then they dug a hole in the ground about three feet deep and eight or ten feet long and boarded up the sides with planks. They then covered the bottom of the hole with tree bark and lay a full hide on top of the bark, followed by other layers of bark and hide. Once the hole was as full as they wanted it, they filled it up with water and let it set until the leather was tanned. And then one of the slave cobblers would use the leather to make shoes (IM: 45-56); cf. Joyner 1984: 70-71).

Folk Narratives Interestingly, in these interviews very little attention is given to the oral genres of folklore. While a number of hymns are listed, no secular folk songs are even named. While there are numerous personal experience narratives, there is no specific mention of folktales. The only informant who tells folktales is Charlie Smith, and even then they are disguised as personal experience narratives. It is difficult to know if, at his advanced age, Charlie's mind could not distinguish his own experiences from those he had heard as a youth. Not only did he claim to be in essence adopted by his master and treated as a natural child (CS:115-118)but he also claimed a number of other achievements usually reserved only for whites. For example, he claimed to be the first black Mason in Texas (CS: 382-383), the only black cowboy in Texas (CS: 120-121), and a famous law enforcement officer (CS: 208-209). In the latter, he stretches one's credulity, claiming that he fraternized with Billy the Kid and that together they captured the assassin of President Garfield. His own nickname was "Trigger Kid" (CS: 213).

142

JOE GRAHAM

The folktale disguised as a personal experience narrative deals with Charlie's supposed capture in Africa. Telling folktales as personal experience narratives is not uncommon, according to Richard M. Dorson (1956: 84-85): "American Negroes (and whites) relate local traditions, family history, and personal experiences with as much gusto as any folktale ~ and sometimes these localized and personalized narratives prove to be folktales in disguise." So Charlie was engaging in an ongoing tradition in couching a folktale as his own personal experience. Let us examine the narrative and its analogues in other sources. In response to the fieldworker's query, "Did they trick you to get you on the boat," Charlie replies as follows: What? They fool you on the boat. They fool the colored people on the boat. I ask my mama could I go down to the boat landing to see that white man. I was raise in Galina, Africa. That was in Africa didn' no white people stay in Africa, south part of Africa. They stayed in the north part of Africa. An' that where they sol' the colored people, in the south part of Africa. They put you up on a block an' bid you off. An' the way they got us on the boat, he said, "Come right in here! " That what they said. "Come in here! Colored in here, all the colored. Over in that country [America?], you don' have to work. If you get hungry, all you got to do go to the fritter tree." Had the fritter tree on the boat, claim that was the fritter tree. "You go to the fritter tree." Same thing now we hear people in the United States, call them pancakes, they call them flitters. An them flitter tree, beared the, the tree beared the flitters, they claim. "Here the fritter tree. It's on the boat." We got on. Carried show us the fritter tree on the boat. "Come on down here!" Called the lower deck on the, called the flitter tree. Then he show us the syrup tree. "Here the syrup tree," an' it was on the boat, too. "Come on down here!" An' the hole on the lower deck on the boat, they keep call it the hatch hole. "Come on down here in that hatch hole!" They showed us something down there. Got down in the hatch hole, we should have felt the boat moving, but we thought we was going back up there to the fritter tree. And it was leaving. An' when it landed, it landed in New Orleans. That where the colored people was sol' at. Sol' (CS: 55-84).

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

143

Charlie then embarks on another narrative, the source of which is unclear but which reveals perhaps a justification of why he spoke so highly of his white master, who treated him like a member of the family: They bringing us from Africa over here, the colored folks wanted to throw me off. "Throw him overboard, throw him overboard." An' the white, Mr. J., Mr. J. say, "Don' you throw that boy out there!" "Throw him overboard! Goddamn, let the damn whale swallow him like he done Jonah." That what they said. Gonna throw me off the boat, bringing me from Africa in the United State (CS: 84-89).

He then launches into a very brief "history" of the Civil War and its consequences, a narrative he had told much earlier in the interview, which we shall examine shortly. First, let us examine the fritter tree story as a folk narrative. Benjamin A. Botkin claims that a favorite theme in Southern folktales is "the mythical place where baked chickens and roast pigs with knives and forks stuck in their hides run around crying, "Eat me!" or "Who'll eat me?" Botkin continues: Similarly, an ex-slave tells of Negroes lured from Alabama to Arkansas by "two Yankee mens" with promises of "hogs just layin' around already baked with the knives and forks sticking in them ready to be et" and of "fritter ponds everywhere with the fritters a-frying in them ponds of grease" [As told by Henry Green, Barton, Arkansas, Lay My Burden Down. Chicago, 1945, p. 10] (Botkin 1949: 551).

This story has the same theme: whites tricking blacks into slavery by promising them a life of leisure and all they could eat (the "fritter tree" has become the "fritter pond"). Levine cites another "version" of this kind of narrative, told by an aged freedman in the 1870s and first published in 1892. The story was told to him by his African-born grandfather, who was the source of many African animal stories:

144

JOE GRAHAM

I often yeardy [heard] him [informant's grandfather] tell how 'e was bring ober from Africa in a ship when 'e was a boy. De white man lef de ship behin' and gone asho' in a small boat; an' when dey meet up wid my gran'daddy an' a whole parcel more, young boys like, all from the same village, de hire dem wid piece ob redflannelan' ting for to 'long [go along] wid dem. But when dey get dom on bo'd de ship de bring dem ober to dis country an' sell dem for slave. Dey brong my gran'daddy to Charleston an' ol' Marse Heywood buy um. When I was a small leetle boy 'e ben bery ol', too ol' for work, an' I use for hab it for my tarsk for min' um. So 'e tell me heap o' dese story (Levine 1977: 86-87).

This story closely parallels Charlie's narrative, except that the item used to attract the boys is a piece of red flannel, rather than a fritter tree. The motif of being tricked into captivity has other African connections, as we can see by a brief examination of Thompson's Motif Index. For example, Motif K714.1 ("Victim tricked into prison and kept there") is found in an African narrative. Motifs K775.1 ("Capture by taking aboard ship to inspect wares") and K714.2 ("Victim tricked into entering box" -- a black narrative told in Georgia) reveal that the theme of capture by trickery is fairly common in black culture. The trickster is well known in African and black folklore. Charlie Smith also gives us an interesting view of folk history as he attempts to account for what caused the Civil War and what has happened to blacks since the war. Noting that African captives were sold in both the South and the North, he continues: An' the northern people didn' carry you with them, colored people to the North. Say that it was too col' for them you know to stan' the col'. But they got southern white folks, they got southern white folks to look after them, an' they pay the uh, colored, the white folks, southern white folks, to look after them. An' they got to mistreating them, so, an' they come down from the North to the South, firs' fought a war to free the colored. North and Souths fought a war. An' that was slavery time . . . I ain't reading for it 'cause I couldn' read. I knowed when it was done. An' the man, they put you up on a block to sell you, to bid you off. An' when they come down here an' freed them, they bought the, the North bought the whole

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

145

state of Louisiana an' give it to the colored people for their territory. An' make the laws an' rules theirselves. An' the colored people sol' their rights, sol' out to the whites, sol' to white. An' that freed them, an' the North freed them. The North an' South fought a war, the firs' war it was in the United State, North an' South fought a war that, that freed the colored people from slavery time. I ain' read for it 'cause I couldn' read. I know it 'cause I raised through it. The colored, the colored people always did hate me from a chil' (CS: 28-47).

A while later in the same interview, Charlie returns to the theme: That was when we had the slavery. Jus' put you on the block an' sell you [the whites in the South] . . . . An' they went mistreating the, the colored. Getting children by the colored women. An' all such as that, getting colored. And the white [in the North] fin' it out, how they was treating them. They hurt them. An' they come down here, thefirs'war ever was in the United State was the North an' South fought a war to free the colored (CS: 90-102).

This particular version of the Civil War, especially the fact that the Northerners bought the entire state of Louisiana and gave it to the blacks, only to have them lose it through their own ineptness and greed ("sold their rights"), reflects a folk version of history, as well as Charlie's own antiblack bias, which is evident in his account of his trip aboard the slave ships. As was noted above, although the narratives contain numerous firstperson experience narratives, they contain almost no traditional narratives. This paucity of oral tradition is largely the result of the fieldworkers' methods and goals.

The Religious Experience A number of scholars have pointed to the importance of religion in the lives of the slaves. In Africa, the slaves and their ancestors shared a sacred world view, very much at odds with life and the religious experience on

146

JOE GRAHAM

the slave plantations. What followed, according to Joyner, was a remarkable cultural transformation: from a diversity of African beliefs and a multiplicity of African rites and practices to a distinctive Afro-Christianity that voiced the slaves' deepest an­ cestral values as they responded to a new and constricting environment... They did not so much adapt to Christianity (at least not to the selective Christianity evangelized to them by their masters) as adapt Christianity to themselves [and to their own culture] (1984: 141).

The narratives in this book, while they do not give a very clear picture of the total religious experience, touch on a number of matters noted by others. Slaveowners differed in their attitude toward the religious experiences of their slaves. Some encouraged them to attend church, genuinely concerned for the slaves' spiritual welfare, while others attempted to use the church as a means of social control. In Hays County, Texas, Harriet Smith's mother and father were allowed to use their master's horses and buggy to go the two miles to church (HS: 146-149; cf. Blassingame 1979: 130; Escott 1979: 114). The whites attended church in the morning and the slaves attended it in the evening (HS: 69-71), a practice noted by others (Blassingame 1979: 132). The slaves usually heard white preachers but had little faith in them, for they represented a very corrupt system. The preachers frequently told the slaves to behave, to be good to their masters and mistresses, and especially not to steal (HS: 94105). As Blassingame (1979:130-32) and Escott (1979:114-16) have noted, not only did white preachers give such council to their slaves, but black preachers did also. Some simply sold out, while others, who were slaves as well as preachers, had to walk a careful line if they wanted to continue to preach. Consequently, in this context, the slaves believed the black preachers little more than they did the white ones, unless these preachers preached in secret gatherings (Escott 1979: 116). Harriet Smith claimed that the early black preachers, many of whom emerged after slavery, knew very little about the Bible. Inasmuch as most were illiterate, they preached only what they had heard (HS: 367-375). While this was true of some (Escott 1979: 149; Blassingame 1979: 130), it

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

147

was not true of others. Blassingame claims that the black preacher was often one of the few slaves who could read: . . . the black preacher was usually highly intelligent, resourceful, and noted for his powerful imagination and memory. Because of his traits of character and remarkable personality, he was able to unify the blacks, console the sick, weak, and fearful, uplift and inspire them . . . The black preacher had special oratorical skills and was master of the vivid phrase, folk poetry, and picturesque words (1979: 131).

Fountain Hughes remembers worshipping clandestinely as a youth in Charlottesville, Virginia: We would go to somebody's house. An' uh, well we didn' have no houses like they got now, you know. We had these what they call log cabin. An' they have one ol' one, maybe one ol' colored man would be there, maybe he'd be as old as I am. An' he'd be the preacher. Not as old as I am now [101 at the time of the interview], but he'd be the preacher, and then we all sit down an' listen at him talk about the Lord. Well, he'd say, well, I wonder, uh, sometimes you say I wonder if we'll ever be free. Well, some of them would say, well, we gonna go as' the Lord to free us. So they'd say, well, we, we gonna sing "One Day Shall I Ever Reach Heaven, and One Day Shall I Fly." An* they would sing that for about a hour. Then, they next one they'd get up an' say let's sing a song, "We Gonna Live on Milk and Honey, Way By and By" (FH: 309-320).

Such a concern for freedom was not uncommon in black religious services not under the scrutiny of whites (Blassingame 1979: 137-38). Singing was an integral part of the slaves' worship, and while no texts of their songs of worship are given in these narratives, a number of the narrators cited the names of the hymns they used to sing. Fountain Hughes, who lists three songs above, laments that blacks don't sing the songs like they once did — they cut them off too short (FH: 336-343). He remembers also singing "Roll, Jordon, Roll," "By and By When the Morning Come," and "I'm Gonna Sing Around the Altar" (FH: 324-337).

148

JOE GRAHAM

Harriet Smith recalls singing "Are We Born to Die" and "Must Jesus Bear the Cross Alone, and All the World Go Free" (HS: 136-138; 386-389). Although slave preachers directed some worship by the slaves, it was the white preacher associated with the plantation who usually performed such ceremonies as weddings (HS: 350-353; Blassingame 1979: 165). In fact, a white minister married Harriet Smith's parents and all of their daughters. Laura Smalley claims that slaves got married by jumping backwards over a broomstick (LS: 331-333), a practice mentioned very frequently in other slave narratives. However, Blassingame believes that the slaves jumped the broomstick after the formal wedding ceremony rather than as the wedding ceremony. He claims that most reports of this folk practice come from people who heard about rather than witnessed the bride and groom jumping over the broomstick, which was associated with the folk belief (whether serious or in jest) that whichever of the pair could jump over the broomstick held the highest would rule the roost (Blassingame 1979: 166-67). It is certainly possible that in situations where slaves simply did not have access to preachers, black or white, they followed the folk practice. There were evidently many slaveowners who did not want their slaves engaging in religious practices, partly out of fear that it would incite them to seek freedom and might even provide them the opportunity to organize to do so (Escott 1979: 111-12; Blassingame 1979: 134). Laura Smalley recalls that the slaves had no church. They would often pray their emotional prayers into a washtub, which would catch the sound and prevent them from being caught. "All the church they would have, [would] be a tub, a tub of water sitting jus' like this thing is, you know, an' that would catch your voice" (LS: 338-340). This practice is reported in a number of other sources (e.g., Escott 1979: 149; Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 241-42). Laura Smalley tells the story of slaves caught in prayer. The angry master commanded them to get up, and he began beating one who refused to quit praying. The slave never quit praying, but cried, "Lord, have mercy on οΓ Master" (LS: 343-358). Blassingame reports a similar story (1979: 147). Levine details a number of ways the slaves attempted to escape discovery by wary slaveowners (1977: 41). Whatever the religious experience, these narrators seem to indicate that it was primarily an adult experience. Harriet Smith notes that younger

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

149

children seldom went to church, but rather stayed home, parched corn, and played (HS: 145-146). The children who did attend church with their parents "stayed in corners" while their parents participated in worship services (HS: 62-63).

Recreation There is, remarkably, almost nothing about the slaves' forms of recreation in these recordings. The only recreational activities mentioned are the celebration of Juneteenth (June 19th) by Texas blacks and the dances attended by Harriet Smith's parents and grandmother (HS: 44-49) and by Celia Black when she was younger (CB: 184-194). There is no description of the dances or the music. Laura Smalley remembers the Juneteenth celebrations, which commemorate the arrival of the news of the end of the Civil War and slavery, news which arrived in Texas six months after the fact (LS: 185-188). What Smalley remembers most about the celebrations was that there was a big dinner where people could eat all they wanted (LS: 440-451). How incomplete the picture presented by these informants is is made clear in other studies of slave life. Blassingame notes, for instance, that the slaves engaged in numerous diversions on Sundays: . . . fishing, hunting, wrestling, running races, strumming the banjo, singing, dancing, playing marbles, recounting tales, fiddling, drinking whiskey, gambling, or simply visiting and conversing with friends. With or without their master's permission they often organized dances and parties to which all of the slaves in the neighborhood were invited (1979: 108).

Perhaps the principal reason for the absence in these recordings of discussions of such activities is that the interviewers simply did not ask questions about the activities.

150

JOE GRAHAM

The Yankee Soldiers Remembered While the slaves welcomed the coming of the Yankees as liberators, they were suspicious of them as whites. These narratives are almost unanimous in painting a negative picture of the slaves' encounters with these soldiers. Wallace Quarterman remembers the arrival of the Yankees during breakfast on their plantation. The cannons in the distance rattled the breakfast dishes, and the overseer told him to run to the field and tell the drivers to turn the people loose, that the Yankees were coming. The drivers did not at first believe him, but the people were freed, followed by celebration (WQ: 29-42). Uncle Billy McCrea remembers that after the blacks were freed around Jasper, Texas, the slaves would often go to town to watch the Yankees headed home, pulling their cannons through town with mules (BM: 6-13). The actual encounters with the soldiers were not so positive. Alice Gaston claims that the soldiers abducted many black children (AG: 1-14); cf. Escott 1979: 125). Fountain Hughes remembers that when the soldiers came, they broke the mill open and threw the flour into the river, broke into the store and threw the meat and sugar into the street. "An' they knowed the people wouldn' have nothin' to live on, but they done that." Hughes and his young friends would pick it up and take it back to the missus and master. The soldiers also reportedly stole the best horses on the plantation (FH: 235-258). Hughes also claims that the soldiers mistreated the slaves they had come to free, a fact corroborated by many other slaves and scholars (e.g., Escott 1979: 123-24; Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 162). Joyner claims that 70 percent of the experiences with Yankees were reported as negative by the former slaves (1984: 227). Fountain Hughes describes some of those experiences which left the slaves ambivalent about their liberators: Them people [Yankee soldiers], an', an' if you was cooking anything to eat in there for yourself, an' if they, they was hungry, they would go an' eat it all up, an' we didn' get nothin'. They'd just come in an' drink up all your milk, milk. Just do as they please. Sometimes they be passing by all night long, walking, muddy, raining. Oh, they had a terrible time. Colored people tha's free ought to be awful thankful (FH: 258-264).

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND THE SLAVE EXPERIENCE

151

This ambivalence often turned to anger and bitterness when the soldiers treated the slaves as savagely as their former masters (Joyner 1984: 227).

The Post-Slavery Experience The former slaves' experience after being freed, while not described in any great detail, is not remembered with fondness by most of the narrators in these tapes. While the immediate reaction to freedom was rejoicing and thanks, reality soon raised its head: life in a racist South became the new — and often times unpleasant — reality. Having had almost every aspect of their lives planned for them and a future — no matter how bleak — seemingly settled, the former slaves found their new freedom somewhat unsettling. Laura Smalley remembers that she and her family felt lost after the reality of being free sank in: "We didn' know where to go. Mama an' them didn' know where to go, you see, after freedom broke . . . Didn' know where to go. That jus' where we stayed" (LS: 165-168). Fountain Hughes paints an even starker picture: Now, uh, after we got freed an' they turned us out like cattle, we could, we didn't have nowhere to go. And we didn' have nobody to boss us, and, uh, we didn' know nothing . . . And my father was dead, an' my mother was living, but she had three, four other little children, an' she had to put them all to work for to help take care of the others. So we had . . . what you call, worse than dogs has got it now. Dogs has got it now better than we had it when we come along. I know, I remember one night, I, I was out after I was free, an' I didn' have nowhere to go . . . My brother an' I was together. So we knew a man that had a, a livery stable. An' we crep' in that yard an' got into one of the hacks of the automobile, an' slep' in that hack all night long . . . . We didn't have no property. We didn' have no home. We had nowhere or nothing. We didn' have nothing only just, uh, like your cattle, we were jus' turned out. An' uh get along the best you could. Nobody to look after us. Well, we been slaves all our lives. My mother was a slave, my sisters was slaves, father was a slave (FH: 180222).

152

JOE GRAHAM

Times were so desperate that his mother bound out her children to different people, where they earned their room and board and a dollar a month for their mother (FH: 205-209; cf. Taylor 1976: 176). Similar testimonies about the plight of slaves released after the Civil War have been given by a great number of former slaves (e.g., Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 268). Like the families of Wallace Quarterman (WQ: 69-72), Harriet Smith (HS: 279-287), and Isom Moseley (IM: 69-74), many slaves stayed on the plantation and worked on shares for their former masters. Some worked on halves, others on thirds. By 1900, nearly 89 percent of the farms operated by blacks were operated by black tenants (Taylor 1976: 74). Because of their lack of experience and their dominance by whites, former slaves were easy to cheat. Laura Smalley claims that many black farmers got into debt and became basically indentured servants (LS: 485499). Escott (1979: 151) and Taylor (1976: 76-77) suggest that whites often manipulated the records to show that the blacks were constantly in debt. Since the blacks could not quit until the debt was paid, the practice would continue to insure that there was enough cheap labor on hand to raise and harvest the crops. Stories about black tenant/white owner conflict are common not only in these narratives but in others as well. As during slavery, women worked in the fields as field hands. Harriet Smith remembers plowing with oxen and chopping cotton (HS: 21-30). Relationships were not always smooth, and, unlike during their bondage days, blacks sometimes stood up for themselves and their rights. Laura Smalley tells of one white landowner who fought with some regularity with his black field hands (LS: 536), sometimes because the blacks would not tolerate being whipped (LS: 538-541). Another particularly "fractious" white man fought with his tenant after a dogfight had erupted between the white man's dog and the tenant's (LS: 558-568). Blacks, often unwelcome around whites, withdrew to develop their own all-black communities, like the black colony called Buellah, near Mountain City in Hayes County, Texas (HS: 320-322). Such black communities were common throughout the South (Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976: 35, 53, 198), and many black communities begun shortly after slavery remain black today. Withdrawing to these communities

SLAVE NARRATIVES, SLAVE CULTURE, AND ΤΉΕ SLAVE EXPERIENCE

153

helped blacks protect themselves and their families from whites bent on mischief. Taylor details the kind of difficulty black women had escaping the unwelcome attention of whites, especially right after slavery ended (1976: 180-83). Some blacks became more sure of themselves and began to take a more active part in civic affairs, particularly politics. For many, this was dangerous business. A gang of whites killed Harriet Smith's husband and his brother because her husband was too successful at getting blacks to vote for certain white office seekers. The white man was jailed briefly, but soon released (HS: 414-459). Harriet Smith claimed that almost all of the trouble was caused by poor white people and that the wealthier whites did not bother blacks. This pattern of violence against blacks is widely documented throughout the South, more recently, for example, in Fry's Night Riders in Black Folk History (1975).

Summary and Conclusions In this essay I have attempted to explore the value and the limitations of these recordings to the student of folklore and cultural history. They provide eloquent testimony about the slave experience, testimony which corroborates many of the experiences of other former slaves. The informants tell of being treated as mere chattel and of being treated even worse than animals. While one does not get a clear, focused view of slave life on any given plantation, one learns of the horrors of the slave experience in many parts of the South. We have also seen that many slaves thought of their former masters as "good white people," and we wonder at the slaves' magnanimity toward those who owned and almost inevitably abused them. We also learn of some of the ways the slaves spent their time, both at work and, to a lesser extent, at play. As one might expect, the good times were not as frequent as the bad times, and these tapes rarely mention the good times. That the slaves were excellent craftspersons has been documented elsewhere, and these narratives provide further insight into their material culture and folk crafts.

154

JOE GRAHAM

These recordings also remind us that religion can be a tremendous source of strength to an oppressed people. But it can also be used as a means of social control. And perhaps some of us are a bit surprised at the slaves' attitude toward their liberators, the Yankee soldiers, who were often as brutal and prejudiced as the slave owners. Finally, we learn that while the blacks rejoiced in their freedom, their post-slavery experience was fraught with uncertainty, with misery, and with danger. What we learn, in short, is that slavery is humanity at its worst and that it has no socially redeeming value.

Songs, Sermons, and Life-Stories: The Legacy of the Ex-Slave Narratives

Jeutonne P. Brewer

Introduction The October 1987 stock market plunge revived vivid memories of the Great Depression, either in terms of personal experiences or in terms of stories heard. The 1930s Depression was a time of serious need, a time when the government had to help people find work. Harry Hopkins, chief relief administrator for Franklin Roosevelt, realizing the plight of writers and artists when he saw a musician standing in line at a soup kitchen (Jellison 1977), proposed programs to put musicians, artists, actors, and writers to work. The Works Projects Administration (WPA), originally called the Works Progress Administration, eventually included a theater project, an arts project, and a writers' project. According to Dixon Wecter, the Federal Writers' Project (FWP) of the WPA supported "over six thousand journalists, free-lance writers, novelists, poets, Ph.D.'s, and other jobless persons experienced in putting words on paper," including "creative artists of such past or future distinction as Conrad Aiken, Maxwell Bodenheim, Vardis Fisher, John Steinbeck, and Richard Wright. In all, the members of the project completed three hundred and seventy-eight books and pamphlets [between 1935 and 1939] . . . " (1948:260). Of course, many stories about and views of the WPA were negative. In later years there was often shame but rarely pride associated with

156

JEUTONNE BREWER

working on the WPA. Saul Bellow, who worked with the FWP, includes an instructive reference to the WPA in Seize the Day (1961): Hot and bitter, Wilhelm said with pride, while his feet moved angrily under the table, "I don't have to be told about my obligations. I've been meeting them for years. In more than twenty years Tve never had a penny of help from anybody. I preferred to dig a ditch on the WPA but never asked anyone to meet my obligations for me." [Dr. Adler adds] "Wilky is taking it easy and considering various propositions. Isn't that so?" "More or less," said Wilhelm. He suffered his father to increase Mr. Perl's respect for him. The WPA ditch had brought the family into contempt (pp. 37-38).

In addition to programs to produce state guidebooks and to present theatrical productions, the FWP included the Ex-Slave Studies Division, one purpose of which was to collect reminiscences from ex-slaves about their experiences during slavery. My purpose is to share some information and background about the interrelated work of the FWP of the WPA and the Archive of Folk Song (AFS) in collecting these interviews with exslaves. Their efforts included recording interviews by hand while the exslaves related their experiences and to a lesser extent mechanically recording interviews as well as songs, semions, and life stories. Although these efforts seem relatively crude in light of the sophisticated recording equipment, interviewing, and analytical techniques sociolinguists have used during the past twenty years, they preserved a significant part of American history and folklore as related by ex-slaves. Benefitting from the experiences of its predecessor, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), and learning from the weaknesses of that effort in 1935 to collect ex-slave testimony (Cade 1935), the WPA implemented an organized project, guided by professional folklorists, that collected material in seventeen states from ex-slaves, who represented two percent of the population (Yetman 1967). Folklorists John A. Lomax, Benjamin A. Botkin, and Sterling A. Brown guided the WPA project and directed the work of the interviewers. John A. Lomax was appointed the Honorary Consultant and Curator to the AFS in 1933; he was the national folklore advisor from 1936-38, when most of the WPA exslave narratives were collected - in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

157

in 1936, Texas in 1937. He instructed the WPA interviewers (1937) to encourage the ex-slaves to reminisce freely about their experiences in slavery and to record the information as it was related by the ex-slaves. He provided the interviewers with a comprehensive questionnaire containing sample questions about such areas as family names, life in the home, food and cooking, working conditions, masters' treatment of slaves, church services, games, superstitions, medicine and folk cures, and the first year of freedom. Benjamin A. Botkin, who succeeded Lomax in 1938, continued the process of collecting interviews and supervised the preparation of the Library of Congress volumes and the storing of the materials in the Library of Congress. The typescript copies of more than 2,000 narratives deposited in the Library of Congress are contained in Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States (1944). Although long available on microfilm, these WPA materials rested in relative obscurity in the Library of Congress until the 1970s. Forgotten was Botkin's (1939) prediction that the materials would be valuable to researchers in history, folklore, and dialectology. Historians and linguists paid scant attention to the narratives. As Paul Escott notes (1979: 6), historians retained Ulrich Bonnell Phillips' bias against the narratives long after they had discarded the racism contained in his work; Phillips (1952: viii) stated that "reminiscenses are . . . disregarded, for the reason that the lapse of decades has impaired inevitably the memories of men" and claimed that "the asseverations of politicians, pamphleteers, and aged survivors are generally unsafe even in supplement" (1974: 39). Meanwhile dialectologists were conducting their own important research project, the Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada, begun in the late 1930s. It was not until 1972 that these materials were again brought to the attention of scholars, when George P. Rawick provided the Library of Congress typescripts of the WPA narratives as the major part of The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Because he made the texts available without editing them, Rawick was instrumental in opening again the discussion of the significance of slavery and its effects on American culture. Several years later Rawick (1979) published a twelve-volume supplement of additional narratives found in archives throughout the country, making more than 3,500 narratives available.

158

JEUTONNE BREWER

The mechanically recorded AFS interviews also rested in relative obscurity. One reason was that the recordings on aluminum discs would be irretrievably lost if the records were played many times (Lomax 1937), certainly a significant problem for the researcher who wished to transcribe the interviews from the records. When the AFS made the interviews available on tape, it was possible to study the linguistic detail contained in the tapes. The WPA ex-slave narratives differ in several important ways from the data collected in recent sociolinguistic studies: (1) the narratives were written down in longhand as they were spoken rather than recorded on tape; (2) the narratives contain basically one careful style of speech, or at least the researcher usually has to assume that is the style of speech used; (3) the narratives were collected primarily from elderly blacks; there is insufficient information to allow comparisons with the speech of middleaged and adolescent blacks (based on Brewer 1973: 7). The narratives were typically collected by individuals, usually whites, who lived in the area and knew the ex-slaves. William Stewart (1977: 119) has pointed out ways in which one WPA interviewer, Genevieve Chandler, tried to deal with the problems of writing interviews by hand when she collected interviews in South Carolina: While Mrs. Chandler received no formal training in folklore or field interviewing techniques, her work was exemplary. Of course, her impressive background knowledge (including near native fluency in the Gullah dialect) had a lot to do with the quality of her collected material.... Even knowing Gullah, how was afield-interviewerto get a verbatim or even near-verbatim version of rapid, informal speech without recording equipment? Her solution was to invent a sort of "shorthand" ~ actually a form of speed writing -- which collapsed individual word spellings . . . thus allowing her to focus on sentence structure, which was less predictable. The mechanically recorded AFS narratives, collected as a project of the Archive of Folk Song in the Music Division of the Library of Congress, provide important additional data for the study of the form and structure of early black English. Unfortunately these recordings provide only about 30,000-35,000 words of transcript. Bailey (1987a, 1987b) and

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

159

Bailey and Maynor (1987) consistently remind us that these important but limited data should be studied in context and analyses presented in relation to related data or findings of other studies. Researchers who work with the recordings must understand that they are like the WPA ex-slave narratives in that they contain examples from elderly blacks who often use a careful style of speech. In addition, the recording equipment was probably obtrusive, the interview setting was relatively formal, the interviewers were not necessarily trained to use the equipment or to collect interviews, and the social context made it difficult, even possibly dangerous, for the "outsider" to enter a community and collect interviews. Of the 31 records listed by the Archive of Folk Song, seven are of poor recording quality or unintelligible. One interviewer, John Henry Faulk, collected nine of the 24 usable ex-slave records made available on the Archive of Folk Song Reference Tapes.

Interviewing the Interviewer While searching through the FWP archives in the Archive of Folk Song in the Library of Congress, I came across a letter, dated 1 September 1941, from John Henry Faulk to Alan Lomax. Faulk described his experiences on a recent field trip to the Brazos Bottoms in Texas to record interviews: Now for the big news. Hally and I have just returned from a week's recording trip through a portion of the Brazos Bottoms. We found that Rev. Laws had not exaggerated one whit when he declared, "De folks down dere ain' nevuh heahed dey's free yit." I acted . . . on your suggestion to either pass myself off as a Negro or to let them know immediately that I was one with them in spirit, at l e a s t . . . . I have discovered, to my dismay, that my knowledge of the Negro was most superficial. The Negro that reveals himself to other Negroes is an entirely different being from the Negro that I imagined I knew so well (Archive of Folk Song, Folk Song Room, File #39).

160

JEUTONNE BREWER

When I wrote to John Henry Faulk to request permission to work with the AFS recordings he collected, he willingly granted permission. He also agreed to my request to interview him about his experiences as an interviewer. For eight hours I recorded his comments. Faulk freely and openly shared his experiences as a Southerner and as an interviewer for the Archive of Folk Song. From this material emerges an understanding of the problems that interviewers faced and the dangers in entering closed communities. As part of his research for a Master's degree at the University of Texas, John Henry Faulk wrote down in longhand the sermons presented by black preachers. One of his professors, Rudolf Willard, introduced him to the mechanical recording of interviews and accompanied Faulk to black churches for the purpose of recording the services. Realizing that some members of the churches they visited were ex-slaves, Faulk became interested in interviewing these elderly ex-slaves as well as recording black folk sermons and church music. Alan Lomax, whom Faulk considered his mentor, had been appointed a staff member of the Music Division of the Library of Congress in 1937. Lomax and J. Frank Dobie supported Faulk's application for a Julius Rosenwald Fellowship after he had completed his Master's thesis in 1940. The Fellowship provided recording machines; the Library of Congress provided the recording discs and the cutting needles. During the summer of 1941, Faulk recorded church services and individual interviews on fifteen-inch acetate discs, packed them in wooden boxes, and shipped them to the Library of Congress. Faulk describes the process as follows: JHF: Well, Rosenwald was the man that founded Sears Roebuck and set up this Fellowship, the Rosenwald Fellowship, mostly for the blacks down South. He built libraries for them to improve their lot and to do studies of the black. And since mine related to blacks, black studies, it qualified for a Rosenwald Fellowship. And Alan was the archivist at the folk archives, Library of Congress, and he rigged up a deal whereby the archives, the folk archives would furnish me the disks, big acetate disks. They were big fifteen-inch affairs, great big affairs, that you could record on both sides with the cutting needles. And the Rosenwald Foundation would send me the recording machines. I would record —fillup these disks and send them

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

161

to Alan in wooden boxes with an account of what was on each disk. And he would make copies, send me the originals back. Or they'd keep the originals and send the copies back, I forget which (Faulk interview tape #2).

With his introductory experiences in the field, the recording machines and supplies, Faulk began the process of recording black church services and interviews with individual blacks. Faulk received no formal instruction and no specific directions, except the advice provided by Lomax. Faulk said that it was a complete revelation to him "for Alan to say the black don't show you what he means." He added that his experiences confirmed Lomax's comment and revealed the contradiction in the claim that nobody understood blacks like the Southerner. Given the state of technology and of society, the ideal interviewer at that time would have had the strength of Hercules and the technical nimbleness of Edison. Faulk used huge "suitcase-sized" recorders weighing about 80 pounds apiece, that "would take up the entire back seat" of the car. These machines would run on 110 A.C. or batteries, although the battery operation required a converter. Faulk kept the batteries in the back of his car with the microphone, earphones and other assorted equipment. Of course, this equipment was a major improvement over the equipment reported by John Lomax (1937); he noted that the 1933 model electric machine including the amplifier, turntable, two Edison batteries, microphone, cable, and tools, weighed approximately 500 pounds. By 1937 the equipment had been improved and lightened to less than 250 pounds. Nevertheless, Faulk's "improved" equipment was as different from today's light-weight equipment as the console radio is from the pocket-sized radio. The recorders were awkward to operate; they had to be stable and level; the cutting head had to be set to cut to the proper depth. The long hair-like shaving cut from the groove had to be swept toward the middle of the record so that the cutting head would not become entangled. The cutting head could not be allowed to move too far toward the center of the record. In Faulk's words, it was a "pretty complicated damn mess, really."

162

JEUTONNE BREWER

JHF: The Rosenwald Fellowship people furnished the two great recording boxes. I could switch from one to the other; if I was in the middle of a sermon I could just turn the switch and it would start the other one up. They was huge. I guess weighed 80 pounds a piece or thereabouts. Great suitcase-size affairs, with a cutting head on them, an arm that you'd, a cutting head, you'd cut from the outside in, toward the center of the disk, and it would throw up a thread as it recorded; they were acetate, glass-based acetate records at first, which were rather heavy, rather thick. And later on they came up with aluminum-based ones, that were thinner and much easier to handle and not so delicate, but you could break the hell out of one of those glass-based ones. And you had a brush, and you got your machine all cocked and primed it would run off of electricity or off, you know, off 110 A.C. or would run off batteries. And the batteries had to have a converter on it so [it was] a rather awkward operation, and when I would load them into the car it took up the entire back seat, the two of them, and the batteries. I'd put in two batteries. I'd put in regular car batteries. I'd put in the trunk of the car, with the microphone, and the earphones, and all the other accouterments. [The records] came in big wooden boxes to protect them; the whole thing was awkward as hell (Faulk tape #3).

As Faulk explained, he was not technically adept, but he was very interested in recording the interviews. He would often "get carried away" listening to the singing and the stories related to him and forget about the machine: JHF: And I never was a scholar in the sense of making careful notes on everything that was done and, hell, I'd have to listen to the records after I made them to decide what I'd recorded, if I didn't have it written down on one of the sleeves of the tapes. I'd get so carried away with a sermon or get so carried away with the singing that I'd forget to watch my machine and shavings from the cutting head would tangle up or I'd let it go too far toward the center. It had to be stopped at a certain place, and switched over. You'd have the cutting head ready to pick up the service right at that point, so you'd switch and go to the next machine.

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

163

But they all had to be level, and you had to find a place, you couldn't get inside a church 'cause they got these little rickety country churches, see they'd get to jumpin' and stompin' on the damn floor. It'd shake your machine all to hell and gone. Really. Shake over your microphone -- a lot of times. Usually didn't have the machine in sight of respondents. Just the microphone settin' up there. I just turned it on and let it run . . . I just kept a-talkin' and let them forget about it entirely. It wasn't making any damn noise, wasn't interfering. I quite frequently turned it on, and go on about my business and let it run (Faulk tape #3).

John Henry Faulk collected about half of the ex-slave interviews in the AFS collection of mechanically recorded interviews. His interviews with Laura Smalley and Aunt Harriet Smith are two of the best and longest interviews available in this limited collection. Referred to Laura Smalley by members of the black community, Faulk noted that he visited her two or three times before making any recordings. In her 90s at the time of the interview and an adolescent when freed from slavery, Laura Smalley had been a plantation slave who had lived in Hempstead, Texas, all her life. After slavery she had lived in the "quasi-slavery" of Jim Crow days. In his 1941 letter to Alan Lomax, Faulk described Laura Smalley as: ancient and black [sitting on a stool] on the splintery front porch of her rickety little house. She is considered an amiable landmark by the countryside about Hempstead, Texas (where Negroes must put air and water in their cars themselves and not expect a white attendant to service t h e m ) . . . . When after a 30-minute warm-up, she told about her days as a slave on the old B. plantations about fifteen miles away, her voice grew hard and resentful . . . . (letter from John Henry Faulk to Alan Lomax, September 1, 1941, Archive of Folk Song archives). JHF: A great many people knew her there, and said, "Oh, you gotta see Miss Laura Smalley. She 'members back yonder, 'way 'fore anybody, she can 'member from way back yonder, a long time." I think I went to see Miss Smalley two or three times before she got completely comfortable, and I set the machine there on the porch and I ran the machine by settin' on the

164

JEUTONNE BREWER

steps, kept my eye on it. Unfortunately you couldn't take your eye off the machine a moment while it was recording, you had to keep the stuff swept back, the filings from the acetate record. And fortunately, as you discovered, Miss Smalley was very responsive, her eyes would kind of glaze over as she'd get to thinking, and rumination. Then all of a sudden, it would burst out (Faulk tape #1).

Aunt Harriet Smith, another ex-slave interviewed by Faulk, had been the only slave of a family rather than a plantation slave. Faulk had known Aunt Harriet all his life; her grandson had been his childhood friend. Faulk's father had been the court-appointed guardian for Aunt Harriet's son, who had been permanently disabled when he was gassed during World War I. JHF: So I'd known Aunt Harriet since I was an infant. And she had adjusted terribly well to the, well, a little status she had in society. She was no matriarch, but everybody knew Aunt Harriet. We all told funny stories about Aunt Harriet. She kind of reveled in this. She liked to be the center of attention. She was kind of "spiled," as it were. I mean her speech seemed really more primitive than Laura Smalley's was though, which surprised me, 'cause I would think it would be the other way around. Aunt Harriet was surrounded by white families all her life, you know, and very close to our family. And Laura Smalley, she lived in isolation down there. Isolation as far as the white was concerned (Faulk tape #1).

Social Situation in the 1930s In their introductory essay, Montgomery and Bailey (1986: 2) note that James McMillan reminds us that "to understand language variation in the South, it is always of utmost importance to know who talks to whom, when, and where." This is a particularly important fact in closed communities. For those who conducted the interviews in the 1930s, understanding the organization of closed communities was literally a matter of life and death.

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

165

Important to the survival as well as the success of the field worker was an understanding of the social situation. As Charles S. Johnson pointed out in his book, The Shadow of the Plantation (1934: xi-xii, xx), the plantation system of the early 1930s remained "essentially what it was before the Civil War. With emancipation the Negro field hand on the plantation suddenly became the Negro tenant farmer. However, actual change was not great." This situation had to be understood and taken seriously by interviewers; they would be entering closed black communities, closed by whites to unknown outsiders. To enter these communities without permission was dangerous. John Henry Faulk explains how he had to check in with the county sheriff and white leaders in a community before he tried to conduct recording sessions. JHF: One had to very careful. I had to ingratiate myself with the white community. You had to get permission as it were, before you start talking to the darkies. Because you go gliding in there with a car full of recording equipment, next thing you know somebody's liable to let go with a blast of shotgun at you. This was made very clear to me. So what you did, is check in with the proper authorities, the county sheriff and leaders in the community, and say, "Hey, I'm interested in, you know, where there is a good nigger church?" You spoke their language. You didn't stir up their suspicions and hostilities, or else you, by God, just well stay away, because you weren't going in (Faulk tape #2).

Faulk relates a frightening experience when an old man at the general store misunderstood his purpose and thought that he might be a "trouble maker," a union organizer: JHF: I was pretty cautious, you know. I had lived with the, I don't like the term, but the redneck attitude, the killers, the, the lynch-minded, the "youkeep-the-niggers-in-their-place" minded folk, and was familiar enough with them to realize there was real danger there, like there is in messing around with a rattlesnake. They'll kill you. They'll do violence pretty quickly. And I also had come to understand that the control in the town, including Austin, Texas, was in the hands of a certain element that kept a pretty careful eye out; their control wouldn't be challenged. And I wasn't naive.

166

JEUTONNE BREWER

In other words, I didn't go barging off as an infant. And when I got down to Hearne, I remember going out to these plantation areas, wide, vast, just endless fields, miles of beautiful bottom lands, you know. I got out there, and there was an old man running a store. I'd seen this little church, and I drove over to see if it was anything. Couldn't find any blacks around. There were clusters of black houses, but all the blacks were out in the fields, including their children. And so I drove back down the lane and drove over to this store. This old gentleman was sitting on the front porch of his store, little general grocery store. And he didn't move when I drove up in the car. He didn't show the slightest signs of, I had this equipment, all this uh, in the car, and I said, "I'm uh, you don't know whose place this is over here?" He said, "Of course I know whose place it is." I said, "Well I'm interested in going to that colored church there and do some recording." I told him who I was, and what I was. And he got very hostile. He said, "Well, let' see some of them." And I said, "See some what?" "Them there pamphlets you're handin' out." I said, "Well, I don't understand what you mean." "Didn't you say you was down here handin' out pamphlets?" And I said, "Oh, no, no, no, no, no. We're completely on different broadcasting and receiving circuits. I'm, I'm down here recording these colored sermons, these colored church services, for the University of Texas, the archives. I don't receive anything from it, I'm on a fellowship, I'm very interested in them. And you know how niggers can sing, and we wanna keep these old-timey songs that's goin' out of style, so." And this relieved him considerably. "On, well, I misunderstood." But he was very hostile, he made it very -- and then he discoursed, gave me a long speech on what happened when the wrong sort of people come down there. "There's a lot of that going on, you know. They agitating these niggers, they're trying to get our niggers to go out to West Texas. That there's one trouble. And then there's this bunch coming out of Washington, D. C , you know, this communist crowd, comin' out there, pizenin' up these nigger's minds. We, we git along just fine down here, everything just going just fine, we didn't never have no trouble, and we ain't lookin' for none to start, neither. We're ready fer it." I remember he said it so coldly, and with such utter conviction, I realized that hell, he would have picked up his damn phone, called and said, "Pick that feller off when he crosses the river . . . you know." That's the way they did, is shoot folks from the woods, and

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

167

the sheriff just couldn't find no, and helluva lot, a great number of CIO organizers come down with stars in their eyes, to bring the gospel, were found corpses, under bridges, and on roadsides (Faulk tape #3).

Talking with an elderly black man, Faulk learned a difficult and painful lesson about his prejudice: JHF: Now you have to understand dear, that there was a lot of half-baked attitudes on my part at that period. I was still a white Southerner. I still had a great deal of condescension, a great deal of patronizing, in my attitude. 'Cause I knew our darkies so well. I didn't know it, see, 'cause you can imagine my amazement, my astonishment. One time in 1942, had a profound effect on me. I was sittin' out on a lake and talking with this ol' black man who was completely illiterate, and was telling him what a different kind of white man I was. I had become educated on blacks, except we called them colored folks. And so, you know, "You might not realize it, but I'm not like white folks you run into down here, I believe in the right, I believe in giving you the right to go to school. To good schools. Now I know you don't want to go with white people, I don't believe in, you know, going overboard on this thing, but I believe colored people ought to be given good schools, and I believe you ought to be given the right to go into whatever you qualified to go into. And I believe you ought to be given the right to vote." See at that time blacks couldn't vote in Texas; Democratic primaries excluded them and they were the only primaries that meant anything down here. Not only that, but the damn tax, the voting tax, what do they call it — poll tax ~ was another means of depriving them. And I remember him looking at me, very sadly and kinda sweetly, and condescendingly. He said, "You know, you still got the disease, honey. I know you think you're cured but you're not cured. See you're talking there, you're sitting there talking, and I know it's nice, and I know you're a good man, talking about giving me this and giving me that right. You talking about giving me something that I was born with just like you was born with it. You can't give me the right to be a human being. I'm born with that right. Now you can keep me from having that. If you've got all the policemen, and all the

168

JEUTONNE BREWER

jobs on your side, you can deprive me of it. But you can't give it to me. 'Cause I was born with it just like you was." My God, it had a profound effect on me. I was furious with him. "You try to be kind to these people, you see, and give them an inch and they'll take an ell. You can't be nice either; that's tough damn." But the more I reflected on it, the more profoundly it affected me (Faulk tape #1).

Conclusion

An understanding of both the ex-slave narratives and the recordings requires an understanding of the task facing the WPA and AFS interviewers, black and white. The information from Faulk indicates that we must consider the historical context of the 1930s and the social factors that all interviewers in the South had to contend with as we evaluate attempts to collect interviews from ex-slaves. As Faulk wrote to Alan Lomax: One is immediately struck with the ugly, suspicious expression that constantly lurks about their [whites of the area] faces. I suspect the strangers and "niggers" enjoy about the same prestige with these people [in the bottom lands] (Letter from John Henry Faulk to Alan Lomax, September 1, 1941; Archive of Folk Song).

However, Faulk's interview with Laura Smalley demonstrates that a white could successfully interview an elderly black on her front porch and could admit and begin to face his prejudices. Anyone who listens to the AFS tapes will recognize that Faulk was a capable interviewer. He asked questions that prompted Laura Smalley and Harriet Smith to talk about their experiences. He allowed them to talk at length about topics of interest to them. He was interested in what they had to say. The reader or listener will also recognize that Faulk, like other interviewers, had difficulty collecting information on socially sensitive topics, particularly blacks' racial attitudes toward whites and sexual relations between blacks and whites. Perhaps because he had known Harriet Smith all his life, Faulk asked questions about these matters. Harriet Smith adopted a defensive

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

169

strategy of retreating into incomprehensible speech, mumbling. However, when Harriet Smith was willing to answer a question, her comments were clear. As the transcripts of the AFS recordings demonstrate, she could stress her point emphatically. When Faulk (FW below) asked questions about sexual relations between blacks and whites, Harriet Smith did not suffer his ignorance patiently (HS: 509-533): FW: Well I did, I didn't mean at your home. I mean around though. Did you hear of any, anything like that going on in those days? HS: No. Yes. [mumbles] Well, the girls, we didn' run with them. They, had different classes you know. Girls run, colored girls running

FW: HS: FW: HS: FW: HS:

FW: HS:

white boys, an' white boys would come over at night. But we didn't associate with them [FW interrupts]. Well did much of that go on in those days? Very little of it. I's going on more now than it did in my raising up days. Is that right. Yes sir. Yes sir. Well I, I think this might have gone on. Yes. They, they uh, we didn' go with them. Didn' associate with their kin' no how. I's going on more now than it did in my raising. An' my sisters and me [FW interrupts]. Yeah, you know that little John Jr. across the street from you looks, he's got almost blonde hair. Yes.

FW: His hair's white looking. HS: Uh huh. His mama, yes, his, his mama Miss F. is his grandma. Yes, Miss F.'s son P. M. is his, is his father, her oldes' son. FW: Well her name's B. though. HS: I don' care what her name is. Her name's F. ., but she married a B. But B. wasn't these children's father. FW: Oh I see.

Faulk respected the feelings of the ex-slaves about their harsh treatment; he was willing to wait until they were willing to talk:

170

JEUTONNE BREWER

Over in the deep Bottom lands, in the Oldham Settlement, where the Negroes are held to the land by threats and beatings, we found Mrs. Alf Nellams, old and toothless and bitter taking care of her sick daughter in a tumbling cabin. She was unfriendly and reluctant to carry on a conversation at first. She would only sit and gaze with defiant eye across the endless field of tall green cotton the landlord's cotton - where dozens of stooping figures sweated and dragged cotton sacks along in the hot sun (letter from John Henry Faulk to Alan Lomax, September 1, 1941; Archive of Folk Song).

Faulk's patience and perseverance paid off. He traveled through the countryside in the days before Holiday Inn and other companies provided a place to spend the night: "We slept on cots beside the car every night and bathed in what creeks we could find" (letter from John Henry Faulk to Alan Lomax, September 1, 1941; Archive of Folk Song). One result of his efforts was a valuable collection of black church services, a collection which Pitts (1986b) has recently used. Another result, of course, is these recordings of ex-slave testimony. In his comments about the WPA ex-slave narratives, C. Vann Woodward (1974: 477) has appropriately assessed the situation for linguists as well as for historians: Any historian who attempts to make sense of emancipation and Reconstruction will have to bring his bucket to this well. It is one of the deepest reservoirs of ex-slave testimony on two of the most profound historical experiences of the race. Here are spelled out many of the meanings of freedom and how it was perceived.

An understanding of the ex-slave interviews collected by the WPA and the AFS requires an understanding of the task facing the interviewers, including: (1) the opportunities of and the restrictions on white interviewers in the South; (2) the necessity of their ingratiating themselves with the white officials before interviewing blacks; (3) the process of learning about their own prejudice, condescension, and lack of understanding; and (4) the dangers that white Southerners who changed their racist views faced.

SONGS, SERMONS AND LIFE STORIES

171

Faulk learned that the dangers could -- and did -- linger long after the narratives were collected. When he obtained a copy of his FBI dossier through the Freedom of Information Act, he learned that his troubles with the FBI began with his changing attitudes while collecting interviews. In the 1950s, Faulk lost his job and suffered the pain and problems of blacklisting in part because his FBI file contained references to his attitude toward blacks, references that proved that he had "communist sympathies." Thanks to the perseverance of fieldworkers like John Henry Faulk, however, linguists and historians are left with crucial records of the attitudes, daily life, and language of early black Americans. As the work of Brewer (1973, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1986a&b), Schneider (1981, 1983), Pitts (1981, 1986a&b), and Viereck (1986), and the essays in this volume demonstrate, these records can have a significant impact on our understanding of the evolution of black English. In fact, they provide our most reliable evidence for resolving such disputes as those between the creolists and dialect geographers over the origins of black English, providing data on such forms as verbal -s, invariant be, and nonconcord am (see the Introduction to this volume for further detail). While the function of these forms and the origins of black English remain unresolved problems, they cannot be addressed without the kinds of complementary coverage provided by the WPA narratives and the AFS recordings.

The Linguistic Value of the Ex-Slave Recordings

Michael Montgomery

In the lengthy introduction to his landmark collection Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, Interviews, and Autobiographies (1977), John W. Blassingame surveys the documentary material produced by American slaves and ex-slaves and evaluates its usefulness for his fellow historians. Early in his discussion, he identifies several matters which must be weighed as carefully as possible before such material may be adequately judged: . . . in order to understand slavery from the vantage point of blacks, one must carefully study black testimony and suggest ways it can be used. Historians need to know, for example, how to analyze interviews conducted with former slaves in the twentieth century. Which of the published autobiographies can be verified by independent sources? Which of them are least reliable? What kinds of questions can and cannot be answered by resorting to the accounts of the former slaves? How many of the stories were written by the blacks themselves? Who edited the published narratives? (1977: xviii)

Blassingame devotes most of his attention to assessing the value of one genre of documents, ex-slave narratives, examining the historical merits of a century of these accounts from antebellum times through the more than two thousand narratives collected by the Works Progress Administration from 1936 to 1938, better known as the Federal Writers'

174

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

Project's Slave Narrative Collection. In particular, he outlines three sets of problems confronting researchers who wish to use such narratives.

Problems With Conduct of the Interviews First, Blassingame identifies problems deriving from the manner in which the interviews were carried out, especially associated with the interaction between interviewers and their informants since they were never on equal social footing. Few WPA interviews were conducted by fellow blacks. At best the white interviewers were usually untrained in the techniques of conducting successful interviews, and often they were unsympathetic or condescending toward the ex-slaves they were interviewing. Many of these interviewers "refused, initially, to accept 'the wrong answers'" (1977: xlv) as they pressured their informants to paint a rosy picture of contented life as slaves. Many ex-slaves as a result "were naturally guarded (and often misleading) in their responses to certain questions" (1977: xlv). These factors and others connected with the interviewing process may well have affected the form and content of the narratives found in Rawick. Having the Library of Congress ex-slave recordings and their transcripts will allow researchers to begin gauging the validity of these criticisms of the WPA ex-slave material, criticisms pertinent for both historians and linguists. For linguists, examining the techniques used by white interviewers may provide valuable clues about the formality of the typical interview situation and the consequent effect on the style of language used by the ex-slaves.1

Problems With Reliability of the Data Second, there are problems assessing the reliability of the ex-slave narratives. Many of them are obviously not verbatim accounts, and although the degree to which they were edited is difficult to determine, there is definite evidence of "deliberate distortion and interpolation of the views of the WPA staffers" (1977: xlviii). This occurred despite efforts by folklorist Sterling A. Brown, one of the project's editors in the Washington

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

175

office, to persuade writers of the narratives to standardize their "dialect usage" in a lengthy memorandum he sent to sixteen state offices on June 20, 1936 (Brown 1986). In addition, there is indisputable evidence from the state WPA offices that narratives were edited before being sent to Washington. At least three scholars have discussed discrepancies between earlier versions of the written narratives and the versions eventually sent to Washington. Blassingame himself pointed out a decade ago (1977: xlix) that interviews conducted by Ralph Jones in Georgia in 1936 and 1937 showed clear alteration, appearing in significantly different versions in issues of Georgia Review (1967, 1968) and in Rawick 1972, the former having accounts of cruel punishments by masters and no dialect spellings, the latter having testimony by the ex-slaves of kind treatment by their masters and frequent dialect spellings. More recently, two linguists (Maynor 1988 and Dillard 1987) have discovered further evidence of editing in state WPA offices. Dillard has identified at least three versions of some Louisiana narratives in state archives, noting anecdotally that later drafts of some had considerably fewer dialect forms than earlier ones. Maynor, in examining thirteen interviews having two different versions, one in the Rawick 1972 collection of narratives and another in the Rawick 1977/1979 supplement, compares the person/number distribution of present tense forms of the verb be in these pairs of interviews and in the taped narratives of former slaves. Her findings are startling. One is that with present-tense forms of all verbs and past-tense forms of the verb be I found a discrepancy rate of approximately thirty percent, with the majority of the discrepancies resulting from the use of the 'standard' forms in Rawick 1977/1979 [actually earlier drafts of interviews than in the 1972 collection] and 'non-standard' forms in Rawick 1972 (p. 6).

A general comparison of the Rawick 1972 and Rawick 1977/1979 data with the tape transcripts reveals that both sets of written narratives are radically more nonstandard in language patterns than the ex-slaves who were recorded, according to Maynor. In the Rawick 1972 interviews, for example, am is used as first-person singular only once but as third singular

176

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

eighteen times; in the tape transcripts, am is used 85 times as first singular and never as third singular. Maynor concludes that the interviews in Rawick are generally equivalent to literary dialect material as data giving insight to actual speech patterns. In short, mounting evidence of at least six kinds has thrown doubt on the closeness of the published WPA narratives to verbatim accounts and has clouded the prospects for linguists using them in the future: 1) Multiple versions of some accounts exist, as discussed above. 2) The cleanness of copy and polished style in printed narratives resemble carefully edited manuscripts rather than transcripts of conversation exhibiting false starts, interruptions, sentence fragments, frequent repetitions, and other characteristic features. In other words, they are presented in edited, narrative form rather than as interviews. 3) The inadequate training of interviewers, of whom few knew stenography, forced them to record or reconstruct details of interviews laterfrommemory. 4) Directives for editing for dialect that were issued by the federal WPA office were inconsistently followed, throwing doubt on their credibility as guidelines. At best, Sterling Brown's memorandum dealt almost entirely with avoiding phonetic spellings. It could not, even if followed, account for differences discovered by Maynor nor those discussed in the current paper. 5) The extreme variation between narratives in the presence and frequency of grammatical features, as mentioned by Maynor and as discussed below. A quick perusal of Rawick narratives reveals that some use invariant nonstandard forms such as am as the only third-person singular form of be, while other narratives never employ am in any context. 6) Statements by Rawick himself (1977: xxxi) that "the narratives were taken down in pencil or pen, most often after the interview, from memory or from scattered field notes supplemented by memory" and that "these are not verbatim recordings of conversations," thus cautioning against their unguided use by linguists.

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

177

This evidence raises a range of documentary questions -- how much editing was undertaken by the interviewers? by other individuals in the state WPA offices? can the degree of editing be gauged? was the editing consistent from state to state or within any state? -- that call for research into state archives to discover the roles of state offices and individual editors in preparation of the material in the Rawick volumes.

Problems with Quality of the Data The third type of problem Blassingame discusses concerns the quality and representativeness of information, occasioned by local conditions, the availability of interviewers and informants, and other constraints, that is to be found in WPA ex-slave narratives. Even given the time lapse between conducting interviews and writing out the narratives, interviewers screened out much of the more unpleasant testimony they heard. The sample of exslaves chosen to be interviewed was biased in favor of "most obsequious former slaves" (Blassingame: li). States were unequally represented. More than forty percent of the former slaves interviewed were from Arkansas or Texas, while Virginia, Kentucky, and border states were greatly underrepresented. Fewer than twenty percent of the interviews were longer than five typed pages (Blassingame: li). As a result of the recognition of the problems in using ex-slave narratives for linguistic or historical analysis, the existence of even a few recorded interviews presents a crucial test case and a significant opportunity to answer some of the documentary concerns raised above. The consistency of the ex-slave recordings and their transcripts with the published WPA narratives in the Rawick collection, the latter presented in the form of modified transcripts, is important for confirming or countering the reliability of the Rawick collection of narratives. Given recent controversies over the value of the WPA materials, in the wake of their use in dissertations by Brewer and Schneider, and questions raised about their being edited at one or more stages, their continued use seems questionable. Comparing the transcripts of the ex-slave recordings to them seems the best opportunity for validating the WPA narratives and assigning them an accurate position in the historical record.

178

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

Both the ex-slave recordings and the narratives published in the Rawick collections represent crucial resources for addressing questions about earlier black speech in the United States. The present investigation explores the usefulness of the transcripts of the ex-slave recordings for addressing two major issues in the study of nineteenth-century Southern American black speech. One issue has already been mentioned — the validation of the massive collection of written versions of WPA ex-slave narratives (Rawick 1972, 1977, 1979). Though the WPA interviews were carried out in the fourth decade of the twentieth century, it is likely that the speech patterns of those ex-slaves had changed relatively little from their earlier years because of the isolated, sedentary, rural lives they had led. Despite its deficiencies, the Rawick narratives thus hold as much promise as any other source of data for telling us about nineteenth-century black American speech. To investigate how reliable the WPA written narratives are, this study compares eleven interviews from the Rawick 1972 collection with the transcripts of the eleven ex-slave recordings. It examines eleven interviews that are similar in length made with ex-slaves of the same sex and from the same states.2 Our reasoning is as follows. If a given grammatical feature occurs significantly more often in one set of interviews than in another, or if its range of distribution is significantly different between the two sets of data, this casts doubt on the reliability of the written narratives. If the feature is a markedly nonstandard one (such as "nonagreeing am" studied by Brewer 1979 or multiple negation by Schneider 1981), this suggests that it may have been subject to conscious editing in written narratives, i.e., either edited out or edited in. If the feature is less salient and there is still a significant difference in frequency or distribution, this provides an index to the degree to which the written narratives may well not reflect spoken usage.3 The two features selected for comparison for the two sets of interviews have relatively little salience -- left dislocation and relative pronoun choice. In left dislocation, a noun or noun phrase comes at the beginning of a sentence or clause and is replaced by a pronoun in the sentence itself. While one type of left dislocation is called "double subject" (e.g., my mother, she . . . ) and is sometimes listed as a feature of ethnic varieties of American English, studies such as Montgomery 1979 have

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

179

shown left dislocation to be a widespread and diverse pattern occurring in conversational style for all social types. Relative pronoun choice involves whether that, what, who, a zero form, or another form is used to introduce relative clauses. The data on relative pronouns will also be compared to the findings of Schneider's study of 104 carefully selected Rawick narratives (Schneider 1982). The second issue investigated in this paper is the relationship between Lower Southern black speech of the plantation belt and Gullah (also known as Geechee and more recently as Sea Island Creole) spoken on the offshore islands of South Carolina and Georgia. In recent literature on the history of American black speech, several scholars, especially J. L. Dillard and William Stewart, have hypothesized that most American black speech once had a creole base and that nineteenth-century Southern black speech resembled Gullah much more than it does today, since the creole features of Southern black speech have now been either eliminated by the process of decreolization or greatly obscured through a process of relexification. This presumed ancestor of black speech was in fact alluded to much earlier by George Krapp, who believed that "two hundred years ago all the Negroes in America must have spoken a language very similar to Gullah" (1924: 193), while half a century later Dillard called the suggestion that black plantation speech was "a more widespread Gullah" a "modest proposal" and speculated that the ancestor might even be "closer to Saramaccan" (1975: 96). The historian Peter Wood characterized Gullah "the roots of Black English" (1974: 67). Stewart and Dillard have supported the hypothesis mainly with scattered attestations from literary, journalistic, and similar sources and with inferences from comments of diarists and other writers. As insightful as such data may turn out to be, it is rarely, if ever, voluminous enough to quantify in order to examine the relative frequency of forms in different linguistic environments and explore the effect of different linguistic environments on the subtle variation of these forms (an exception to this is the recent paper by Repka and Evans, which analyzes nearly 2,400 "literary attestations of the present tense of be [in the speech of black characters] in the works of selected American writers from 1767 to 1982" (1986: 2)). However plausible, the hypothesis that American black English is a descendant of a Gullah-like creole appears difficult to test because of the

180

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

paucity of early documentary material reflecting speech patterns. It was to examine the possibility that the data in the Rawick narratives reflected a homogeneous plantation creole that Schneider undertook his quantitative analysis of 104 WPA interviews for his 1981 monograph. Given the questions raised above about the reliability of the data that Schneider relied on, we must seek additional avenues for exploring the question of the homogeneity of nineteenth-century American black speech. The present paper undertakes this by comparing the use of relative pronouns in the transcripts of the WPA ex-slave recordings and comparable Rawick narratives with relative pronoun use in Gullah reported by Mufwene 1986a, based on transcripts in Turner 1949 and on tape-recorded data collected by himself on the South Carolina Sea Islands.

Left Dislocation Left dislocation is a construction in which a noun, noun phrase, or noun clause appears at the beginning of a sentence or clause and has an appropriate pronoun or other copy following it in the sentence. Montgomery 1979 identifies left dislocation as a frequent conversational device used, particularly in narratives, by all speakers in a sample of 40 residents of a small town in East Tennessee, most often functioning as a thematic device introducing a new person or object into the conversation. In that study, it occurs 606 times in approximately 40 hours of interviews, 356 times (59%) corresponding to the subject of a main clause but exhibiting an immense range of 1) dislocated structures of varying structural complexity from simple noun to complex noun clause; 2) pronouns in varying syntactic positions (subject, direct object, object of preposition, etc.) representing the dislocated noun or noun phrase; and 3) distances between the dislocated noun phrase and its pronoun copy. Examples of left dislocation from the recorded ex-slave transcripts are the following: (1)

An' that ol' woman, you know, she would ten' to them (LS: 18-19);

(2)

anybody you know around here, as' them 'bout my principles (BL: 195-196);

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

(3) (4)

181

the people that were slaves, there couldn' many of them go to school (FH: 184-185); When Mama, she was at Mrs. C.'s here, uh, uh, uh a house girl there (CB: 97-98).

Comparison of the two sets of data reveals that left dislocation is far rarer in the Rawick narratives than in the ex-slave recordings, as Table 1 shows. All of the recorded informants used left dislocation except Wallace Quarterman, whose interview was one of the shortest, while only half (six of eleven) of the Rawick informants used it, and one of the eleven Rawick informants accounted for nearly half the examples (six). More important than raw numbers, however, is that the range of left dislocated constructions in the ex-slave recordings approximates that discussed in Montgomery 1979 in their structural complexity, as shown in Table 2. TABLE 1 Comparison Of Left Dislocation No. of Occurrences No. of Informants Using Construction

Rawick Narratives 13 6

Ex-Slave Recordings 40 10

We see from the first part of Table 2 that the ex-slave transcripts include several types of left dislocated structures that never occur in the Rawick data. This is particularly true for complex nouns modified by a relative clause (17 of these), shown in sentences (2) and (3) above. The transcripts also exhibit the use of a type of pronoun copy, demonstrative that (four instances), shown in (5) and (6) below, that does not occur in the Rawick data. (5)

Now that J. N., that was the oldes' boy (BL: 109).

(6)

the one that name me, Charlie Smith, that's the white man raise me, in Texas (CS: 404-405).

182

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

We also see from Table 2 that in the ex-slave transcripts left dislocated nouns correspond to a wider range of syntactic positions than in the Rawick materials. Ten of the thirteen left dislocations in the Rawick narratives are displacements of simple subjects to adjacent positions, while there are 29 instances of this pattern in the ex-slave recordings, as in sentences (7) and (8) (from Rawick) below: (7)

My mother, she wore de Yankee flag under her dress (Bruin: 18).

(8)

Jade, he neber got ober dat whuppin' (Holland: 29). TABLE 2 Patterns Of Left Dislocation

Complexity of Dislocation Simple Noun Adjective + Noun Noun + Prepositional Phrase or Adverb Adjective + Noun + Prepositional Phrase Noun + Relative Clause Adjective + Noun + Relative Clause Noun Clause TOTAL Syntactic Position Represented Subject of Main Clause Direct Object Object of Preposition Subject of Lower Clause Genitive/Possessive Adjective TOTAL

Rawick Narratives

Ex-Slave Recordings

4 8

8 12

0

2

1 0

0 16

0 0

1 1

13

40

10 2 1 0 0

29 6 2 2 1

13

40

Eleven examples of left dislocation from the ex-slave recordings involve displacements of other syntactic positions, including object of preposition, shown in sentence (9), and subject of a lower clause, in sentence (10): (9)

Old Colonel M., they said he was a speculator (BM: 66).

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

183

(10) An' when they started a little school, why the people that were slaves, there couldn' many of them go to school (FH: 183-185).

This brief sketch comparing left dislocation constructions in the two sets of eleven interviews reveals clear differences in both frequency and type. There is little resemblance between the two sets of interviews in regard to this linguistic feature strongly supporting the view that the Rawick transcripts do not represent unedited, conversational narratives.

Relative Pronouns Relative pronouns are examined in the two sets of interviews for three reasons. Relative clauses were expected to occur frequently enough to compare the quantitative distribution of relative pronouns. Although Mufwene (1986a) had only 61 clauses in his corpus representing approximately fifteen hours and some scholars (e.g., Schachter 1974) have established that relative clauses are constructions that can easily be avoided, at least by second-language learners unsure of how to manipulate them in writing, we find nearly equal and relatively large numbers of relative clauses in our sets of data, as shown in Table 3, indicating that we have comparable samples. Second, there are few, if any, types of relative clauses (at least for restrictive relatives) without variable choice and occurrence of relative pronouns. Third, relative pronoun use interacts with other features of these clauses -- the type of clause (restrictive, nonrestrictive, etc.), location of clause in the sentence, syntactic function of the relative pronoun in the relative clause, and so on. The figures in Table 3, especially those under "Relative Pronoun Used," disguise some of the crucial differences in the two sets of data. There are significant differences in the distribution of pronouns in specific types of clauses, which, as we will see, will cast further doubt on the reliability of the Rawick data.

184

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY TABLE 3 Relative Pronoun Use

Total Clauses Restrictives Nonrestrictives

Rawick Narratives 167 115 (69%) 52 (31%)

Relative Pronoun Used That What Zero Where Who Others

32 (19%) 24 (14%) 94 (56%) 5 (3%) 6 (4%) 6 (4%)

Ex-Slave Recordings 158 125 (79%) 33 (21%) 48 9 85 14 0 2

(30%) (6%) (54%) (9%) (0%) (1%)

In more respects than not, subtotals in the sets of data are similar, but this may be due to several factors. These similarities may reflect the natural distribution of relative clauses features (as governed by the KeenanComrie Accessibility Hierarchy and other constraints, for instance). In this analysis we will deal briefly with specific aspects of relative pronouns in which the data differs, such as the use of what and a zero form as relative pronouns. The relative pronoun what, common in earlier stages of English but prevalent today only in folk speech, occurs nine times in the speech of four speakers in the ex-slave recordings, as shown in (11) and (12) below. (11) Them what didn' nurse, they didn' come to them at all (LS: 47-48). (12) My first name,firstname what my mother name me, is Mitchell (CS: 10-11).

By contrast, it is used 24 times in the Rawick data by only five speakers. If we ignore the fact that more than half the occurrences in Rawick (thirteen) come from the narrative of Ellen Betts (half of whose 26 relative clauses had what), the percentage of occurrence is quite similar. The large number of what's in Betts' interview, however, creates a dilemma: while it may appear to be excessive, and possibly introduced by the interviewer, including these occurrences of what pushes the percentage of what in the Rawick sample (14%) toward the figure reported by Schneider in his study

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

185

(27.7%). As Table 4 shows, Schneider found what to be a prominent feature of the 104 narratives from Rawick he examined, in fact, the second most frequent variant used in his sample of 786 clauses. The zero form occurs at an almost identical rate for our two sets of data — 56% for the Rawick narratives and 54% for the ex-slave recordings — both markedly higher than Schneider's findings from a larger sample of Rawick interviews. Examining the context of these zero forms is crucial, since for all speakers of English the zero is a variant when it represents a direct or prepositional object of a relative clause, but only for some speakers when it represents the subject. The latter pattern, sometimes termed Subject Relative Pronoun Deletion, is shown in (13) and (14) below. (13) There's some of them (14) she got a daughter

couldn' read (HS: 376). stay out here in the country (LS: 458-459).

TABLE 4 Relative Pronoun Use Reported By Schneider Relative Pronoun Zero As Object of Clause As Subject of Clause What That Who, Whom, Which Simple Personal and Possessive Pronouns

Schneider (1982: 36) 303 (38.6%) 286 (36.4%) 17 (2.2%) 218 (27.7%) 207 (26.3%) 45 (5.7%) 13 (1.7%)

As we see in Table 5, in all three sets of data the subjectness vs objectness of the relative pronoun greatly influences the occurrence of the zero form. In addition, as Schneider has pointed out, the humanness vs nonhumanness of the head noun of the relative clause is also an influential factor; the data in the other two sets of data confirms Schneider's finding that subject zero forms are much more likely to have human headnouns than nonhuman ones and object forms the reverse. It is unclear why this is so.

186

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY TABLE 5 Patterning Of Zero Form In Relative Clauses Schneider (1982: 36)

As Object of Clause With Human Headnouns With Nonhuman Headnouns As Subject of Clause With Human Headnouns With Nonhuman Headnouns Total Zero Forms

286 40 246 17 15 2 303

Rawick Narratives 91 3 88 3 2 1 94

Ex-Slave Recordings 66 7 59 19 19 0 85

The most striking figure in this table is the number of zero forms (nineteen of 158 — 12% of the total) in the ex-slave recordings that function as subjects of relative clauses. For both samples from the Rawick materials, only approximately two percent of the relatives are of this type. This may indicate that the ex-slave recordings reflect a natural tendency in folk speech to delete the relative pronoun in this context (Montgomery 1979 found nearly 300 instances of this pattern). In any case, the Rawick narratives appear to underrepresent this feature and are likely to have been subjected to editing on this point.

Comparison To Gullah As mentioned earlier, Mufwene (1986a) found only 61 restrictive relative clauses, including infinitival and appositive clauses, in data of his and Turner's. In this restricted data, only whe/wa (brought about by a reanalysis resulting in a merger of where and what whereby these two forms "appear to alternate freely" [Mufwene 1986a: 6]) competes with zero in introducing relative clauses. Most noticeable is the absence of that in Mufwene's Gullah data, a form which occurs between nineteen and thirty percent of the time in the three sets of data from ex-slaves presented in Tables 3 and 4. The complete lack of other wh- forms (who, whom, and which) in the ex-slave recordings, and their limited appearance in the WPA narratives, should not be surprising; there is much evidence, for instance,

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

187

that white folk speech lacks which, uses who to only a marginal extent, and normally employs a zero form (19% of the time) or that (71% of the time) in restrictive relative clauses (Montgomery and Lee 1987: 37). In view of the differences between Mufwene's data and that collected in the WPA materials, however, the latter reveals little resemblance between the speech of the elderly ex-slaves interviewed and Gullah; if anything, the WPA material suggests that the black speech it contains showed greater similarity to Southern white folk speech.

Summary In this paper, we have explored the similarities and differences in the patterning of left dislocation and relative pronoun use in two sets of data from the speech of former slaves. Left dislocation was found to occur more than three times as often in the ex-slave recordings than in the Rawick data. The relative lack of left dislocation, more a conversational device than a dialect feature, and its limited range in the Rawick texts are thus evidence of the extent to which these "narratives" are not transcripts of natural conversations, but are instead distillations of conversations. Clearly a certain amount of editorial work on the written version of these narratives has been done, since, if the ex-slave transcripts are typical, they must have often been rambling and repetitive (Charlie Smith's interview is a prime example of this). In print, left dislocations may appear to an editor to be little more than redundancies. But if they were "edited out" of the narratives for this reason, this raises the crucial question of exactly what was considered important to keep? In addition, this paper has shown interesting differences between the Rawick narratives and the ex-slave recordings in relative pronoun use, in that some nonstandard features such as the use of what as a relative pronoun occur significantly more in the Rawick materials, while others such as subject relative pronoun deletion occur more often in the ex-slave recordings. Further, this paper has shown that neither the Rawick nor the exslave data provides support for the Dillard-Stewart hypothesis of the

188

MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

similarity between nineteenth-century Southern black speech and Gullah. While it is conceivable that the ex-slaves interviewed by the WPA had shifted their speech massively during their lifetimes, it is difficult to suggest a more plausible source of confirmatory data for this hypothesis than that from ex-slave materials. It remains to be seen how this hypothesis might yet be tested. In any case, the two features examined in this paper, left dislocation and relative pronoun choice, pattern in relatively more "nonstandard" ways in the ex-slave recordings than in the Rawick narratives, contrary to what one might expect, given the greater formality and standardness of the data in the ex-slave transcripts in general. In other words, the Rawick narratives seem to have undergone unconscious standardization with regard to these features, in contrast to the findings of Maynor mentioned earlier. Close scrutiny of the Rawick materials should continue to be made as we assess their validity, but the present study seconds the questions raised by Maynor 1988 and confirms the view that their value may well be limited to that of literary dialect.

NOTES

1.

In a paper at the 1987 meeting of the Southeastern Conference on Linguistics, Jeutonne Brewer suggested that the presence of a microphone and massive recording machinery may have created a more formal interview context and resulted in the more standard language of the ex-slaves recordings. Given the dynamics of the interview situation between whites and older, usually impoverished, blacks, however, it is difficult to envision that the situation could have been a more artificial one, even without the recording equipment.

2.

Finding exactly comparable informants is not possible for several reasons, not the least of which being the crucial difference in interviewers that two similar informants had. In addition, several of the recorded informants had lived for lengthy periods in more than one state, making it impossible to find exact

THE LINGUISTIC VALUE OF THE EX-SLAVE RECORDINGS

189

counterparts. Following is a list of the Rawick interviews selected for analysis in this paper and their counterparts in the ex-slave recordings: Julia Blanks (Texas) Frank Gill (Texas) Madison Bruin (Texas) William Adams (Texas) Richard Slaughter (Virginia) Henry Rogers (Georgia) Caroline Holland (Alabama) Ellen Betts (Texas) Cato Carter (Texas) Julia Francis Daniels (Texas) Annie Dean (Alabama) 3.

Laura Smalley Isom Moseley Uncle Billy McCrea Uncle Bob Ledbetter Fountain Hughes Wallace Quarterman Alice Gaston Celia Black Charlie Smith Harriet Smith Joe McDonald and Woman

The salience and markedness of social dialect features is open to empirical investigation. While this study assumes a priori that the two features it investigates are less socially marked than many others, the discrepancies in their patterning between the two data sets is evidence that they are marked to some extent.

Representativeness and Reliability of the Ex-Slave Narrative Materials, With Special Reference to Wallace Quarterman's Recording and Transcript

John R. Rickford

Introduction The news of the existence of the ex-slave recordings transcribed in this book sent a ripple of excitement through the ranks of students of AfroAmerican language and culture, particularly among those of us interested in the debate about the creole ancestry of Vernacular Black English (VBE). Many of us are sociolinguists and dialectologists for whom tape-recorded samples of informal conversation represent ideal data, and the opportunity to hear the voices of men and women born nearly a century and a half ago promised to provide more decisive evidence on the nature of the AfroAmerican linguistic past than the written texts from earlier periods on which we had previously depended. Listening to these tapes is, in many cases, a spine-tingling experience. But after listening to them, reading the first draft of the transcripts, and seeing the preliminary versions of some of the papers prepared for this volume, I find it necessary to temper our excitement and our desire for closure on the origins issue by sounding some cautions about the representativeness and reliability of these data. On the face of it, these data are potentially more reliable - in the sense of providing a trustworthy record of what was actually said ~ than the texts of slave speech and ex-slave speech from earlier centuries which Stewart (1970), Dillard (1972), and other champions of the creolist

192

JOHN R. RICKFORD

position had considered. Both in North America and the Caribbean, such texts were typically set down in writing by outsiders and newcomers to the community, and they may fail to represent relevant phonological and grammatical features while including mishearings, misinterpretations, and conventionalizations which are difficult for us to identify (as noted by Jeremiah 1977, and Rickford 1987a:82 and in press). As a matter of fact, the oral recordings and transcripts of the ex-slaves also pose problems of reliability -- as I will show later in this paper — but for now let us accept the assumption that they are potentially more reliable and go on to ask about their representativeness as a record of VBE in earlier times.

Representativeness The first point to be made in this regard is that these ex-slave data are relatively late in terms of the African presence in North America.1 As Figure 1 reminds us, they take us back, at best, only to the mid-19th century, fully two centuries after Africans had begun to arrive in America, and a century and a half after their numbers had surpassed the white population in places like South Carolina (Rickford 1986a:255), providing the limited access to the native norm in which pidginization and creolization would very likely have taken place.2

Figure 1: Location of Ex-slave Recordings in Relation to the Total Length of Time African Peoples Have Been in America 1630

1680

17th century

1730

1780

18th century

1830

1880

19th century

1930

1980

20th century

Ex-slave narratives

By the mid-19th century, with the slave trade abolished half a century earlier, the proportion of English speakers increased by white immigration, and the population of locally-born slaves outnumbering the

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

193

foreign-born, more slaves could have been expected to be able to shift "upwards" when necessary than a century or so earlier. The second point to be made in this regard is that the speech of the ex-slaves whose texts appear in this volume ~ recorded at various times between 1935 and 1975 -- can only be taken as representative of mid-19th century Vernacular Black English under the assumption that their grammars had changed little or not at all in the intervening 90 to 130 years. Although sociolinguists typically assume that the recorded spontaneous speech of adults reveals the vernacular system which they learned during their formative years, recent evidence indicates that this is truer for phonetic variables than grammatical ones, especially in creole situations where adults and children may participate equally in syntactic innovations (Labov 1982a:67-69, drawing on Tok Pisin research by G. Sankoff). Since these ex-slaves had all led less parochial lives in the postEmancipation than in the pre-Emancipation period, it is reasonable to assume that their linguistic repertoires would have expanded towards rather than away from standard English after Emancipation.3 Note too that the typical situation represented in these recordings is that of an ex-slave talking to an interested outsider, the kind of context in which one would shift "up" rather than "down." (Mufwene also makes this point in this volume). In one or two cases this outsider is black and/or previously known to the interviewee, but in no case do we have the excited spontaneous interaction between peers or insiders in which the vernacular can really come to the fore.4 There is considerable evidence in previously published work that interaction with an insider — especially a family member or close friend who can produce and/or speak the interviewee's vernacular -- can produce dramatically different linguistic results than interrogation by an outsider (Labov 1972a:89-90; Bickerton 1975:192; Rickford 1983:308-9; Rickford 1987b:153-4). Another recent example occurs in a 1987 recording of a Barbadian speaker, made in Barbados by an American student, Renee Blake (Rickford and Blake 1990). Both interviewer and interviewee are black, and the interviewer does a good job of establishing rapport. However, in between talking to her, the interviewee makes excited comments to his fellow Barbadians about a cricket match they are watching, and the relative frequency of copula absence shifts from 9 percent in his speech to the interviewer to 89 percent

194

JOHN R. RICKFORD

in his speech to his peers! Note that if we did not have access to the fortuitously recorded peer-group interaction, we would have mistakenly assumed that his vernacular was less basilectal than it actually is. Sociolinguists should always assume that interviewees have a more vernacular variety than anything we elicit in an interview, but there is a tendency among us (discussed in Rickford 1987b) to assume that what one nets in a "spontaneous interview" is the totality of an individual's repertoire, or at least its vernacular component, and that quantitative counts of feature occurrences will be valid and representative of that vernacular. Unless we are recording speakers with an exceptionally limited range of social experiences and styles (such speakers, though rare, do exist — see Rickford 1987b: 165), nothing could be further from the truth, particularly in the case of adults. Our reification of tape-recorded "spontaneous speech" data has caused us to develop a serious blind spot on this issue, but we should remove it firmly when considering the speakers in these ex-slave recordings. That they drew for their interviews on more standard-like registers acquired in the course of their long and varied experiences is very likely; that they had more vernacular, less standard registers than the ones they employed in these interviews is almost unquestionable. A final consideration is whether the speakers in these eleven recordings are representative of the ex-slave population in the Southern states from which they came. In the statistical sense of having been selected by random sampling, they are clearly NOT representative, but probably no less so than in most sociolinguistic surveys (which make a virtue of having vaguely defined "judgment" samples). But do they represent, albeit nonstatistically, the range of social types and experiences in the ex-slave population? If anything, we may assume that these speakers, several of them claiming close pre-Emancipation relationships with white masters and mistresses, and all just happening to have been selected for (and agreeable to) these interviews, had better than average contact with and exposure to white language and culture. The net result of these representativeness issues is that we would NOT expect these ex-slave recordings to represent the kind of deep plantation creole which Stewart (1967) had hypothesized, and it is therefore not surprising that they do not. Bearing this in mind, we should

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

195

certainly not use these interviews as decisive evidence that a deep creole did not exist in parts of the South in earlier times, as some contributors already appear to do and as others will undoubtedly do once the volume appears. Interesting and valuable though these data are, and important though it is to squeeze them for every historical, sociocultural and linguistic insight they possess, it would be a mistake to take them as conclusive evidence of the nature of vernacular speech among Afro-Americans in earlier centuries (note the emphasized elements).

Reliability Turning now to reliability, let us separately consider the tapes and transcripts. The tapes are the closest we can come to ultimate reliability, since we can listen and relisten, count and recount, note the specific points on which investigators seem to disagree and attempt to resolve them. But it is important to remember that the recording equipment was not ideal to begin with, and that cassette copies (several generations removed from the original and limited in fidelity) are inferior to the reel-to-reel recordings and simply not trustworthy for determining what these interviewees are saying. I discovered this only after a summer in which several of my students had checked the first draft of the transcripts accompanying a set of cassette recordings and systematically tabulated the occurrences of pasttense -ed, third present, plural and possessive -s, and other features therein. When I received copies of the reel-to-reel tapes and began checking the students' transcripts and tabulations against the tapes, mistakes occurred so frequently that I was forced to abandon the exercise. Instead, I concentrated on checking against the reel-to-reel recordings the first drafts of the transcripts which Bailey and his colleagues had kindly made available when they sent us the ex-slave material. It is the reliability of these drafts (which some contributors seem to have assumed despite Guy Bailey's admonitions to regard the recordings as the basic data) which I now wish to discuss. I have concentrated on the first-draft transcripts for Fountain Hughes, Charlie Smith, and Wallace Quarterman. Overwhelmingly, these transcripts, made by a standard speaker, underrepresent the proportion of non-standard features in these

196

JOHN R. RICKFORD

interviewees' speech, and this is in line with the explicit statement of the editors in their introductory letter that they would opt for standard-like interpretations whenever they were in doubt. For instance, Fountain Hughes' draft transcript had ten cases in which I heard an uninfected verb stem (e.g., call, choose where the original transcript had a past inflected verb; and in the case of the first 205 lines of Charlie Smith's interview, I replaced five cases of plural -s and four of third-singular present tense -s with zero (e.g., house , get ).

The Quarterman Tanscript In the case of Wallace Quarterman — a Sea Island speaker from an area in which I've done extensive fieldwork and one whose language is similar in a number of respects to my native Guyanese Creole ~ repeated listening and relistening to the tape produced extensive changes in the transcript, many of them making the content of Quarterman's narrative more coherent and interesting, and its language more basilectal and revealing. I will now go over the main changes which my retranscription produced. The first draft of the transcript and my revisions (indicated by underlinings) appear in the appendix.

Changes That Make a Qualitative Difference The first set of changes I'll discuss are ones which affect only a few sentences in the transcript - sometimes just one sentence ~ but which make a significant qualitative difference in our comprehension of Quarterman's content and in our linguistic impression of his speech. (The line numbers here refer to those in the appendix to this paper). Of these, the one that stands out most clearly is the change in lines 53 and 54, where what was originally transcribed as "the people danced the way they all dance [unintelligible]" becomes "the people them throw 'way they hoe them. They throw away they hoe, . . . " Not only does this correction modify the picture of the slaves' initial reaction to the news of the emancipation, but it furnishes, along with other changes in lines 52 and

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

197

84e, four examples of pluralization with postnominal/prenominal dem, a creole feature (see Alleyne 1980; Rickford 1986b; Mufwene 1986b) which would otherwise have gone unattested. In this category too is the decipherment of the song in lines 84a-e. Contrary to the sympathetic reaction to their individual master's demise in the Civil War period presented by Quarterman, Hughes and others, this song caricatures the deposed plantation owners and depicts a new social order in which the roles are reversed: the masters run away while the freed slaves enjoy the coming of the kingdom and the hour of Jubilee.5 By following up some leads in encyclopedia articles on the Civil War, I have been able to track Quarterman's song to its source, the chorus and part of the second verse of a song entitled "Kingdom Coming" or "The year of Jubilo," composed in dialect in 1861 by Henry Clay Work (Word nd:1624). 6 Quarterman's melody follows Work's sheet music almost exactly, and the wording is clearly related too: From Verse 2:

Chorus:

He six foot one way, two feet tudder, An' he weigh tree hundred pound, His coat so big, he couldn't pay de tailor, An' it won't go half way round . . . De massa run? Ha, ha! De darkey stay? Ho, ho! It mus' be now de kingdom comin', An' de year ob Jubilo.

Work was a Northern abolitionist whose family home had served as an "underground railway" for Southern slaves seeking freedom and whose father was eventually imprisoned for his role in "the liberation of several thousand slaves" (Ewen 1970:41). This contact with the slaves contributed to the younger Work's sentiments as well as his ability to write in dialect (Work nd:5). "Kingdom Coming" is regarded as his "unquestioned masterpiece" (Spaeth 1958:156), a song which was tremendously popular during the Civil War period and for years thereafter, being sung by black union troops as they marched into the South (Ewen 1970:42). It inspired so many popular imitations and variants that its individual authorship was often forgotten and it came to be regarded as a folk song (White 1928:170-

198

JOHN R. RICKFORD

71).7 The following variant, reported from Auburn, Alabama (MS of J. S. Creel cited in White 1928:170-71), was verse two of a song described as a "Negro war song during Civil War."8 Its wording is even more similar to Quarterman's than Work's original is: Old Massa he runned away When he looked up theribberwhere dem gun boats lay. It must be now dat de kingdom am a coming In de year of Jubilee.

Note in particular the identity of line 3 here with Quarterman's line 84g, both of them attesting the α-prefixing construction which is common in Appalachian and other English dialects (Wolfram and Christian 1976:6976)9 Turning away from this intriguing song, we need to note the four new tokens of bin (pronounced [bin], with a lax vowel, as in Atlantic English basilectal creole) in lines 61, 62 ("bin po'"), 140 ("bin like"), and 143 ("bin understand"). The draft transcript included only two instances of bin (90 100), both of which were main verb preadverbial or prepositional uses. The two "auxiliary" preverbal instances of bin in the revised transcript (140, 143) make a qualitative difference because they are the only attestations of this type in the recording and they place Quarterman's speech at a more basilectal level of the continuum. (Main verb uses of bin continue higher both in the Caribbean and U.S. mesolects than do [noncontinuative] auxiliary uses). Significantly enough, they both occur before stative verbs, where they would be required for past marking in the creole basilect; non-stative stem forms represent past on their own, and consequently occur with bin less often than stative verbs do in Guyanese and other English-based creoles (Bickerton 1975:35).10

Changes That Make a Quantitative Difference A number of grammatical variables familiar from discussions of creoles and Vernacular Black English — such as the absence of morphological marking for number, case, and tense distinctions encoded in standard

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

199

English -- are attested frequently in Quarterman's speech. But because they are variable rather than categorical features, their analysis requires counting, and the counts one gets from my revised transcript differ strikingly in some cases from those one gets from the first draft. For instance, the relative frequency of so-called "zero plural" -- the proportion of unmarked plural nouns out of all nouns that could have been marked with [-s] -- is 46 percent (11/24) in the draft transcript, but 79 percent (19/24) in mine. As with other statistics given in this section, these counts exclude dialogue from the interviewers or anyone besides Quarterman himself, and they also exclude indeterminate tokens (like "the Yankee say" in line 57, where the word after the plural noun begins with a sibilant), and nouns preceded or followed by dem. Quarterman's amended zero plural count is comparable to the 76 percent reported in Rickford (1985:103) for Mrs. Queen, a lower-mesolectal Gullah speaker from the South Carolina Sea Islands, and it is considerably higher than the peak figures of 5.8 percent to 13 percent reported for BEV speakers in New York City and Detroit (Labov et al 1968:I:161- 62; Wolfram 1969:143). Similarly, with respect to "zero past marking" on say, which tends to behave differently than other verbs, the draft transcript reveals only one unmarked token out of seven occurrences (or 13 percent), while the revised transcript shows many more (5/10, or 50 percent). Incidentally, one of the unmarked tokens -- "They tol' them, say now you . . . " (68) is precisely of the serial verb quotation-introducing type which Mufwene (in this volume) describes as "quite common in today's Gullah."11 So this is also a case where the changes make a qualitatively significant difference. In relation to past marking on other verbs, the quantitative differences are smaller. For instance, zero past marking on non-syllabic weak verbs (cases like ask which would take an [-ed] suffix in standard English without adding a syllable) is 62 percent in the draft transcript (8/13, with 10 indeterminate cases followed by /t/ or /d/) and 79 percent in my revised version (11/14, with 12 indeterminate cases). The proportion of zero past marking on syllabic weak verbs (cases like nominate in which the past suffix is realized as /id/ or /әd/) is identical in both versions (100 percent, 4/4), and virtually the same for strong verbs (e.g., think) other than say (54 percent, 13/24 with 13 indeterminates in the draft, 57 percent, 20/35 with 14 indeterminates in the revised version). And insofar as

200

JOHN R. RICKFORD

inflected forms of be are concerned (the use of zero past-marked is and are instead of was or were), the draft is in fact more non-standard than the revised version (44 percent, 4/9 versus 27 percent, 3/11). But although the quantitative results are scarcely different from one transcript to another in these cases, the list of past-marked and unmarked verbs does differ, and this could affect the identification of constraints and other aspects of the analysis. My overall point in relation to the Quarterman draft transcript -and by extension, other transcripts of the ex-slave recordings -- is that its reliability is not to be taken at face value, but established on the basis of careful listening and relistening, preferably with the help of people familiar with the dialect. This same caution, of course, goes for the use of modern recordings of Caribbean and other creole speakers made by linguists from outside the area. Where linguists have played or provided tapes of Caribbean speech transcribed in their conference handouts and publications (this is not generally the case), I have sometimes seen potentially significant mistranscriptions and missed transcriptions. Scholarly etiquette constrains us from challenging each other's data (sociolinguists are really no more ready to breach this etiquette than generativists are), but I confess to having doubts about the empirical validity of some of our theories and claims.

Summary and Conclusion Intriguing though these ex-slave narratives are, I have argued in this paper against deifying them, treating them as the litmus test of the creolist hypothesis just because they happen to come in the format (tapes and transcripts) which many of us like best. Even under the questionable assumption that the recorded speech of these ex-slaves in the 20th century is representative of their speech in the mid-19th century, this is relatively late in the history of African people in North America. Furthermore, the non-randomly selected interviewees probably included those with more white contacts rather than less, and the recording situation was likely to elicit the standard rather than vernacular portions of their linguistic repertoire. Finally, the tapes and transcripts of these recordings may not

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

201

be as reliable as they at first appear. In the case of Quarterman's sample and the others (Hughes, Charlie Smith) that I've listened to carefully, the result of my revisions in virtually every case is to place these texts further away from the standard end of the continuum than the rough drafts did and towards the creole pole. (As with older written texts, errors tend to be of omission rather than commission; see Rickford, in press). This is not to say that these ex-slaves now emerge as speakers of basilectal creole; as noted in our discussion of the representativeness issues above, such an outcome would be unlikely. But their speech is closer to creole than most of my co-commentators have concluded and, fascinating though these materials are, they provide no resolution on the creolist issue. On the contrary, they indicate that we cannot abandon the alternative sources of evidence, such as contemporary recordings and analyses of VBE, comparisons with Caribbean and West African material and written texts from earlier periods. We must continue to gather more such evidence, and develop new ways of sifting through their complementary strengths and weaknesses to derive a more reliable and representative view of AfroAmerican English in times past.

NOTES Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Genine Lentine, the teaching assistant, and to the undergraduate students in my 1987 Summer Humanities Seminar, who worked on the ex-slave materials. I am also grateful to Carolyn Lougee and Laura Selznick at Stanford for facilitating that Seminar. Finally I wish to thank Martha Swearingen for helping with the decipherment of the "Kingdom Coming" song on the Wallace Quarterman tape, and Angela Rickford for making it possible for me to complete this paper. 1.

This is a point which Bill Stewart (personal communication) has made in relation to the written ex-slave narrative materials used by Schneider and others.

202

JOHN R. RICKFORD

2.

Baker and Corne (1986:165-68) identify the point at which the slave population outnumbers the ruling-class as "Event 1" — a crucial element in the development of pidgin and creole varieties in a plantation environment Prior to this point, "locallyborn slaves had both the motivation to acquire the language of the ruling class and sufficient degree of access to enable them to succeed . . . " (Baker and Corne 1986:167). Other important phases in their hypothesis are Event 2, when locallyborn slaves outnumber the ruling class, and Event 3, when the regular supply of slave immigrants ends. See their pioneering article for more discussion.

3.

As argued in Rickford (1983), in decreolizing situations of this type, speakers typically add more standard lects to their repertoire rather than abandoning their non-standard lects altogether (extension, not replacement). True loss of "lower" lects occurs primarily across generations, through children who learn only "higher" lects.

4.

Note the following remarks about the Gullahs by Turner (1949:12), who interviewed Quarterman himself: "When talking to strangers the Gullah Negro is likely to use speech that is essentially English in vocabulary. When he talks to his friends, however, or to members of his family, his language is different."

5.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following as its primary entry for Jubilee: 1. Jewish Hist. more fully, year of Jubilee. A year of emancipation and restoration, which according to the institution in Lev.xxv was to be kept every fifty years, and to be proclaimed by a blast of trumpets throughout the land: during it the fields were to be left uncultivated, Hebrew slaves were to be set free.... There are also parallel restitutive years in the Roman Catholic Church, and 19th century slaves were clearly familiar with the concept of the Jubilee as a time of remission and release, as evidenced by the many references to it in their songs (see Hatfield 1840).

6.

For its potential interest, here is the first verse as well:

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

203

Say, darkeys, hab you seen de massa, Wid de muffstash on his face, Go long de road some time dis mornin', like he gwine to leab de place? He seen a smoke, way up de ribber, Whar de Linkum gumboats [Lincoln gunboats] lay; He took his hat, an' lef berry sudden, An' I spec he's run away! [Chorus] 7.

Although it seems unlikely on the basis of what I have read about Henry Clay Work (see Work, nd:6), it is not entirely impossible that "Kingdom Coming" or something similar to it might have been first heard by Work from the slaves rather than vice versa.

8.

Here is the first verse of this version. Note the reference to the firing of the big gun in line 2, which parallels Quarterman's narrative in line 28 (in the appendix to this paper): In eighteen hundred and sixty-one Dem dar Yankees fired dat great big gun; It looked mighty sispicious; somethin's gwine ter happen Fer de way dem white folks done.

9.

There was some ambiguity about whether Quarterman's a comin' shouldn't have been transcribed instead as a come, with the following /in/ interpreted as a preposition beginning the next line. This is not grammatically or phonologically impossible, for continuative/habitual da alternates with a in Gullah, especially after nasals, and it would not be surprising to find a basilectal creole feature like a - Verb preserved in a popular or folk song. In Rickford (1987a:251) I discuss the parallel case of a mesolectal Guyanese speaker using the archaic basilectal copula da (skin, da miil "Skin, it's me!") in a piece of folklore. However, the junctural patterns in the last two lines of Quarterman's song favor the a-comin' transcription.

204

JOHN R. RICKFORD

10.

In addition to bin, there is one possible occurrence of done Verb+ed ("done told") in line 37, but the identity of its subject is unclear.

11.

Although the full quotation is missing from line 68, the deictic orientation of the two words that remain ("Now, you . . .") is sufficient to establish that they're a quotation from direct speech.

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

205

Appendix First Draft and Revised Transcripts of Wallace Quarterman Interview (WQ was born in 1844 in Frederica, GA. Original recordings done in 1935. Library of Congress numbers: AFS 342 Al, 342 A2, 342 A3, 342 Bl)

CONVENTIONS: The first draft transcript, with the original line numbers, is represented in ordinary text. My revised transcript, in italics, usually follows under each original line, and is enclosed in braces { } with revisions underlined. When the original line appears without any revised transcript underneath it, this means that I agree completely with the original transcript Square brackets are used, as in the first draft, for transcriber's "stage directions" and other comments; where speech is completely unintelligible, it is described as such [unintelligible], but guesses and half-certainties are indicated in square brackets with a preceding and following question mark, for example: [?went home?]. Transcribed text not in square brackets is material about whose accuracy I am completely certain, or virtually (75 percent or more) so. As in the first draft, lines which consist entirely of square bracketed material are not included in the line numbering count. Parentheses are used to enclose fieldworker's speech which was not included in the first draft, without adding a new line, as in in line (25). Note that in addition to FW, the primary fieldworker (Zora Neal Hurston?), there is a second one, FW2 (Alan Lomax), and a third FW3 (Mary Elizabeth Barnicle?).

INF:

(5)

[Seems to be quoting from a religious text] Lord be with [unintelligible] my grace with thee { Lord huil' the holv earth, my grace with thee}. Well indeed I trus' [dog barking in the background] {Tell them he that trus' [dog barking in the background]} [unintelligible] with faith. But he that once {my word he shall be saved. But he that won't} believest [unintelligible]. I make his Great {believe, he shall [?cut down?]. I make Him Great} Commission [unintelligible] Lord that he is preach

206

(10)

(15)

(20)

(25)

(30)

JOHN R. RICKFORD

{Commission, know that he is preach} my gospel through, by all the work that you can do, all the wonder I will do. You must teach {do all the wonder I will do. You must teach} all nations my command I am [untelligible] worl'. {all nation my comman', I am with you until the worl' shall end} Well I think tha's enough, bye. [dog continues barking . . . ] {Weill think tha's enough [unintelligible; dog barking]} FW: O.K. {Mm. O.K.} INF: O.K. [brief pause in the tape; then INF starts to sing] Oh let me come in, I surrender, and open the door, oh let me come in. Yeah, let me come in, oh let me come in. I surrender, yes open the door, an' let me come in. I said baby don't you cry mothers an' father are born to die. I surrender [recording gets stuck]. Let me come in, I surrender and open the door and let me come in. [singing stops] {then let me come in. [singing stops]} Can't sing much. [brief pause in the tape]. Born in {[Coughs]. I can't sing much., [brief pause in the tape]. ... born in} 1844. FW: What's your name? INF: Huh? {Q repeated} My name is Wallace Quarterman in and through the state of Georgia. [brief pause in the tape] [begins in middle of conversation] Morning I was cooking the breakfast in the house. An' {. . . morning I was toting in breakfas' in the house. (FW: Yes.) An'} the, an' the, the big gun shot, supposed to have. The {the, an' the, the big gun shot, to Port Royal (FW: Yeah). The} big gun shot so I [unintelligible] the breakfast in the {big gun shot, so I, by I carry in the breakfast in the} house. The overseer ask me what is that, if that is

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

(35)

{house, the overseer ask me what is that, if that is} thunder? I said I might don't know. I know what the {thunder? I tell um I don't know. I know was the} Yankees [background noise]. An' so he shot three time {Yankee come. [background noise]. An' so he shot three time} and he commence to shoot until the plate commence to rattle on the table. An' he call me an' tol' me to run down in the fiel' and tell people to turn the people {down in the fiel', and tell Peter to turn the people} loose, that the Yankee coming; An' so I run down in {loose, that the Yankee come. An' so I run down in} the fiel' and, an' whooped and holler [unintelligible] {the fiel' an', an' whoop and holler [?X done?] tol' em} Mr. [unintelligible] said turn the people loose because {Mr. f?Giggle?1 say turn the people loose, [?because?]} the Yankees coming.

{the Yankee come}. (40)

FW2: And who had seen them? {And who was Peter?) INF: The driver. And so he said that, uh, Wallace is lying {The driver. And so he said, that, ah, Wallace was lying} to me, he said so, then he said so, then the Yankee be {if he said so, when he said so, then the Yankee be} to the landing, they drunk. You understan':[starts to recite] Way down south getting mighty poor.

(45)

{Way down south, getting mighty po'} They use to drink coffee but now they drinking {'Cause they use to drink coffee but now they drinking} rye. If they lef [unintelligible] to make the rebel

(50)

{If they lef [?to wave the union banner?], make the rebel} understan' To leave our lan' for the sake of Uncle Sam. Way down south getting mighty poor, shot at the [unintelligible] to see the rebel run. {[?wildcat?l an' they see the rebel run.]}

207

JOHN R. RICKFORD

208

I ain't going [unintelligible] again. I've been to war {I wen--I ain't going over them thing them. I have been to war} already. Yeah, yeah. An' that, the people danced the {[? again?] (FW: Right. Right.)} Yes. Yes. An' that, the people them throw) way they all dance. [unintelligible] they call we all {'way they hoe them. Thev throw away they hoe, an' then they call we all} up you know an', an' give we all freedom 'cause we are jus' as much as free as them.. Now you understand. But the Yankees saying le's go back to the south here.

(55)

{the Yankee say we mus' go back to the south, they'll help we}

(60)

Everywhere, they didn', of course it was so much doubt, {Well, they didn'. Of course there was so much doubt}, and seems to me that they would have done more, but it {and ¡unintelligible] in the way. They would have done mo', but i's} so much doubt in the way. They couldn' because {you--} the

(65)

colored people sure went for, and some white people {colored people sure bin poor [po']. and some white people} sure went for it too. You understan' that {sure bin poor [po'] too. You understan', an' they} [unintelligible]. I had it twice so far, for the Lord {rather help them, than to help we. [Begins prayer/verse]: I had it twice so far, for the Lord} has done for me, I come through, through the all, the, {has done for me, I come through, through all, he's} been ups an' downs through the [unintelligible]. FW:

INF:

FW: (70)

{been up an' down an' through the [?Maliki?].} Well tell me about how they went to Hawkinsville and drove the sword down in the ground. {throwed [tho'wed] the sword down on the ground.} They tol' them, said now you [conversation ends]. {They tol' them, say now you {FW2 talks; unclear; cut off]--} [brief pause in the tape as new recording begins] After they said you could go free, then what did you {After they said you were free, then what did you} do? Did you run on off the plantation that day? Did you leave the plantation that day after they told you

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

INF:

(75)

(80)

to go free? Well the master had promised to, to give we forty {Well the master had promise to, to give we forty} dollars a month in cash. Well lots silly boys say {dollars a month in [?peds?] Well lots o' the boys say} they ain't want it They rather go free you know. {they ain't want 0.. They rather go free, you know.} Well of course why I up there, you understan' I get {Well of course by I up there, you understan', I get} along with them you know. [unintelligible] the big {along with him you know. Eat right out the big} boss you know. An' uh after they, after this they {pot, you know. An' uh after they, after this they} throwed down, throwed down, they just make them throwed down, an' they just get on the sword an; squash them down. You go in Hawkinsville an' you see all the swords down in the groun'. An' after they throwed {swords down, now, in the groun'. An' after they throwed} us down, the tension in the South, tension. And after {those down, say '"tention!" an' then. "South, 'tentionl" An' after} the [unintelligible] they they play, yeah, play. {the South 'tention. then they play. Yeah, play the:) [begins to sing while playing the washtub base-song is difficult to understand and not transcribed]. {[begins to sing while playing the washtub base]. Text:} {(84a) "One foot one way, one foot the other way}

{(84b) {(84c) {(84d) {(84e) {(84f)

One foot all aroun'.} SO big that he couldn't cut [?a figure?]} An' he couldn' go a halfway roun'"} "Ole masten run away, and set them darky free} For you mus'be think}

{(84g) Thy kingdom a-comin')

{(8f4h) The hour of Jubilee".} (85)

So we had a big breaking up right there, you know, FW:

after it, that's right. What about afterward, you know when, when the colored

209

210

(90)

(95)

(100)

JOHN R. RICKFORD

{Well, what about afterward, you know when the, when the colored} people had to go and everything? Tell us {people had the banner and everything? Tell us} about that. INF: Yes, we, everything been in we hands, but they couldn' {Yes, we, everything been in we hand, but they couldn'} control the colored people. They do so much mischief until we have to go on back and, to the white people we {until we have to go on back and, to the white people, we who) had no education,. You know when a man ain' got {had education. You know when a man ain' got no) education he ain' got no sense. All we try to 'sure {education he ain' got no sense. All we try to show) them they wouldn1, they'd jus' kill one another, an' so {them, they wouldn' take, jus' kill one another, an goin'} on. So we had to nominate Democrats over their heads. {on. So we had to nominate Democrat over they head.) They didn' like it, though many got kill by nominate {They didn' like it. I's a many got kill by nominate) the Democrats but we couldn' help it, to stop them so {the Democrat, but we couldn' help it, to stop them so) much killing, you understan'. So we nominate the Democrat, and, we had a big timefromthat till now. The time ain't bad like, uh it been then, because a man think nothing [of] killing a man and taking a drink of

(105)

water. But since we nominate the Democrat we have more 'surance you understand. The law come in protecting them, you know, they wouldn' [unintelligible] the {them, you know, they wouldn' yell at the) colored people, at all ma'am, at all. Yep, that's the {colored people, (FW: Yeah) 't'all ma'am, at all. (FW: Mm-hm) Yep, so that's the) way they come in protect them, but we had we own lawyers, judge and everything but they just would run {lawyer, judge and everything but they just was-run} everything in the dust you know, kill everything,

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RELIABILITY

(110) FW: INF: FW: (115) INF:

couldn' stan' it, no. Well did you ever have a office, did you, would you ever, did you ever hold a office? I wouldn' want an office. Oh. No ma'am, a man, I wouldn' want an office, why an {No ma'am, I'm a man, I wouldn' want an office, why an} office is [unintelligible] kind of thing. You

(125) FW: INF: FW: INF:

{office is [?an ordinariest?] kind ofthing. (FW; Mm-hm) You} understand. You got to go and please the, that fellow {understand. (FW: Yes) You got to go and please the, that fellow} you know. You got to stop do what God tell you and go please that fellow and the white giving you that vote. {please thatfellow and the right [?David?] you lef out.} Well what, what's become of your old master? {Well what, what become ofyour old master?} Old master? He died in the yellow fever. He was a nice man to me. {nice man to me. (FW: Yeah)} Yes. I wouldn' take anything for him {I wouldn' take anything from him.} What was his name? Colonel Fred Wearing. Fred Wearing? Yes, he was a colonel. I wouldn' take anything, well

(130) FW: INF:

{Yes, he was a colonel. I wouldn' take anything, why} me and him was jus' like one, you know. {me and he was jus' like one, you know.} Yes. Yes ma'am.

(120) FW: INF:

FW: INF:

FW: INF:

Well where was his plantation? His plantation on, on. Savannah River, you know, C. {His plantation on, on, Savannah River, you know, Skidaway} Island, and you know Chatham County, you know Savanah. {Island, an' you ain' know Chatham County, you know Savannah?}

211

212

JOHN R. RICKFORD

(135) FW: INF:

FW3: (140) INF:

(145) FW: INF: FW: INF:

(150) FW: INF:

(155) FW: INF:

Yes. On C. Island. Yes ma'am. I wouldn't take nothing for {On Skidawav Island. Yes ma'am. I wouldn' take nothing from} him. Well did the white folks like it when, when you were, all were in power? Oh they liked me. They would like me all the way {Oh they liked me. They bin like me all the way} 'cause I protect them you know. I protect them, I [unintelligible] Yankee myself an' they jus' destroyed {go in With Yankee myself an' they didn' destroy} them you know. You see I just didn' understand how to {them you know. You see I jus' bin understand how to} speak you know. Yes. Tell [unintelligible] you know. {Till now, you know.} Uh huh. I see a man go do a wrong thing I sure stop him. I {I see a man gon do a wrong thing I sure stop him. } stop him. {stop him. Why--} Well did the white people, did your master and all them like to see the Negroes be the judge and the jailer and everything? Oh, you see, according to law you know. They don't {Noo, you see, according to law, you know. They don't} mind you be that if, we, you know what you doing. {mind you be that a way if, you know what you doing}. Don't you see? Yes. {Yeah). We, we you see they, they don' know what they doing. {Yeah, we, we, you see they, they don' know what they doing.} (FW: Yeah)} And they prove that they don't know. {An' they prove that they don't know. (FW: Uh-huh. Yes. Yes.)}

Is Gullah Decreolizing? A Comparison of a Speech Sample of the 1930s With a Sample of the 1980s

Salikoko S. Mufwene

1. Introduction Since DeCamp (1971) and Whinnom (1971), decreolization, as the diachronic process whereby the system of creole which co-exists with its lexifier moves closer and closer to that of the latter, has figured conspicuously in the literature on Atlantic creoles. Since especially DeCamp (1971) the chief evidence invoked for postulating the process in any creole community has been synchronic variation from speaker to speaker, context to context, and/or region to region (albeit creole community to creole community). At least at the level of working assumptions, this approach may be witnessed in other seminal works such as Bickerton (1973 and 1975) and Alleyne (1980). Recently, in the specific case of Gullah, papers such as Cassidy (1986), Hancock (1986), JonesJackson (1986, very much related to Jones-Jackson 1984, where decreolization is discussed in relation to the claim that Gullah is allegedly dying), Nichols (1986), and Rickford (1986b) also assume this diachronic process on the basis of variation. This chapter compares, in the absence of older texts reproducing accurately the speech of native speakers (see below), Gullah speech samples separated by about fifty years (two generations) to determine whether there are any signs of decreolization. Mufwene (1986b) deplores the fact that claims for the decreolization of Gullah (as of other creoles of the Atlantic) have been based, at least implicitly, on literary texts such as Jones (1888), Gonzales (1922), and

214

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

Stoddard (1949), and on travelers' accounts. Since these texts were intended chiefly for entertainment and/or showing how much the Africans had, according to the writers, misshaped the language of their masters (see, e.g., Gonzales 1922: 10), they may have been embellished and homogenized in exactly the opposite, extreme direction of the 'belles lettres' of their lexifiers. For instance, the distribution of basilectal features (i.e., those which mark the language the most conspicuously as different from the lexifier1) may have been regularized, or their proportion may simply have been exaggerated. Variation, which, based on other historical considerations, must have been quite common from the early days of Gullah and other creoles, may also have been minimized if not simply disregarded in the case of some features, such as nominal pluralization (with either dem or the suffix -s or both) and purposive clauses (introduced with either fuh [fә] or to).2 Even though variation from writer to writer may be taken to reflect actual variation (especially regional) in what they heard,3 we still have no good measure of the extent and kind of variation in the very communities and speakers they observed. Well-formed though the Gullah from these written sources is, there is really no reason for considering it a faithful representation of the speech of the writers' time, at least not any more than for assuming literary English to be faithfully representative of native English speech.4 These sources are, as stated in Mufwene (1986b), just evidence that the features which writers may have stereotyped were then in common usage. Variation, both inter- and intra-individual, as observed in today's Gullah (and in other creoles of the Atlantic), is certainly not sufficient evidence for decreolization. In fact, it may be stable, as this paper purports to show, although the research is based on the speech of a single speaker in the 1930s. There is another important facet of the literature on decreolization. Except at the level of some individual speakers, the change has been assumed to be still in process at the level of the language community, an assumption which justifies the comparison undertaken in this paper.5 As noted in Mufwene (1987a), a problem with this assumption has lain primarily in identifying (in today's communities or in any of the early records) a speaker who is completely basilectal in the sense of using in his/her speech the totality of basilectal features associated with the relevant

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

215

creole.6 Granting that there are now more mesolectal than near-basilectal speakers (based on yet another disputable assumption that there were speakers who were completely basilectal in the early days and that they were the majority), the identification of this social interpretation of decreolization with systemic decreolization (at the level of language rather than idiolect) must be questioned. As argued in Mufwene (1987a), what the statistics show in this case is essentially shifts in the proportion of speakers using the different systems but not actual change in the system itself (i.e., no more than the change which normally takes place in any language). True systemic decreolization must be evidenced by narrowing of the distance between the basilectal and the lexifiers' systems. It is on this strict conception of decreolization that this paper is based.

2. The Data The Gullah data on which this paper is based are, on the one hand, texts recorded by me on the coast of South Carolina, between 1983 and 1987, and, on the other, two samples of the speech of an octogenarian, Wallace Quarterman (WQ), recorded in 1933 by Lorenzo Turner and in 1935 by Zora Neale Hurston, in collaboration with Alan Lomax and Mary Elizabeth Barnicle. (The recording by Turner is now kept at Indiana University's Archives of Traditional Music, and the other at the Library of Congress as part of the slave recordings collection). According to the interview with Turner, WQ was born in 1844 on Skidaway Island, on the Savannah River, near the city of Savannah in Georgia. He grew up there until first leaving in 1862, when he was then eighteen, to fight the Civil War with his master. After the war he stayed with the militia and resided alternatively in Savannah and on Skidaway, until he moved to Fort Frederica, on St. Simons Island, Georgia. The date of this relocation is not given. WQ was quite articulate at the time of the recordings; the quality of the recordings is, however, fair to poor in many cases, with much noise due to the equipment used; the voice is sometimes faint. WQ's intonation is certainly Gullah; his speech tempo is rather moderate, compared to the stereotypical fast tempo of Gullah, but anybody who has done fieldwork among the Geechees knows that some of them talk slowly, especially among

216

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

the elderly. (However, WQ's speech tempo increases and the style changes slightly, at least once, as he tells a short tale). Other phonological aspects of his speech (e.g., the pronunciation of girl as [gya:1] and of pretty as [ p u t t ] ) support the conclusion that he spoke Gullah. It is, however, argued below that his speech is mesolectal, although it is not clear whether the samples do not simply reflect the normal adjustments which Geechees routinely make when they interact with outsiders.7 It is also difficult to determine how much of WQ's speech was the result of his interaction with the non-Geechee community (in the militia and in Savannah) since the Civil War and how much was part of his behavior since childhood. After all, there is much variation today in Gullah communities, even among those whose experience outside the communities is very limited. At the same time, the Gullah which is the closest to the basilect is not restricted to the elderly, nor to those who have not moved outside their communities, nor to those without schooling. For instance, some of the most stereotypical Gullah, the closest to the putative basilect, is heard from Geechees who hold a college degree or have returned from the city but are emotionally attached to the language, seeing it as part of their identity. Since WQ agreed to be interviewed by various fieldworkers (as evidenced by the sample discussed here), it is quite possible that he was not ashamed of his speech and, needing to be integrated back into the Geechee community, did not let his outside experiences affect his speech. The samples we now have may be close to the way he normally spoke with other Geechees. Although this is pure speculation, it is part of the justification for the comparison undertaken here, in the absence of a more reliable corpus. WQ's speech is also similar in many respects to the sample texts published in Turner (1949) from a number of islands in South Carolina. It is perhaps safe to assume that, subject to inter-individual variation, Gullah was (and I believe it still is) generally the same in both states.8 Some readers must, however, wonder why I am not comparing two varieties of either South Carolina or Georgia instead of varieties recorded in two different states. My main reason is that WQ's speech samples are being used 'faute de mieux'; the set of recordings I was given for part of this study contained not only no text from the Sea Islands of South Carolina

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

217

but also no other text which may be identified as Gullah. Unfortunately, I have to date not recorded a single tape of Georgia's Gullah. Although native speakers claim all along the coast of both Georgia and South Carolina that there are differences from island to island, a claim validated by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller's (1985) notion of 'act of identity,' whatever features distinguish them from one another do not correspond to the features discussed below. Those discussed here are among the most commonly attested from place to place and among those which help creolists establish whether or not a variety is Gullah or any other creole. This study is therefore not necessarily invalidated by the fact that Georgia's Gullah of the 1930s is being compared with South Carolina's Gullah of the 1980s; after all, WQ grew up near South Carolina.

3. The Morphosyntax of Quarterman's Gullah 3.1 Quarterman's Speech is Just Mesolectal This section focuses on some morphosyntactic characteristics of WQ's speech. Evidence for decreolization is rather weak in the samples discussed here and lies at best in attestations of predominantly variable features.9 These include especially the use of the gerund, of an English-like infinitive with to, and of morphologically marked verb forms, as well as nominal pluralization with the suffix -s rather than with the free marker dem, as discussed below. Unlike basilectal Gullah, WQ's speech contains gerunds, as in the following sentence: (1)

The time ain't bad lukkah it been then, because a man think nothing of killing a man and taking a drink o' water (WQ: 100-101).10

Even varieties of today's mesolectal Gullah lack the gerund; an uninflected verb form is usually attested where the gerund would be expected in English, as illustrated by sentences (2a-b), which are common in my corpus. Sentence (2c) illustrates how variable the feature was in WQ's own speech:

218

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

(2)

a. Thank you fuh bring de young man yah fuh see me (AW). Thank you for bringing the young man here to see me. b. That what you get fuh (bin) take mi kyahd (EL).11 That [is] what you get for taking/having taken my card. c. They didn' like it, though many got kill by nominate the Democrats . (WQ: 96-97).

In varieties of Gullah which are the closest to the basilect, fuh [fә] is commonly attested where the infinitival to would be expected in English, as in the purposive clause of (2a). However, only the English infinitive occurs in WQ's speech. There is also evidence that WQ uses to some extent an English-like time reference system in his speech. Even though sentence (1) reveals the use of the creole ANTERIOR tense marker been [ b i n ] (to be correlated with the occurrence of some morphosyntactically undelimited verb forms), he actually uses a number of verbs inflected in the past and present (only for be), as below. None of the verbs inflected in the past tense can be assigned the completive interpretation which can be assigned to the unmarked verbs of the basilect (with which they are shown to alternate further below). (3)

a. An' heallme an' tol' me to run down in the fiel'... (WQ: 34-35). b. An' so he said that, uh, Wallace is lying if he . . . (WQ: 40). c. They couldn' because the colored people sure went for, and some white people sure wentfor it too (WQ: 56-58). d. I had it twice so far, for the Lord has done for me, I come through, through all the, been ups an' downs (WQ: 59-60). e. After they throwed down, throwed down, they just make them throwed down . . . (WQ: 73-74). f. Old master? He died in the yellow fever. He was a nice man to me (WQ: 117).

WQ does not use dem to pluralize individuated nouns (e.g., them boy 'those/the boys,' see Mufwene [1986b]). He normally uses the English nominal plural suffix -s, even though this is occasionally omitted after a numeral. In varieties of Gullah closest to the basilect, dem is a common

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

219

plural marker, even though, as indicated in Mufwene (1986b), it does alternate, or sometimes co-occur, with the English plural marker (e.g., them boys). However, WQ's speech contains many more basilectal features than may be immediately obvious. As noted parenthetically above, not only does he use been for ANTERIOR tense, he also uses many morphosyntactically unmarked verb forms with a COMPLETIVE meaning. At best some of the verb uses, as below, must be characterized as used in what Dahl (1985) calls NARRATIVE tense: (4)

You go in Hawkinsville an' you see all the swords down now in the groun' (WQ: 75-76).

There is also evidence for a relative tense system in the speech samples, as illustrated in sentence (3b) by the use of is in the clause subordinated to the main verb said and by the omission of was, also functioning as a tense marker, in the following sentence: (5)

Of course there was so much doubt, an' it seems to me that they would have done more, but itØso much doubt in the way (WQ: 54-56).

In the discourse chunk in (6), say and ain' want it must also be interpreted relative to a past context and translated by a past tense in English, although, out of this particular context, the present tense may be the most appropriate translation: (6)

FW:

After they said you could go free, then what did you do ? Did you run off the plantation that day? ... (WQ: 66-67) WQ: Well the master had promise' to, to give we forty dollars a month in pay. Well lots silly boys say they ain' want it (WQ: 69-70).

WQ's use of a relative tense system must in fact be correlated with his frequent uses of the quotative style in reported speech. Note that, in (3b), for instance, Wallace is being used to refer to the narrator himself and is puts things back in the context of the speech event that is being reported. In other words, deictics fail to be re-oriented, in spite of the

220

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

introduction of the subordinate clause with the complementizer that. In sentence (7), only the second question (see the subscripts) is reported indirectly, without inversion; the first is reported quotatively: (7)

The overseer ask me what idthat1,if that is thunder2 (WQ: 31-32).

The following sentence is a more complex case: (8)

The Yankees saying jf we go back to the south here (WQ: 53-54).

While some variationists may claim that the progressive be has been 'deleted' before saying, the following alternative explanation for the absence of be is quite plausible and perhaps more accurate, assuming in part that in a system with no agreement features12 (as is assumed of creole basilects) this verb contributes nothing to the delimitation of the main verb but -ing does. With some room allowed for overlapping rules (see Mufwene 1987b), it can be argued that in the lect which uses the form saying, the English suffix -ing is just an alternative way of marking the verb for the durative, instead of the basilectal free morpheme duh [da], which is preposed to an uninflected verb. As in the basilect, the tense marker is 0 , and the interpretation of the verb varies from context to context. (In the particular context where saying is attested, it is in Dahl's NARRATIVE; elsewhere it could be past or present). Less controversial about sentence (8) is the absence of deictic re­ orientation in the embedded clause, which is simply quoted, so to speak. As noted in Mufwene (1987c), the quotative style in reported speech is responsible for some equivocations in the analyses of Gullah sentences such as the following, where it is not clear whether say must be analyzed as part of a serial construction, hence as a verb, or as a complementizer:13 (9)

Uh tell um say Robert take sick. a. I told him that Robert [had] taken sick. b. I told him: "Robert [has] taken sick."

WQ also uses serial constructions, as below:

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

(10)

221

a. that's the way they come in protect them (WQ: 104-105V b. You got to stop do what God tell you an' go please that fellow ... (WQ: 114-115).

As will be explained in Mufwene (forthcoming b), serialization is made possible in part by the possibility for a language to use null subjects in main clauses. This common feature of Gullah, discussed in Mufwene (1987b) and Mufwene and Dijkhoff (1989), is also attested in WQ's speech, as illustrated below. The null subject is represented by 0 . (11)

a. 0 Can't sing much PAUSE 0 Born in 1844 (WQ: 23). [I] can't sing much. [ was born in 1844. b. 0 seems to me that they would have done more (WQ: 55). [It] seems to me that they would have done more.

Sometimes WQ omits the copula, as in the second part of sentence (5), where his use of it actually corresponds to 'there,' a feature which Gullah shares with some non-standard varieties of English (e.g., it's too many people in there). His use of the negator ain', as in (6), in relation to the reference time in the discourse (which could in some contexts be the present) is also typical of Gullah's basilect. WQ's speech is also close to the basilect in the way he uses personal pronouns. In a number of sentences we is attested in the object and possessive functions, and at least in one sentence the combination me and him functions as subject, as illustrated below: (12)

a. they call we all up, you know an', an' give we all freedom (WQ: 51-52). b. everything been in we hand... (WQ: 91). c. me and him was jus' like one . . . (WQ: 123-124).

WQ also uses he in reference to his mother on Turner's recording, and in the same recording the objective pronoun urn[Λm] is attested in constructions such as dance fuh urn. This illustrates a point noted by virtually all students of Gullah, including Bennett (1908 and 1909), Smith

222

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

(1926), Cunningham (1970), Nichols (1976 and 1983), and Jones-Jackson (1978, 1984, and 1986): unlike its English lexifier the basilect Gullah makes no gender distinction in the third person singular. The rule is variable, however, in today's Gullah, since she is often used for feminine. The pronoun them is also attested in possessive use, as in the phrase them gyahl 'their girl' in Turner's recording. Like some Gullah speakers who try to use the English nominal delimitative system, the definite article is sometimes used in an awkward way when the delimitation is NON-INDIVIDUATED, as below: (13)

a. I was toting in the breakfast in the house (WQ: 29). I was carrying breakfast in the house. b. He died in the yellow fever (WQ: 117). He died from yellow fever.

These sentences are reminiscent of the uses of the in the hominy grits, the rice, and the dumpling cited in Cunningham (1970), as well as the following use of the fever cited in Mufwene (1986b): (14)

How Bootsy? (JG) - Bootsy got the fever (SS).

There is thus plenty of evidence for assuming that WQ's speech is very much like today's mesolectal Gullah with its share of intra-individual variation. Compared to literary Gullah, however, it is still tempting to conclude that this variation indicates that at least WQ's speech was decreolizing. It is argued in the next section that the evidence from variation is inconclusive and Gullah is not decreolizing, at least not since the 1930s. Although emphasis will be laid more on communal than on individual speech, support for this position derives in part from the little variation attested in, for example, Jones's (1888) Gullah and is still attested in today's Gullah.

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

223

3.2 Gullah Is Not Decreolizing There are varieties of today's Gullah which are closer to the basilect than WQ's speech, both in the higher frequency of basilectal features and in attestations of features which do not occur in the samples discussed here. To date most speakers of Gullah, especially of the lects closest to the basilect, use fuh or a zero morpheme at the beginning of the phrases which WQ introduces with the infinitival to, as illustrated by the following examples from my corpus: (15)

a. Uh get up fuh come home (TH). I got up to come home. b. Uh wan/try Ø go (common). I want/tried [to] go.  S. ain tell me Ø go yet (AS). S. has not told me [to] go yet.

In sentences (15b and c), which, as presented, involve verb serialization, fuh is optional. Strictly speaking, the finite/nonfinite distinction does not exist in the basilect of Gullah and other Atlantic creoles (Mufwene and Dijkhoff 1989), and even in sentences where it corresponds to an infinitival to in English, fuh functions as a prepositioncomplementizer. Thus, it is also commonly used before the subject of a sentential complement or of a purposive adverbial clause. (16)

a. Da' girl deh don wan fuh dem chillun do nothin fuh me (ET). That girl there does not want the/those children [to] do anything for me. b. Fix de way fuh somebody 0 go deh (LR). Fix the way (in order) for somebody to go there.

It is possible that the interview contexts are responsible for the absence of clauses subordinated with fuh from WQ's speech. It is, however, also possible that this feature was generally missing from WQ's idiolect, as is the case in the speech of some Gullah speakers today. Even in assuming the latter possibility, the absence of clauses introduced by fuh

224

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

need not be interpreted as a sign of decreolization at the level of either the language itself or of his idiolect. There is just no evidence that even in the earliest days of Gullah every speaker used exactly the same lect. Nor is there evidence for assuming that WQ must have used subordinate clauses starting with fuh and stopped using them at some point in his life. The facts are simply inconclusive regarding the latter alternative. Curiously missing from WQ's speech are subordinate clauses introduced by say [SE] after another verb, as in sentence (17). Unlike in sentence (9), the most adequate analysis for say here seems to be as a serial verb rather than as a complementizer: (17)

Uh aks urn say weh ye mama duh (common). a. I asked him/her: "Where's your mother?" b. I asked him/her where his/her mother was.

Again, the interview contexts may be responsible for the absence of similar constructions from WQ's speech samples. Or his idiolect just did not have this feature (which would be in conflict with his usage of the quotative reported speech). The feature is, however, quite common in today's Gullah, even in its mesolect. It is also striking that the only durative construction in WQ's speech samples is the V-in(g) pattern, with or without an inflected form of be. To date the duh + V(-in(g) 14 pattern is still very common, as illustrated below, even in constructions that may be described as serial. (18)

a. We came by fuh see how you duh doing (AS), b. Uh ain duh fun (common). I am not kidding.  De lady bin deh duh sit (LR). The lady was there sitting. / The lady was sitting there.

The nature of the interviews and the size of the corpus make it difficult to determine what other creole features associated with Gullah may be missing from WQ's idiolect. In the absence of a more comprehensive inventory, the above features should suffice to demonstrate that Gullah does not seem to be decreolizing, nor to have decreolized since

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

225

the 1930s; and there are basilectal features even in today's varieties which are missing from WQ's samples. Assuming that in the 1930s there were speakers on St. Simons Island who spoke a variety of Gullah closer to the basilect than did WQ, Gullah has apparently preserved the same kind of inter-individual variation that is observable today.

4. Conclusion and Some Reflections The main conclusion of this chapter is that Gullah is not decreolizing.15 The only other conceivable thesis, hard though it is to defend, is that decreolization was already complete in the 1930s. Note, however, that if decreolization is associated with social mobility, as observed by DeCamp (1971), it would only have been starting in the 1930s. After all, regular and easy communication with the mainland and access to adequate schooling was just beginning. The bridges now connecting the mainland to most of the islands have been built only since the 1950s.16 Besides, relative racial integration and access to socio-economic opportunities did not become effective until the 1960s, especially in the South. It is now, in the 1980s, that the much-invoked effect of education and the media (disputed in Mufwene 1987a) would be the most effective. What has generally been overlooked in the literature invoking decreolization is the ethnographic role of language as the marker of identity. Linguists have simply disregarded the fact that Gullah, like black English, is an identity marker for many Afro-Americans and is their ingroup code. Access to education has not entailed an obligation to abandon the traditional speech ways; it has been an opportunity to acquire a superposed variety to which they can code-switch and with which those who have the opportunity can move up in the American social pyramid. Even though Gullah carries a stigma in the outside world, 'talking proper' also carries the adverse, snobbish stigma in many in-groups.17 It is thus often to the advantage of the successful to remain fluent in the old ways. Those returning from the city go back to these traditional ways. Conscious return to these ways often produces a variety that is of course 'deeper,' or closer to the basilect, than that of those who have never moved out of the islands for a long time.

226

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

Some linguists, such as Jones-Jackson (1984 and 1986), have emphasized the influx of whites into the Sea Islands since the 1950s. They treat the influx as if the whites had moved in to live side by side with blacks and to interact with them on a regular basis. In reality, except for the white families that had always resided on the islands, whites have established new neighborhoods in which they live among themselves and are hardly seen socializing with the blacks on a regular basis. They do not go to the same churches, and whites are a rarity in the black 'joints,' the next most popular place for socializing after the church. Even if many of them work in the same businesses as the majority of blacks now working in vacation resorts such as Hilton Head, Kiawah, and Seabrook, the jobs are not the same. Whites are mostly white-collars and blacks are mostly bluecollars, and the two groups do not interact much with each other. As for the white foremen, who might be expected to influence black speech, they hardly speak a variety of standard English or anything that is very different from that of their subordinates. There are of course white fisherman and farmers, but these are predominantly those who have traditionally resided on the islands. They are those who used to be a minority relative to the blacks and have spoken, and continue to speak, a language variety close to Gullah, subject to the same internal variation as among the Geechees themselves. One would really have to invent a theory of linguistic pollenization without interaction to justify decreolization on the basis of white migrations into the Sea Islands. With regard to tourists, invoking their influence is even more implausible. The sun and wilderness worshippers who go to the islands on their vacations hardly stop in the neighborhoods inhabited by blacks, except at points where they can buy local, hand-woven, grass baskets; they do not know where the joints are and have shown little interest in socializing with the natives anyway. Except for the maids that keep their rooms or condos clean at the resorts, the natives are generally kept out of bounds. Besides, how often do maids and guests communicate even in hotels of major cities? Can this minimal interaction have an effect on local speech? Do the natives need more than (relative) code-switching in order to communicate with these tourists or new residents in order to adjust to these patterns of migration? As one little-educated Geechee answered the question as to

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

227

whether he ever felt the need to talk like the white guests he met at the resort, what would be the reason (in academic jargon, motivation) for talking like them? Much has also been assumed about the accommodations which Geechees make to the outsiders they interact with: many linguists assume they move a couple of lectal notches higher on the speech continuum which characterizes creole communities. However, even in our best efforts to be objective, many linguists have been short-sighted, forgetting that in our own speech communities we make similar adjustments to outsiders in order to facilitate mutual intelligibility. This in no way indicates that our ingroup speech habits are changing. In diglossic situations where a particular variety is stigmatized, the pressure on its speakers to code-switch is stronger, and attempts to conceal it are undeniable. However, it seems questionable to assume that the accommodations made by such speakers to outsiders reflect the replacements of their traditional speech habits by new habits rather than a case of bilectalism where one code is superposed on another. As Tometro Hopkins (p.c.) once observed, Gullah seems to be regaining momentum, apparently as a protective mechanism, on islands such as Hilton Head, where the natives feel their identity and privileges threatened.

NOTES Part of this paper is based upon research supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #BNS-8519315 to study Gullah morphosyntax. I am grateful to the editors of this volume for inviting me to contribute this chapter and for making available to me the sample of Wallace Quarterman's speech from the Library of Congress, as well as to Indiana University's Archives of Traditional Music for making me a copy of some of Lorenzo Turner's recordings. I am grateful to Nancy Condon for feedback on this text. I alone assume full responsibility for all the shortcomings. 1.

Readers may be interested in checking Holm's discussion of 'creole features' in this volume. The list of basilectal features may vary, depending on whether or not the

228

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

investigator includes features which can be traced back to the lexifier. Since, according to Cassidy (1983), up to 98% of Gullah's vocabulary is English, the target language at the time of creolization, not including the features related to the lexifier in the list would reduce the list of basilectal, or creole, features to almost nil. Creoles are defined more by the structural differences which distinguish them from the lexifier than by the etymologies of the features. 2.

Herskovits (1941), Dillard (1972), Alleyne (1980), and Joyner (1984) all cite the social stratification among slaves on the plantation, suggesting that speech varied in accordance with both the kinds of whites the slaves interacted with and the frequency of contacts which were possible between the native speakers and the Africans.

3.

This hypothesis is based on the so far disputable assumption that the writers were all equally skilled atrecordingaccurately the pidgin/creole varieties they heard.

4.

See Mühlhäusler (1987: 110) for a similar caution on literary sources, even though in regard to the Oceanic Solomon Pijin. As early as 1895 the Reverend John G. Williams commented on Gonzales' Gullah in the following terms: "The lowcountry negro's description of a jackass to a negro who has never seen a jackass, 'E look same like a mule, only mo so,' is about true of Gonzales' Gullah." Suggestive of variation around that time is, however, his own fear that Gullah would disappear within a generation, a feeling echoed in 1930 by Stoney and Shelby (quoted by Reinecke 1937) and in 1944 by Stoddard. Only Johnson (1930) did not expect Gullah to change much even within a hundred years from the time when he wrote.

5.

The same assumption also explains why the defenders of decreolization have not been bothered by the fact that varieties which are the closest to the basilect (defined in note 6) still thrive and no evidence has been adduced yet of systemic changes modeled on the lexifier in these varieties. The main evidence has been the existence of the many varieties of the mesolect

6.

As in Mufwene (1987a: 99), the basilect is assumed here to be a composite, theoretical construct which combines, in the fashion of a set-theoretic union,

IS GULLAH DECREOLIZING?

229

features attested in various speakers but hardly ever all in one speaker. Its main usefulness lies in presenting one of two extremities from which to measure the position of a speaker on the continuum whose other extremity consists of the lexifier. Unfortunately, as Holm observes in this volume, this second end has generally been (mis)identified with the standard variety. This produces a distorted picture of the differences between the systems of the lexifier and of the creole, which many dialectologists have criticized. 7.

In Mufwene's field recordings, this problem is minimized by having a native guide (a relative or friend of the informants) participate in the conversations and the fieldworker observe instead. This guarantees that speech proceeds in the most genuine Gullah an outsider can record.

8.

After all, the British colonized South Carolina before Georgia, and for quite some time into the eighteenth century Georgia bought its African slaves from South Carolina. The slaves apparently brought Gullah to Georgia (Hancock 1986). Although disputed by the assumption of variation (especially regional), the assumption that Gullah may have been the same all over is not completely unjustified if interpreted in the sense of similarities which subsumed intra- and inter-individual variation itself.

9.

Variation data count as evidence for decreolization only on the already-disputed assumption that Gullah was once homogeneous and monolithic (with a neat division of labor between rules). Mufwene (1987b) indicates in more detail that monolithic grammar at either the individual or communal level is just a wishful state of affairs in any language community. See also Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) for a similar position. Even Mufwene (1986b), in its primarily basilectal orientation, presents sufficient evidence on number delimitation against the assumption of a monolithic grammar for Gullah.

10.

The spelling used here is that used by the editors. The line numbers are in reference to the same texts. They are not given in the case of Turner's recordings, for which there is no complete transcription. My own data are identified either by the initials of the speaker or by the comment 'common.'

230

SALIKOKO S. MUFWENE

11.

The original sentence was with the ANTERIOR marker bin, which is parenthesized here only to show that it can be omitted.

12.

Consistent with Government-Binding theory, this term is used here in reference to tense, person, and number inflections on the verb.

13.

The translation which is the closest to the serial analysis is (9b), without a complementizer or the verb say itself.

14.

This alternation is common even in Turner's texts (recorded in the 1930s, though published in 1949). Surprisingly, in Stoddard's texts, produced about a decade later, the duh + V pattern is by far the most dominant, the duh + V-ing pattern occasional, and the V-ing option rare.

15.

Holm's conclusion in this volume that black English is not a decreolized variety of a Gullah-like creole, which corroborates Mufwene's (1987a) conjecture, generally confirms my belief that the English spoken by blacks in the New World (to the extent that all these varieties may be so characterized) has never been a homogeneous phenomenon at any time.

16.

According to Joyner (1986), the first bridge was that to Hilton Head, South Carolina, built in 1956.

17.

A high school junior, who turned out to be a good informant for eliciting constructions not attested in spontaneous speech, once laughed at the common allegation that numerous, if not most, Geechee youngsters do not speak Gullah. Explaining why they are often not heard speaking it, he said that, having learned a variety of mainstream American English, they conceal their Gullah ways from outsiders (especially when they are outside their islands) because they would otherwise be ridiculed. He would not use it even before me (in spite of assurances he would not be ridiculed) simply because such is his pattern of behavior: not to use Gullah in front of strangers, especially the educated ones (likened to his teacher). On the other hand, he said, one could not just abandon the old ways once back on the island; the peers who do not go to school would treat him/her as a snob.

The Atlantic Creoles and the Language of the Ex-Slave Recordings

John Holm

This study will examine the main morphosyntactic features that link the language of the ex-slave recordings with the Atlantic creoles, focusing principally on those creoles of the Caribbean area and coastal West Africa that have drawn most of their lexicon from English, but also referring from time to time to creoles of other lexical bases when their structures cast light on the typological traits of the Atlantic creoles as a group.1 After a comparison of certain features of the verb phrase, forms of be, pronouns, nouns, prepositions, and word order, there is a brief discussion of some lexical items that are common to the language of the recordings and the English-based creoles of the Caribbean area - but not current standard English. The chapter ends with a consideration of what light this linguistic data might cast ~ in conjunction with certain sociohistorical data — on the origin and development of the language of these recordings, concluding that American Black English was a semi-creole from its inception. Before examining the linguistic data, however, some word of explanation is in order regarding the difference between what most creolists refer to as "creole features" and what some dialectologists refer to as "creolisms." Schneider (1982: 38), for example, uses the term "creolisms" to refer to features of American black English "with no close structural analogues in British regional dialects." Most creolists use the term "creole feature" rather more loosely to refer to all those features of a creole that distinguish it from its lexical source language. Although it is generally agreed that this source language refers to those sociolects of the

232

JOHN HOLM

superstrate at the time of contact that provided the actual input into the formation of the creole, in practice the point of reference is usually the modern standard unless this is demonstrably inappropriate. Those dialectologists and students of earlier stages of the lexical source language who are also creolists serve as much needed watchdogs in the discipline, admonishing colleagues when their references to the modern standard are misleading. However, it must also be admitted that the relevant earlier stages of the relevant regional dialects are less satisfactorily documented than the earlier stages of the literary dialect. Thus we are often forced to extrapolate what we can from the information that is available about the standard at this earlier period. However deplorable, our knowledge of the relevant varieties of the superstrate languages is better than our knowledge of the relevant varieties of the substrate languages, which is almost totally by extrapolation from the modern standard varieties of the relatively few Niger-Congo languages that have been described in detail. Thus the term "creole feature" is used here to refer not only to features derived from substrate languages, but also to features from the supers trate -- including regional or archaic usages, or features that have undergone reanalysis in their phonology, morphology, syntax, or semantics. Moreover, many creole features seem to have resulted from universal tendencies in adult second, language acquisition which helped shape the pidgins out of which the creoles grew; these include some kinds of simplification and the restructuring whereby grammatical information came to be conveyed by free rather than bound morphemes. Distinctive creole features also resulted from borrowings from adstrate languages, or from internally motivated innovations as the creoles developed a complexity of their own. Finally, many if not most creole features have resulted from a convergence of two or more of the above forces, which is what renders the dialectologist's definition of "creolism" nearly useless in the study of most creole features. Creoles are by their very nature the result of linguistic convergence and compromise: those features that were selected in the process of creolization had to work on a number of different levels, including the level of the superstrate. In the English-based creoles the superstrate was the seventeenth-century variety of various British regional dialects, and it is unlikely that many creole features survived that did not lend themselves to any interpretation in terms of these dialects.

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

233

Thus, to confine the meaning of "creolism" to these relatively rare features is to define away the term's usefulness. A failure to understand the fundamental role of convergence in the genesis of creoles led to decades of futile debates as to the creoles' genetic identity. In the 1930s Haitian scholars argued whether their creole was a French dialect (Faine 1936) or an African language (Sylvain 1936), a polemic continued into the 1960s by Robert A. Hall, Jr. and Douglas Taylor. The obvious answer - that the creole was in some ways both and in other ways neither -- was somehow unacceptable. The Zeitgeist has been a factor in these debates; until the beginning of the end of overt European colonialism at mid-century, the European roots of the creoles were often emphasized as part of the general lightness of whiteness. In the 1960s the movements for civil rights for American blacks and political independence for British West Indians brought a renewed emphasis on the African origins of their varieties of English, affecting the fashionability of research on these varieties' links with British dialects rather than African languages. The debate over the identity of American black English has been particularly emotional, as has the debate over other semi-creoles such as Afrikaans or non-standard Brazilian Portuguese, which are also neither clearly creole nor completely European. Coming from multiracial societies with conflicting norms, the speakers of these varieties have often had ambivalent attitudes towards their own cultural identity, attitudes that have been transferred to the linguistic symbol of that identity. Such conflicting attitudes are easily found in the work of Brazilian linguists (Holm 1987). Even Afrikaans speakers first emphasized the differences between their language and European Dutch as they fought for the recognition of a separate standard at the beginning of this century, but since then standard Afrikaans has been edging back towards European norms to enhance its legitimacy. South African philologists have often seemed to follow the policy that if an Afrikaans feature could possibly be traced to a Dutch dialect, then it must have come from that dialect rather than a non-European source (den Besten 1986). This is not unlike the work of some dialectologists on the origin of American black English features, or the similar stance (albeit reversed) of some creolists. However, the convergence of both is more often a satisfactory explanation,

234

JOHN HOLM

not because it is a tactic to placate everyone, but simply because it reflects what is known about the way languages mix.

1. The Verb Phrase The verbal systems of the basilectal varieties of the Caribbean creoles are remarkably similar, whether the creoles have drawn their vocabularies from English, French, Spanish, or Dutch (Holm 1988: 150-74). Unlike verbs in the metropolitan or regional varieties of the lexical source languages which indicate tense differences with inflections as well as auxiliary verbs, the creole verb is uninflected. Tense and other differences are indicated by preverbal markers; although the forms of these markers have been drawn largely from auxiliary verbs or other function words in the superstrate, the function of the markers is only loosely related to the syntax and semantics of their etyma in the lexical source language.

1.1 Creole Unmarked/Anterior versus English Present/Past Unmarked creole verbs (i.e., the verbs alone, without any preverbal markers) are understood as referring to whatever time is being discussed, which is established at the beginning of discourse. They can usually be translated by English verbs in the past tense (particularly verbs referring to actions) or the simple present tense (particularly verbs referring to states). If an action occurred before the time under discussion, this is indicated by a preverbal marker of anterior tensé, which corresponds in meaning to either the English past tense (if the time in focus is the present) or the English past perfect (if the time in focus is the past). Thus the creole distinction between unmarked and anterior corresponds only in part to the present/past distinction in English and its regional dialects. The creole distinction is semantically closer to the system found in such western Niger-Congo languages as Yoruba and Bambara (Holm 1988: 151). English-based creoles have an anterior marker that is etymologically based on been, although decreolizing varieties often also have alternative forms derived from did and was.

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

235

From a creolist perspective, the tense marking system found in the language of the ex-slaves is closer to that of English than to that of the English-based creoles, although some instances of the latter (apparently remnants of an earlier stage) can also be found. The use of the uninflected verb for the present tense and the verb plus the {-d} morpheme for the past tense predominates in the language of each speaker, although there is certainly more variation in verbal inflections than could be found in the speech of most northern whites. Creole-like usage of been is quite rare, e.g. (1)

I got on a cowboy shirt now that I brought from Texas. Been have it all my days (CS: 121-122).

The only other use of been with similar semantics is found elsewhere in the same narrative, but this time made to conform more closely to English morphology, as if it were an auxiliary in a progressive construction. (2)

I hear jus' as good now as I ever been hearing (CS: 342).

Two speakers occasionally use unstressed did to mark the past: (3) (4)

She did run off (LS: 396-397);· let me see how that did come up (HS: 502).

Use of the uninflected form of the verb with past reference is found, but does not predominate: (5) (6)

he make plenty corn (IM: 102); whatever people choose to give us (FH: 169).

One speaker alternated between an irregular past form and an uninflected form with past reference: (7)

They taught me mighty good, they teach me good (JM: 5-6)

236

JOHN HOLM

Some speakers used the regular past inflection on irregular verbs, e.g., throwed (WQ: 73), blowed (LS: 50), growed (CB: 169), horned (CS: 59). This could be interpreted as evidence of knowledge of the English tense marking system in an extension of its use by logical analogy; however, these forms may have been modeled after the usage of white dialect speakers, since they are found in the regional speech of both England and the United States (Schneider 1982: 24). Whichever, they reflect the English rather than the creole verbal system.

1.2 Progressive and Habitual Aspect While 'past' refers to tense (relative to the time of the utterance), as does 'anterior' (relative to the time line of the discourse), the creole verbal system also marks aspect, i.e., whether an action is in progress, or recurs habitually, or is carried out to completion. Progressive aspect is also a basic part of the English verbal system, the difference between 'she sings' and 'she is singing.' Like many western Niger-Congo languages, the Atlantic creoles indicate progressive aspect with a preverbal marker which is often etymologically connected to an expression of location. This may represent a universal relationship between expressions of location and actions in progress, as in early modern English 'He is on doing it,' which was reduced to 'He is α-doing it' and the modern 'He is doing it.' The English-based creoles usually use de or da as the progressive marker, which is believed to be from there converging with phonologically similar progressive markers in West African languages, e.g., Miskito Coast Creole a de trai 'I am trying' (Holm 1978: 25). In decreolizing varieties, progressive aspect is indicated by the English inflection rather than the preverbal marker, e.g., a trai-in. Parallel constructions (not found in British dialects) occur throughout the ex-slave recordings: (8)

They all going home now (BM: 50).

This construction involves the variable occurrence of be, discussed in section 2.

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

237

Many of the English-based creoles have preverbal markers to indicate that an action recurs habitually. This idea is conveyed in English by the simple tenses (e.g., 'she smokes') or periphrastic constructions ('she used to smoke'). Like a number of Niger-Congo languages, some Atlantic creoles indicate habitual aspect with the same preverbal marker that indicates progressive aspect; there is a semantic connection between the two in that both indicate that an action occurs not at a single point in time but rather over a span of time. In some English-based creoles, the progressive marker da apparently became identified with English does, which conveys the same idea of habit as the simple present tense. There was probably converging influence from the auxiliary do in seventeenth-century English and later regional dialects, which did not require emphasis as in the modern standard. Some parallel uses of nonemphatic does and do indicating habitual aspect can be found in the ex-slave recordings: (9) (10)

An' I does enjoy certain of his show (FH: 377-378); I can't write it pretty like people do do (BL: 166-167).

In a number of Caribbean creoles habitual does has the reduced forms iz and z, as in Bahamian They is be in the ocean' (Holm and Shilling 1982: 111). Rickford (1980) suggests that the complete loss of these reduced forms left be itself with habitual force in some varieties, e.g., Bahamian 'They just be playing' (Holm and Shilling 1982: 14). There is a good case for the converging influence of Irish English in this verbal construction (Rickford 1986a), which also occurs in Liberian English (Singler et al. 1981: 79) and American black English. Bailey and Maynor (1989) have suggested that invariant be+Y+ing is a relatively recent innovation, pointing out that the construction does not occur in the ex-slave recordings. However, there is an occurrence of habitual be with the uninflected form of the verb: (11)

If you be do the wrong thing (CS: 233).

This is also found in Bahamian, e.g., 'People be row right up' (Holm and Shilling 1982: 14).

JOHN HOLM

238

Roberts (1976) has suggested that verbal -s may have been reanalyzed as a habitual marker in decreolizing varieties; possible examples of this in the ex-slave recordings include (12) (13)

They treats me nice. (AG: 27); I does it (CS: 365).

(It is noteworthy that in the last sentence, does is pronounced /du:z/ rather than/dәz/). Finally, it is possible that some progressive constructions in the exslave narratives were used with habitual force: (14) (15)

Now only womens wearing the dresses (FH: 104); They bringing us from Africa over here (CS: 84).

1.3 Completive Aspect Like some Niger-Congo languages, most of the Atlantic creoles have a verbal construction with the word corresponding to done or finished to convey the idea that the action of the main verb has been completed. In some creoles done seems to function as a serial verb after the main verb, while in others it occurs as a preverbal marker. In the English-based creoles it takes the form of done, which is found as an auxiliary with a similar meaning in other English dialects — although it is by no means clear in which direction the borrowing occurred. In the Caribbean creoles done is followed by the uninflected form of the verb, but in the ex-slave narratives it is followed by the past participle, e.g.: (16)

'Bout eight o'clock he done been all around (IM: 98).

2. Forms of be With few exceptions, the Atlantic creoles have several different words for be depending on the following grammatical construction. For example, the

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

239

English-based creoles usually have an expressed equative copula before noun phrases (e.g., Miskito Coast Creole mi da i anti 'I am his aunt') as opposed to an unexpressed or zero form before adjectives (e.g., di langwij 0 bad 'the language was bad'). This usage in the creoles reflects the influence of similar distinctions in their substrate languages (Holm 1984, 1988: 174-82). The English-based creoles have yet a third form of be before expressions of location, de from 'there' (alternating with 0), which also functions as a preverbal marker of progressive aspect (1.2). Some remnants of this creole pattern can be found in the ex-slave recordings: (17) (18) (19) (20)

before nouns: They was good people (LS: 567); before adjectives: They Ø cheap (FH: 22); before locatives: I Ø up here (WQ: 71); before verbs: They Ø all going home (BM: 48-49).

However, there is massive variation with the expressed forms of be required in these positions in standard English and British dialects. Sometimes this variation occurs within the same sentence: (21) (22) (23)

They 0 all dead. AU of them's dead (HS: 152-153); Where they 0 a t . . . where they is (AG: 6, 8); The Yankee be to the landing, they 0 drunk (WQ: 41).

Finally, the Atlantic creoles have a highlighter or emphasizing particle that occurs before fronted verbs, e.g., Jamaican Iz tiif dem tiif it 'It was certainly stolen' (Cassidy 1964: 273). This highlighter can also emphasize nouns, e.g., Miskito Coast Creole Iz truut 'It's the truth!' or Das di smuok 'That's the smoke' (Holm 1978: 270) -- the latter having somewhat more deictic force. While the etyma for these forms are clearly English it's and that's, it should be noted that basilectal English creoles do not have the contraction rules of English, so that iz and das each have to be considered single morphemes. Interestingly, the language of the ex-slaves contains two similar forms: (24) i's just like any tan leather (IM: 55); (25) tha's enough (FH: 6).

240

JOHN HOLM

Labov (1972a: 114 ff.) points out that the parallel forms in contemporary American black English differ from the contractions usually used by whites, i.e., / / and / ί t s / . He invokes phonological rules to # # derive / ί s / from / ί t ί z / , but then restricts these rules to pronouns since nouns like Pat cannot be thus reduced in black English, i.e., Pat's good does not become * / p æ s g υ d / . In other words it is not the case, as claimed by Labov (1969), that the black English copula can be deleted wherever the standard English copula can be contracted since standard / ð æ t s g υ d / corresponds to black English / ð æ s g υ d / rather than the predicted */ðæs gυd/. Moreover, Labov's pronominal restriction does not account for (26)

Le's go to town, drink it off (LS: 600)

since let is not a pronoun. However, the existence of creole forms like Bahamian i 'it,' da 'that', and le 'let' suggests that these high-frequency forms were retained from an earlier stage of the creole in which final /t/ had been lost to conform to a CV syllabic structure rule. It seems likely that on the North American mainland such forms were influenced by the corresponding English contractions, in which / ι z / becomes /s/ via assimilation of voicing to that of the preceding voiceless /t/ in /ιt/. Thus i became is (rather than */iz/), da became das (rather than */dats/) and le became les (rather than * / 1 ε t s / ) .

3. The Noun Phrase As in their substrate languages, Atlantic creole nouns are not inflected for number, although plurality can be indicated by a morpheme that is homophonous with the pronoun for they, e.g., Jamaican de bwai dem or dem bwai 'the boys.' This pluralizer is usually restricted to animate nouns and implies definiteness. Some parallel constructions can be found in the language of the ex-slaves: (27) (28)

them wagon (BM: 63); themthing (LS: 24).

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

241

However, the English -s inflection also occurs frequently: (29) (30)

two looms (IM: 8); them boards (IM: 40).

There is so much variation, though, that it is not always clear that the -s morpheme is anything more than a stylistic variant: (31)

had hounds... them hound_ (BM: 94-94);

(32)

six mans . . . six m e n s . . . six men (CS: 221, 224, 274);

(33)

that vittles (LS:399).

In this respect the language of the ex-slaves is more similar to decreolizing varieties like Bahamian and Gullah than to any British varieties of English. There may be a remnant of an earlier creole pluralizer in such expressions as "Granpa an' them" (CB: 67) and "Ma and them used to go" (HS: 82-83), although this construction is also found in other dialects. The English-based creoles indicate possession by juxtaposition rather than inflection, e.g., Miskito Coast Creole di uman biebi 'the woman's baby.' This is also the construction found in the ex-slave recordings: (34)

the white folk kitchen (BL: 96-97).

Exceptions can be found, e.g.: (35)

our white people's house (HS: 222);

but it is not clear that the inflectional -s is not simply a plural. The same speaker also says (36)

Them peoples was poor peoples (HS: 463).

242

JOHN HOLM

4. Pronouns Bailey (1966: 22) posits a paradigm of personal pronouns for basilectal Jamaican Creole in which no distinction is made for gender or case and the same form also serves as a possessive adjective, i.e., mi Ί , me, my,' yu 'you, your (sing.),' im 'he, him, his, she, her, it, its,' wi 'we, us, our,' unu 'you, your (plural),' dem 'they, them, their.' Possible remnants of such a system can be seen in the language of the ex-slaves: (37)

Well the master had promise' to, to give we all forty dollars a month in pay (WQ: 69-70);

(38)

we had we own lawyers (WQ: 105).

However, many such usages occur in the narrative of a single speaker from Georgia and might reflect the creole influence of Gullah. Other speakers' usage coincides more with that of standard English: (39)

An' they brought the news to us (HS: 454).

5. Prepositions The use of prepositions in the Atlantic creoles can differ from that of their superstrates, reflecting the influence of substrate languages and possible universals such as the tendency in pidginization towards a single preposition to express a number of spatial relationships (Holm 1988: 207210). A number of usages of prepositions in the ex-slave recordings differ markedly from that of standard English and uncreolized dialects, indicating some external influence: (40) (41) (42)

We had mighty good white folks, 0 my memory (IM: 58-59); So many of colored people (FH: 54); Now he make plenty Øcorn with them ten hands . . . (IM: 102-103);

(43)

the boat, bringing me from Africa in the United State (CS: 89).

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

243

Such usages cannot be accounted for by referring solely to standard English and regional British dialects.

6. Word Order Like most of their substrate languages, the Atlantic creoles have SVO word order, even in questions which require subject/verb (or auxiliary) inversion in their superstrates. Thus in Jamaican Creole one asks, we im de?, literally 'Where he is?' However, contemporary American black English follows the word order of standard English in direct questions, as does the language of the ex-slave recordings. This would seem to suggest that there has been no residual creole influence in this area, but the word order of embedded or indirect questions reveals a different story: (44) (45)

I as' my mama could I go down to the boat landing (CS: 56); The overseer ask me what is that (WQ: 31)?

This suggests a hypercorrection that grew out of a shift from noninverted to inverted word order in all questions, whether direct (inverted in standard English) or indirect (not inverted in the standard). Thus creole question structure we im de? was inverted to Where is he?' not only in direct questions but also in embedded questions like dem aks me we im de, which became They ask me where is he/ The latter structure cannot be explained by referring solely to standard English and the dialects of Britain.

7. Lexical Items Most of the lexical similarities that link the language of the ex-slaves with the English-based creoles (but not current standard English) can be explained through their common source in archaic or regional English, e.g.: (46)

they'd full that thing up with water (IM: 52);

244

JOHN HOLM

(47) (48) (49) (50)

anybody that trusts you for two dollars (FH: 44); stump your toes (FH: 97); I was the onlies' colored cowboy (CS: 123); we'd pop them whips (HS: 680).

However, some of these common lexical items have their origins in phonological or syntactic features peculiar to the creoles. An example of the first is flitters for 'fritter' (CS: 72, 73); this resulted from the alternation of /1/ and /r/ in a number of creoles, which in turn grew out of the fact that these two sounds are allophones of the same phoneme in some of the African languages that form the creoles' substrate. The following is an example of a lexical item that grew out of the syntax of a specifically creole idiom: (51)

That's what makes the cowboys was carrying their pistols an' rifles to kill them (CS: 145-146).

In the English-based creoles, wa k is a widespread idiom meaning 'why'; it appears to be a calque on a similar idiom in West African languages, e.g., Ibo gε nε m e r ε or Yoruba kíl'ó se, both literally 'what it makes?' meaning 'why?' (Holm 1988: 87).

S. Conclusion It is clear from the above that there are a number of features in the language of the ex-slave recordings that cannot be explained without some reference to creolization or decreolization. However, this is not to say that this language variety (or rather varieties, since each speaker has a somewhat different grammar) can be compared to the English-based creoles of Suriname, which have not remained in contact with English and thus have not been influenced by it since shortly after the time of their origin. There is still no unambiguous evidence that the English of North American blacks was ever completely creolized (i.e., became as structurally distant from European English as the contemporary creoles of

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

245

Suriname or even the basiletal varieties of Jamaica or Guyana) outside of a few isolated areas such as coastal South Carolina and Georgia, where Gullah developed. The proportion of blacks to whites in Britain's North American colonies was much lower than in the Caribbean. While settlers in both regions were largely British indentured servants in the early seventeenth century, by 1680 the black population equalled or surpassed the white population in many Caribbean colonies, whereas in North America blacks made up only 4.6% of the total population (Rawley 1981: 329). However, this figure for such a large and heterogeneous area does obscure the fact that the ratio of blacks to whites differed considerably from one locality to another. Even though the importation of slaves increased markedly over the next half century in both areas, by the 1730s blacks still made up only 14% of the North American population but 80% of the population of the British and French Caribbean (Rawley 1981: 329). In 1860 the United States' four million slaves and half a million freedmen still made up only 14% of the nation's population. However, at this time a full 92% of American blacks were concentrated in the South. Moreover, 50% of the slaves were owned by 10% of the slave owners, living on large plantations where there was less contact with the speech of whites. At this time there were large sections of all the coastal states from Virginia to eastern Texas where blacks made up the majority of the population (Drewry 1980: 305). The existence of a widespread creole-influenced variety of black English, especially among field hands on large plantations, seems to be fairly well documented in the contemporary literature (Dillard 1972). However, even assuming that the portrayal of such such speech was accurate, there are difficulties in determining what kind of English was being spoken by any particular black person unless it is known where the individual was born and raised (e.g., Africa, the West Indies, or North America). Varieties included the foreigner's English of Africans, the pidginized English brought from West Africa (particularly during the latter part of the slave trade), the creolized English of slaves imported from the British West Indies, the indigenous North American creoles (i.e., Gullah and Afro-Seminole), the indigenous semi-creole (with both creole and non-creole features), uncreolized regional English (with some features

246

JOHN HOLM

of creole origin), and the standard American English first spoken by educated freedmen. It seems likely that there was a good deal of mutual influence among these varieties and linguistic gradation from one to another. Even the firstlanguage interference in the English of slaves brought from Africa was likely to parallel the substrate influence in the pidginized or creolized varieties. Thus in 1796 a Virginian slave is portrayed as saying, "You terra me, me shoot him dead" (quoted by Dillard 1972: 91), in which terra 'tell' has the paragogic vowel and , r/ alternation associated with Africans' speech, but in 1792 a "Guinea Negro" is portrayed as saying, "I be cash crab" (quoted by Dillard 1972: 92), in which be seems like a North American lexification of progressive or habitual de (1.2). By the early 1800s there seems to have been a clear distinction between the speech of field hands and house servants (Stewart 1967: 83). The latter were in closer contact with whites and adopted more of their speech habits, perhaps transmitting some of these to their kin who toiled in the fields. It is clear that decreolization began well before the Civil War (Stewart 1968: 52), but it is difficult to determine what the starting point was, either chronologically or linguistically. Historical and demographic data suggest that outside of the Gullah area, the starting point of the indigenous variety was not a creole but a semi-creole, forged from the seventeenth-century regional speech of the British settlers and the creole of West Indian slaves imported during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The West Indies was the source of the first slaves brought to Virginia and the Carolinas, and their speech is likely to have played an important role in this linguistically crucial period in the development of what became American black English. It is only after the early eighteenth century that American slave owners came to prefer Africans to West Indians since they suspected the latter to be "rogue or refuse" slaves that previous owners wanted to dispose of (Rawley 1981: 332-33). Thus the most likely scenario is that blacks born in most parts of the American South spoke a semi-creole from the beginning. Like the Bahamas, which had blacks and whites in approximately equal proportions throughout most of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Holm 1980) rather than the large majority of blacks found on the sugar islands, most of

THE ATLANTIC CREOLES

247

the American South did not have the minimal proportion of 80% nonnative speakers that Bickerton (1981: 4) claims is necessary for creolization. Instead, an imported creole and a non-creole merged, much as in Brazil (Holm 1987), producing a semi-creolized variety. A similar scenario also appears to have evolved in South Africa (Den Besten 1986, 1987), where the non-creolized regional Dutch of the white settlers coexisted throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the restructured Dutch of local and imported slaves, with the two populations remaining in roughly equal numbers. Today both white and black speakers of Afrikaans, non-standard Brazilian Portuguese, and the regional English of the American South have creole features in their speech, but in South Africa and the United States, where there has been more racial segregation than in Brazil, white speakers tend to have fewer such features than blacks. The theoretical implications of this new hypothesis on the origin of American black English are far-reaching. The view that the variety is a post-creole, which has gained increasing acceptance over the past two decades, has been interpreted to mean that English was fully creolized in the American South and that the resulting creole was at one time fairly widespread before it began decreolizing (Dillard 1972). The hypothesis that the variety is a semi-creole requires no such creole stage in the development of American black English itself, only the presence of a creole (in this case one imported from the West Indies) at the time of its genesis. Disputing the thesis of the decreolization of American black English, Mufwene (1987a: 99) has noted, "The results of half-creolization and decreolization may look alike, but the processes responsible for the structural likeness of their outcomes are certainly not the same." The present study supports the view that the language of the ex-slaves, like earlier attestations of the speech of blacks in the American South, indicates in the light of the relevant sociohistorical and demographic data discussed above, that the language of blacks born in North America (outside of the Gullah area) was from its very beginning a semi-creole representing a compromise between the creole of slaves imported from the West Indies and the regional speech of British settlers. While American black English has certainly undergone decreolization over the past 300 years in the sense that it has replaced many of its original creole features with those of

248

JOHN HOLM

English, this is not actually evidence that American black English itself ever constituted an autonomous creole system.

NOTES 1.

I would like to thank Guy Bailey, Frederic Cassidy, Salikoko Mufwene, John Singler, and William Stewart for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. However, responsibility for any shortcomings is solely my own.

Liberian Settler English and the Ex-Slave Recordings: A Comparative Study

John Victor Singler

Two sources of evidence as to the character of the speech of American blacks in an earlier era are the ex-slave recordings and the speech of Liberian Settlers. In this study I will look at the recordings and at three interviews that I conducted with Settlers in 1980, comparing the two sets of data to each other and, implicitly, to contemporary American Black English (ABE). The organization of the study is the following: Part One presents a brief description of the history of the Liberian Settlers and then provides particulars about the speakers whom I interviewed. Parts Two and Three look at specific issues within the grammars of Liberian Settler English (LSE) and the ex-slaves. Part Two considers features of the verb system while Part Three is a quantitative analysis of plural marking in the two varieties.

1.1 The Liberian Settlers' New World Roots In all, 16,000 black Americans were transported to Liberia in the nineteenth century.1 The American Colonization Society (ACS) had been founded in 1816 to establish a colony for free black Americans on the west coast of Africa, and in 1822 a group of black Americans, under the leadership of agents of the ACS, established their first settlement in what in now Liberia. The ACS's stated intent was to found a colony where blacks

250

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

could enjoy the rights and privileges denied them in the United States. The largest part of the money for the venture came from Southern slaveowners who felt that the presence within the United States of large numbers of free blacks threatened the status quo. In turn abolitionists perceived the project as a scheme to rid the United States of politically articulate blacks, and they campaigned vigorously among free blacks to discourage their emigration. In the early years of the Liberian colony, the mortality rate among the Settlers was "shockingly high" (Shick 1980: 27). Although 4,571 immigrated to Liberia prior to 1843, the census that year lists a population of only 2,388. Reports went back to the United States of rampant disease and death, ongoing hardship, and the chronic hostility of the indigenous population towards the Settlers; and the abolitionists eagerly publicized the problems of the colony. Free blacks, the ones whom the ACS most wished to immigrate to Liberia, were also the ones most at liberty to remain in the United States. Thus, of the blacks who actually did immigrate to Liberia prior to the Civil War, most were slaves who had been, in the words of the ACS, "emancipated in view of emigrating to Liberia."2 Immigration to Liberia under ACS auspices went on from 1820 to 1910. It proceeded fitfully from 1820 to 1847. Then, from 1848 to the start of the American Civil War (especially from 1848 through 1854) and in the four years immediately after the Civil War, immigration hit its peak, with four-ninths of the total immigration occurring during these seventeen years. Finally, from the 1870s onward, immigration dropped drastically and after 1892 the ACS never again sent more than ten immigrants a year. Where the immigrants came from in the United States varied over time. At first, Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina were dominant, providing 70 percent of the immigrants over the first 25 years (35 percent from Virginia, 21 percent from Maryland, and 14 percent from North Carolina). These states continued to dominate until the Civil War, joined by Georgia in the late 1840s and the 1850s. Of the 10,810 immigrants in the period from 1820 to 1960, Virginia provided 30 percent; Maryland, 14 percent; North Carolina, 12 percent; and Georgia, 10 percent. Together, these four states accounted for two-thirds of the total. Tennessee and Kentucky together accounted for another 12 percent, and Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana for 11 percent. Two percent came from other

LIBERTAN SETTLER ENGLISH

251

slave states, and 9 percent from free states, particularly Pennsylvania and New York. After the Civil War, the locus of migration shifted southward. Late in 1865, 172 Virginia blacks migrated, but after that Virginia ceased to be a source of emigrants, sending only sixteen more over the next 27 years. Maryland, too, ceased to be involved with Liberia, sending out only three blacks in all the years after 1864. Georgia and South Carolina were now the dominant states for migration: In the eight years after the Civil War, these two states accounted for over 60 percent of the 2,632 immigrants (Georgia for 35 percent and South Carolina for 27 percent), while North Carolina provided 12 percent and Tennessee 8 percent. Finally, in the waning years of migration, from the early 1870s onward, the immigrants came from a far wider range of Southern states than had ever been true before. Arkansas, which sent no immigrants prior to 1879, sent 254 in the years from 1879 to 1891. The sum of all who migrated from the United States between 1820 and 1891 is presented in Appendix A. The five Atlantic states from Maryland to Georgia were the primary sources; together, they provided about 70 percent of the total, with Virginia alone providing 23.5 percent. A further point in understanding the geography of the black emigrants involves where they came from within a particular state. For example, most of those who migrated from Virginia came from urban areas or from a "fringe agricultural" region in northern and central Virginia (Holsoe, p.c.). Most of the Settlers from South Carolina migrated in the eight years immediately after the Civil War. The emigrants from this era came primarily from inland, from the Piedmont. There slave holdings had been small (unlike the areas closer to the coast). The evidence from Virginia and South Carolina suggests that generally the emigrants did not come from large plantations. To be sure, some did. In 1848 and 1850 a total of 176 Settlers came from a single Mississippi plantation. In 1851, 154 slaves emigrated from a Georgia plantation. The picture that emerges of the origin of the Liberian Settlers is a complex one. In the antebellum era, most of the Settlers came either from Virginia, Maryland, or North Carolina; subsequently, the largest numbers came from Georgia and South Carolina. Within Liberia, society

252

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century was dominated by Settlers from more northerly states. The geography of migration from the United States undoubtedly had linguistic consequences for LSE. The English of black Americans in the nineteenth century was by no means uniform. Even if one accepts as likely that a creolized variety of English was spoken on the large plantations of the South, particularly among field hands, the fact remains that not all blacks lived on plantations — in particular, most of the emigrants did not. And, with regard to Virginia and Maryland, Cassidy states: . . . slaves were never as separate from their work and general life of their owners as in the South. Plantations or households were much smaller, and the numerical proportion of Blacks to Whites was never as high. Whether or not a creole language had originally been introduced, it could hardly have become established (1986: 35).

In sum, the demographic and historical evidence indicates that the Settler population, if comprised largely of former slaves, seems not to have consisted primarily of those who had been field hands on large plantations. (Still, as few of the immigrants were literate or had had any schooling, the level of Western education among the Settlers was low). Once in Liberia, the Settlers came in contact with speakers of a West African English-based pidgin. From the outset, the Settlers perceived the enforcement of separation from those around them as necessary for their own survival. The Settlers remain today a distinct ethnic group, their speech a badge of ethnic identity. In Liberia 'Merican ([mεεkεn])is a term that continues to be used to designate the Settlers (and Western culture generally). Singler (1986a, 1989) argues that an examination of Settler and non-Settler (pidginized) Liberian English shows extensive Settler influence on non-Settler English but much less influence from non-Settler English (and local Niger-Congo languages) on Settler English. LSE is first and foremost a descendant of nineteenth-century ABE.

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

253

1.2 Three LSE Speakers In the present study, the Liberian Settler data comes from two 60-minute interviews and a 90-minute one. At the time that I conducted them I was engaged in research for a book that was intended to provide an introduction for new Peace Corps Volunteers not only to Liberian English but also to Liberian life (Singler et al. 1981). The three Settlers were among a cross-section of Liberians whom I interviewed; the stated purpose of the interviews was to obtain information about Liberia from a wide range of Liberians. Of the three Settlers whom I interviewed, Carolina is a 69-year-old quilt-maker who lives in the Settler enclave of Farmersville; it abuts a larger town that is 150 miles down the coast from Monrovia. She was over 40 when she made her first trip out of her home county, and she went to Monrovia for the first time when she was 67. Albert is a 75-year-old retired carpenter who has lived all his life in the settlement of Fortsville. Located 75 miles from Monrovia, it is the home of, at most, a few hundred Settlers. For a time Albert was the head of a 30-man building crew for an iron ore company. Slim is a 48-year-old surveyor who lives in Robertsport, a small county seat 60 miles from Monrovia. Slim lived in Monrovia for seventeen years, returning to Robertsport a year before the interview took place. Of the three speakers, Carolina reported the most Western schooling - having completed eighth grade - as opposed to fifth grade for Slim and third grade for Albert.3 The facts about contact with larger social spheres tend to correlate with the three speakers' linguistic behavior. Carolina is the most insular, and Slim the least. Thus, though Carolina has had the most schooling, her speech consistently patterns the furthest from standard English while Slim's speech is generally the closest to standard English. Since the Settler interviews are being compared to another set of interviews, it is appropriate to discuss the guiding principles of the interviews as well as to indicate my own relationship to the people whose speech I recorded. The interviews focus on the personal history of the interviewee. Moreover, in keeping with the principles set out by Labov (1972b), I sought to elicit maximally informal speech. I had been friends with Carolina for more than ten years at the time of the interview. I had

254

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

moved away in 1970 from the area where she lived, but each time I returned to the area I would go to visit her and spend an hour or so chatting with her. The recorded interview was one such chat (with the significant difference, of course, that it was being recorded). I lived in Robertsport -- Slim's home town -- from 1971 to 1975. Although we had probably never done more than exchange greetings prior to my asking him if I could interview him, we have many friends in common. Finally, I met Albert for the first time the day before I interviewed him. The presence of the tape recorder and the American interviewer (even one who speaks Liberian English and knows local referents) must be assumed to be a standardizing factor in the speech of all three Settlers; it was, however, particularly obvious only in Albert's case. For example, when not on tape, Albert frequently used a double comparative, e.g., more better. He does not do so on tape.

2.1 The Verb System: Aspect Hancock (1971: 518) describes LSE as being a "vestigial creole." Holm (elsewhere in this volume) argues that, for the most part, ABE itself was a "semi-creole" from the beginning. These two characterizations are not incompatible. In any event, the LSE verb system, without being a pure creole verb system, shows pronounced creole tendencies.4 To begin with, when compared with standard English, LSE places far greater emphasis on aspect (rather than tense). This is evident both in the number of aspectual markers and in the way that markers used to signal tense in standard English are used in LSE to convey aspect. The indicators of non-punctual aspect include the AUX's de and do, illustrated in (1) and (2). 1.

And we still paying for that land yet. Every year, pay, I de pay ten dollars a year (Albert, 52-1).

2.

Ehn't you see how he do walk? (Slim, 112-6) Don't you see how he walks?'

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

255

Do (<does) is found elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere but is not found outside of Liberia in Africa. In contrast, de (alternately, de) shows up in most Caribbean creoles and all West African English-lexifier pidgins and creoles. In these other varieties, de/do can co-occur with a tense marker, as in the following Gullah example from Stewart (1968: 16): 3.

We bin duh nyam -- en' we duh drink, too.

In contrast, in LSE no other AUX can co-occur with de or do. Another indicator of aspect is the verbal suffix /z/. While it indicates person, number, and non-past tense in standard English, it indicates habitual action — regardless of person, number, or tense — in LSE, as in (4). 4.

CAROLINA: I only goes down there to see my brother . . . when he was living, but since he die . . . JVS: you haven't gone (7-11).

In addition to auxiliaries and suffixes, aspect can also be indicated by the repetition of the main verb, as in (5). 5.

Then True Whig Party reign reign reign (Carolina 62-17). Then the True Whig Party stayed in power for years and years and years.'

Still another indication of the prominence given to aspect in LSE involves the inflection for past tense of strong verbs. The rate of inflection varies as a function of the distinction between [+ PUNCTUAL] and [- PUNCTUAL], with [- PUNCTUAL] verbs far more likely to show inflection. Table 1 demonstrates this. With regard to the ex-slave corpus, the verbal suffix /z/ shows up here as well to indicate habit, as illustrated in (6). The reference in (6) is to people long dead. 6.

Ma knows them all and Grandma... (HS: 276).

256

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER TABLE 1 LSE Strong Verbs, Past Non-Punctual vs Past Punctual, Rate Of Inflection

Slim Albeit Carolina

[-PUNCT] 5/11 46% 2/12 17% 0/21 0%

[+ PUNCT] 43/45 96% 32/33 97% 28/42 67%

In addition, there is one instance of repetition of the verb to express iteration: 7.

And all them children get around there and just eat eat eat eat out of that thing (LS: 17-18).

With regard to the [+/- PUNCTUAL] distinction and its influence on the inflection of strong verbs, this relation holds in the ex-slave corpus as well. That is, past non-punctual strong verbs are inflected less frequently than their punctual counterparts. However, this issue — the frequent nonmarking of past non-punctual strong verbs ~ presents a case where surface similarity between LSE and the ex-slave recordings masks underlying differences between them. In LSE, would is rarely used. It appears only five times in the corpus, twice in conditional contexts and three times to mark past iteration (non-punctual). Two of the three past iterative uses of would show up in (8). 8.

And you could buy a hundred bags of rice, would come right here. The Kpelle people from way interior, camwood country, would bring rice here and ground peas, camwood, and all such things (Albert 3-12).

As noted, this use of would is rare. Moreover, would is never contracted: if it is used, it is used in the full form. Given the rareness of would and its uncontractibility, it seems appropriate to posit would as present

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

257

underlyingly in past non-punctual contexts in LSE only in those instances when it does show up on the surface. In contrast to LSE, would occurs frequently in the ex-slave corpus, most often in its contracted form. (Listening to the ex-slave tapes, one is frequently hard-pressed to know whether the contracted form is present or not). Labov's (1972a) observation about the black English copula ~ that the copula can delete only in those contexts where standard English permits contraction - is extended to will/would for the ex-slave corpus by Bailey and Schnebly (1988). This suggests that in a sentence like (9), where an iterative action is being described, would is present underlyingly (before come), and it has undergone successive rules of contraction and deletion. 9.

An' the old woman come there an' spank him an' give him the child back in his arm (LS: 41-42).

(An additional point about the inflection of strong verbs is this: the ex-slave corpus shows several instances of 'regularized' past-tense forms of strong verbs, e.g., throwed and knowed. Such forms are unknown in LSE). A further point about contraction and inflection involves forms of the AUX have. LSE uses have and had and, less frequently, has; but it never reduces them to 've, 'd, or 's. However, in the case of been, gone, and seen, these forms frequently occur in [+ PERFECT] contexts without any form of have being present, as illustrated in (10). 10. I know some been right here, but we don't know them (Albert 13-7).

The model for the use of been, seen, and gone as bare verb forms would have been standard English perfect constructions using a contracted form of have/had/has plus the past participle of the appropriate verb. There are two competing explanations for the use of the bare verb forms. One is that their presence in LSE represents imperfect acquisition of the standard forms. The other is that the contracted forms of have were present in an earlier stage of LSE but subsequently dropped out, a step that would have been consistent with a preference in LSE for vowel-final syllables (a preference discussed further in 2.2).

258

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

2.2 The Verb System: The Copula Singler (1986a) studies LSE copulas in detail. Table 2 presents comparative rates of deletion when the subject is he, she or a full singular NP for LSE, Samaná English, and various groups of ABE speakers. TABLE 2 Frequency Of is. Deletion In ABE And Related Varieties

Liberian Settlers Harlem Adolescents (Labov 1972a) Los Angeles Children (Pfaff 1971) Detroit Working Class (Wolfram 1969) Harlem Adults: Informal (Labov 1972a) Samaná English (Poplack and Sankoff 1987) Harlem Adults: Formal (Labov 1972a) Detroit Middle Class (Wolfram 1969)

NP 60% 31% 42% 25% 14% 15% 8% 4%

PRO 65% 72% 60% 51% 27% 20% 16% 10%

LSE has by far the highest rate of copula deletion when a full NP is the subject; only the Harlem youth in Labov's study have a higher rate of deletion when he/she the subject. For the ex-slave corpus, Bailey and Schnebly (1988) place the rate of deletion at 38 percent. (In presenting the rate of deletion for he, she, and singular NP's, they do not differentiate between pronoun and full NP subjects; however, they make clear that deletion usually obtains for pronoun subjects but occurs only rarely for full NP ones). With regard to LSE, the evidence about past non-punctual forms, about [+ PERFECT] forms, and about copula deletion strikes a recurrent note. Grammatical items that show up in American English as a single non-syllabic consonant tend not to be present in LSE. For past nonpunctual forms, would is not present underlyingly. In the case of seen, been, and gone, the disappearance of preceding have/had/has has caused these forms to become marked as [+ PERFECT] themselves. In part, these changes reflect the strong push in LSE to preserve a canonical CV

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

259

structure. In fact, have/had/has are sometimes reduced in LSE, but it is done by deleting the final consonant. In a parallel development, will in LSE is [we]; it is subject to reduction, becoming a rounded glide on the vowel of the preceding word. (As expected, given that the full form is [we], the American contraction of it to a syllabic [1] does not occur.) Of the forms under discussion, the only case where LSE has a contracted form analogous to American English involves is - - 's does occur; however, as indicated in Table 2 above, a 0 copula is far more common than 's. A further point about Table 2 in this regard is that LSE has a far higher deletion rate than any of the other varieties under consideration when full NP subjects are involved; when a contracted copula is attached to a consonant-final NP, the result is a cluster-final syllable. In a variety like LSE where a final consonant is somewhat disfavored, a final consonant cluster is highly disfavored. A few other points can be made about copulas. Invariant be shows up in LSE in two contexts. One is as a past-tense copula, as in (11). 11. And some of those hogs be. so fat (Carolina 54-15).5

Be shows up in this way in the ex-slave corpus as well, as in (12). 12. And I been, oh, oh, you wore a dress like a woman till I was, I be ten, twelve, thirteen years old (FH: 99-101).

Be also is used in LSE as an AUX. However, its use in the corpus — and in LSE generally ~ is confined to when clauses, as in (13). 13. Even much, my little son, I was teaching him how to make quilt but these, this young generation, they like to laugh at the children when they be turning toward these thing (Carolina 55-27).

A second point regarding copulas involves the innovation of a copula, so, as in (14) and (15). 14. But still we s o hard up (Albert 16-3). 15. You s o good boy (Slim 2-22).

260

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

The origin of so seems to lie in a re-analysis of a sequence consisting of a contracted copula ('s) followed by an indefinite article (a). A sentence like (15) has parallels in the ex-slave corpus, presented in (16), and in Gullah, as in (17). 16. I said I'm glad N. got acquainted with you because I believe vou's a good man and I want him to be with a good man (BL: 4-5). 17. Your daughter-in-law say say vou's a woman (Cunningham 1970: 167).

2.3 The Verb System: done and ain't Still with regard to verbs, it is worth noting two forms characteristic of contemporary ABE that occur with some frequency both in LSE and in the ex-slave corpus. These are the past negative AUX ain't, illustrated in (18) and (19), and the completive AUX done. 18. And at that time now, I don't know what, how, I mean, how it happen, within the next one month time, I came to find out, the girl say she ain't want me (Slim 62-23). 19. I ain' read for it 'cause I couldn' read (CS: 45-46).

Done is widely used in English-lexifier Atlantic pidgins and creoles, generally with an uninfected verb stem. However, North American varieties (and here I include LSE) depart from the norm in that they inflect the done-marked verb. This is true of contemporary ABE, and it is also true for the most part of LSE and the ex-slave corpus, as the sentences in (20) and (21) illustrate. (In the LSE corpus, the rate of inflection is greater than 70 percent, and in the ex-slave corpus it is nearly categorical). 20. But I done got old man now. I can't work (Albert 55-26). 21. There's another one I know but I done forgot it, forgot his name (CB: 142).

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

261

3.1 Variation in Plural Marking The prototypical plural marker for English-lexifier Atlantic pidgins and creoles is the postposed morpheme them. Its use is reported in Gullah, though Rickford's 1986 study of the speech of an 84-year-old Gullah woman finds only one occurrence of it in a 60 minute interview. Similarly, in my study of Liberian Settler English, there is but a single occurrence of plural them: 22.

I stayed in town and try to see what I could do with my quilt them and different little thing, and leave farm, leave up yonder, because it was far (Carolina 8-4).

In the ex-slave recordings, the basic plural them does not show up at all. There are occurrences of the associative plural them in the speech of Laura Smalley: 23.

Mama them didn't know where to go, you see, after freedom broke (LS: 166-167).

(Though there are no occurrences of the associative them in the LSE corpus, it is an LSE feature). In the speech of the ex-slaves other than Laura Smalley, the creole associative plural gives way, via decreolization, to the more standard-like and them, e.g.: 24.

Ma an' pa an' them an' grandma would ride the horses about two miles from our home, white folks' home, where they stay, and go to the white folks' church (HS: 146-149).

The focus of the present discussion is basic plural marking on regular nouns. For the speech at hand from ex-slaves and Liberian Settlers, such a study is necessarily a study of the variable presence of the English plural suffix /z/. As noted above, Rickford's (1986b) study analyzes the variable presence of the plural suffix /z/ on 125 nouns drawn from a single speaker. Using the VARBRUL statistical program, Rickford finds two phonological

262

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

factor groups to be statistically significant. These are the preceding segment, i.e., the final segment of the noun stem, and the following segment. Rickford's results are given in Table 3. 6 TABLE 3 Plural Marking In Gullah: Statistically Significant Factor Groups (Source: Rickford 1986:51) Preceding Phonological Segment Non-sibilant consonant Sibilant consonant : Vowel :

: .346 .413 .729

Following Phonological Segment Consonant: Pause: Vowel

.391 .396 .703

input = .22, ρ = .032

In his study of plural marking in Gullah, Rickford also tests semantic factors but finds them not to be statistically significant. However, Mufwene (1986b) finds fault with Rickford's semantic criteria and proposes an alternative set of semantic factors, asserting that it is these factors that form the primary constraints on Gullah plural marking. Singler (1989) combines Rickford's phonological factors with Mufwene's semantic ones in a VARBRUL analysis of plural marking in LSE. Simply put, Mufwene predicts that the only nouns that will be overtly marked for number are definite nouns for which number is not marked elsewhere in the NP. Nouns marked by a definitizer, a possessive, or a demonstrative are all considered definite; however, since demonstratives themselves (preposed them, these, or those) are marked for number, the head nouns of demonstrative NP's will not be marked. A further point that Mufwene makes is that in the Atlantic creoles generic NP's have no number

LIBERTAN SETTLER ENGLISH

263

whatsoever, accordingly, such NP's are outside the sphere of consideration. However, in my study of LSE and in the present study of the ex-slave recordings, the variable marking of plurality on generic NP's necessitates their inclusion in the study.

3.2 Plural Marking in the Ex-Slave Recordings and LSE Within the eleven ex-slave interviews, there are 523 semantically plural nouns. 7 Of the 523 nouns, plural marking appears on 405 of them (77 percent). The first point to be made about the plural marking within the corpus is that there exists a sharp dichotomy between Wallace Quarterman and all other speakers. Quarterman marks the plural only 19 percent of the time (3/16). In contrast, the speakers on the other ten tapes mark the plural 79 percent of the time (402/507). The separateness of Quarterman's plural-marking behavior is wholly consistent with his general distinctiveness. As Mufwene (elsewhere in this volume) illustrates in detail, Quarterman's speech — his phonology, his syntax, and his morphology — establish him as a Gullah speaker. None of the others come from Gullah areas or are Gullah speakers. In order to get at the constraints that govern plural marking for the other speakers, I have removed Quarterman from consideration. (For an examination of plural marking in Quarterman's speech, see footnote 10). Within the remaining ten interviews, there is an additional split, one that distinguishes the Alabama/Louisiana speakers from the Texas/Virginia speakers. This distinction is far more subtle than the one that sets off Quarterman, and space limitations preclude further exploration of it. Thus, the remaining discussion will consider all the speakers other than Quarterman as a single group. The Liberian corpus contains 574 regular nouns that are semantically plural; of these, 61 percent (349) are marked for the plural. Among the Settlers, Carolina shows a major difference from the other two Settlers in rate of plural marking (34 percent versus 72 percent for Albert and 76 percent for Slim), but she does not differ vastly from them as to the factors that favor plural marking. Accordingly, all three Settlers have been

264

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

considered together; the differences among them can be captured by positing a factor group that distinguishes individual speakers. In fact, for the Settlers, this factor group is the one that displays the greatest statistical significance. No comparable social factor group proves to be statistically significant for the ex-slave corpus. Table 4 presents the results of parallel VARBRUL analyses of the ex-slave and LSE data. The analyses employed Rickford's two phonological factor groups as well as a modified version of Mufwene's semantic factor group. Within the semantic factor group, three factors were posited: one consisted of all definite NP's for which number was not overtly marked elsewhere in the NP, i.e., possessive NP's {my hands) and definitizer NP's {the horses); the second consisted of generic NP's; and the third included all other semantically plural NP's. TABLE 4 Plural Marking In LSE And The Ex-Slave Recordings: Statistically Significant Factor Groups

Speaker Slim Albeit Carolina Preceding Phonological Segment Sibilant C_ Vowel Non-sibilant  Following Phonological Segment Consonant Vowel Pause Definite/Overt Number Possessive/Definitizer Generic NP AU Others Input Ρ

LSE

Ex-Slaves

.64 .62 .25

— — —

.63 .51 .36

.73 .50 .27

— — —

.56 .58 .36

.57 .38 .56

.35 .65 .50

.68 .003

.88 .003

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

265

Following phonological segment is not statistically significant for the LSE corpus and, as noted, no social factor shows up as being statistically significant for the ex-slave corpus.8 The factor groups are presented in descending order of statistical significance except that, for the ex-slave corpus, the semantic factor group shows greater statistical significance than does following phonological segment. (The frequencies for these two data sets are given in Appendix B). Within the factor group of preceding segments, sibilant consonants emerge as strongly favoring plural marking. One explanation for this is salience. Sibilant-final nouns take a syllabic plural; all others take a non-syllabic one. If the plural marking most likely to appear is that which is most noticeable (or is the plural marking whose absence would be most conspicuous), it follows that a syllabic plural would be more favored than a non-syllabic one. Complementarity, the tendency for both sets of speakers to avoid syllable-final consonant clusters is clear.9 The addition of a plural morpheme to a noun that ends in a non-sibilant consonant creates such a cluster, for than reason, that addition of plural marking to a noun ending in a non-sibilant consonant is disfavored. Still with regard to sibilants: there is evidence that plural marking of sibilant-final nouns is tied to the number of syllables in the stem, with monosyllabic sibilant-final stems strongly favoring plural marking and disyllabic ones (such as mistress) disfavoring it. Table 5 makes this point. With regard to following phonological segment, the results for the exslaves indicate the special status of prepausal consonants. It suggests that in general consonants — and especially consonant clusters ~ are disfavored in this environment.10 Though following segment is not statistically significant for LSE (but see footnote 8), overall the results for both phonological factor groups are very similar in LSE and in the ex-slave data. Further, when Table 3 in compared with Table 4, it can be seen that LSE and the ex-slave speech, while very similar to each other, are quite different from Gullah. The area where LSE and the ex-slave recordings diverge - and diverge radically involves the semantic factor group. For LSE, the crucial distinction is between generic NP's and all non-generic ones. While this result does not support Mufwene's assertions about definiteness and overt number elsewhere in the NP, it lends clear support to his claim of a special status

266

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

for generic NP's. These results can be seen as evidence that in this regard LSE is intermediate between a creole, which does not mark generic NP's for number, and standard English, which marks generic NP's for number categorically.11 TABLE 5 Plural Marking Of Sibilant-Final Stems As A Function Of Number Of Syllables Monosyllabic Stem Disyllabic Stem

LSE 29/37 78% 1/2 50%

Ex-Slaves 59/61 97% 0/2 0%

In contrast, the ex-slave results are very nearly the opposite of what Mufwene predicts: in this corpus generic NP's strongly favor plural marking, and possessive/definitizer NP's strongly disfavor it. 12 Mufwene's schema involves creoles, and it can be argued that the ex-slave speech is neither a creole nor sufficiently creole-like to display the behavior that he has predicted. The distance between the ex-slave data and Mufwene's putative creole plural-marking system is not necessarily evidence against the creole origin hypothesis for ABE: Singler (1986a) argues that putatively decreolized varieties such as ABE are appropriately compared to mesolectal and even acrolectal creole varieties, not to basilectal ones.

4. Conclusion A major difference between LSE and the language of the ex-slaves lies in the treatment of English verbal contractions and inflectional suffixes. I refer in particular to the contracted forms of would, will, have/has/had, and is, to plural /z/, the verbal suffix /z/ (illustrated in Table 4 above), and possessive /z/. All of these occur variably in the ex-slave recordings. In LSE, on the other hand, the American English contracted forms of would, will, and have/has/had are unknown. The possessive /z/ also is not part of

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

267

LSE, with possession indicated simply by word order. Example (25) illustrates this. 25.

Cause they say that the people do steal rubber from other people places and carry it to sell to Firestone (Albert 69-4).

Of the grammatical items under consideration, only the contracted copula, the plural, and the verbal suffix /z/ show up at all in LSE. It is consistent with phonetic principles for other single segments - /d/, /1/, /v/, -- to be less salient in syllable-final position than a final sibilant. This phonetic fact would provide an explanation not only for the presence of is, the plural morpheme, and the verbal suffix /z/ but also for the absence of all the contracted AUX's. Among the /z/ morphemes found in the ex-slave recordings, only the possessive morpheme does not appear in LSE. One explanation for its absence would be its greater infrequency (compared to the contracted copula and the plural morpheme if not to the verbal suffix) as well, perhaps, as its redundancy. For those grammatical elements present in the ex-slave recordings but absent from LSE, particularly the contracted form of past non-punctual would, the question that arises is whether these elements were part of the original Settlers' grammar or not. If they were, then the preference for CV syllable structure combined with the absence of extensive contact with speakers of standard English would have led to their disappearance. The simpler — though not necessarily more accurate — explanation is that these elements were not present in the original Settlers' grammar to begin with. A middle ground, one that takes into account the heterogeneity of Settler origins, seems more likely. It holds that elements such as past non-punctual 'd were present — but not strongly present ~ in the original Settler community and were in fact totally absent from the speech of some Settlers. Then, given the limited salience of the elements, they would have disappeared in the speech of subsequent generations. The difference between LSE and ABE in the nineteenth century and subsequently would have been in the strength of the push towards CV structure and in the amount of contact with speakers whose grammar contained these elements.

268

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

Similarly, questions arise about the origin of the LSE tense-aspect system. The LSE tendency to inflect done-marked verbs (a tendency shared by the ex-slaves) suggests an American origin for LSE done. (In Liberia, only Settlers use done as an AUX; it has taken on affective force as a symbol of Settler speech). Similarly, the habitual AUX do has a New World origin. Other LSE AUX's, particularly the completive markers na and feni, are shared by Settler and non-Settler speakers of Liberian English (cf. Singler 1987a, 1987b). However, they compete with done and have; they do not intrude upon the basic creole attention to the punctual/nonpunctual distinction (Bickerton 1974). Evidence has been presented regarding would and its failure to survive the voyage across the Atlantic (if it made the trip at all). Apart from the absence of would and its impact on the verb system, the existing evidence suggests that LSE's aspectual system is largely that which the original Settlers brought with them. The difference between LSE and the ex-slave speech would reflect the ongoing influence — in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ~ of nonblack speech upon ABE. If this conclusion is not true for all of ABE in this period, it is at least true for the speech of the ex-slaves in highly formal interview settings.

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

269

NOTES 1.

This discussion of the settlers' history and background is drawn from Singler (1977, 1989). The demographic material comes primarily from research undertaken by Svend Holsoe. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to make use of this material.

2.

Charlie Smith tells how, as a child in West Africa, he was lured on board a slave ship by the prospect of a tree with fritters growing on it. Graham (elsewhere in this volume) relates Smith's narrative to other stories with the same theme: "the tricking of blacks into slavery by whites by promising them a life of leisure and all they could eat." In Liberia stories of the same type are popularly set forth to explain why black Americans immigrated there. According to Albert (one of the speakers in the LSE corpus), this is why his parents left the United States: That what brought my mother and father here . . . [People] say we had butter on the tree, and we had bread growing on the tree. They didn't had to buy flour... So, when they heard of this thing, they say, "Well, that's a free country, we going there. We can pick bread off a tree." When they got here and they show them the bread was breadfruit, they show them the butter, butter pear. (Butter pear is the Liberian term for avocado). Albert's recounting of the story serves to make a second point as well, that foodstuffs are naturally abundant in Liberia. In contrast, in the United States, "everything is a buy," i. ., must be purchased.

3.

While there are a small number of regionalisms within LSE, I am assuming that LSE is fundamentally homogeneous with regard to region. Further research is planned that would, among other things, test this assumption. If there are significant regional differences, they would be expected to distinguish the Settlers of Sinoe and Maryland Countiesfromeach other andfromall other Settlers. These two counties, both on the coast, are some distance from Monrovia. Of the speakers in the present corpus, Carolina is from Sinoe.

270

4.

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

In their article on Samaná English, Poplack and Sankoff (1987: 309), citing Singler (1986a, 1986b), state the following: The Liberian experience contrasts with the history of the Samaná community in that the former speakers presumably were (and still are) in contact with substrate languages, that is, indigenous African languages and, especially, the regional English-based pidgin, which antedated the arrival of the Settlers. It would not be surprising, then, to find evidence of external influence on Settler English. Indeed, Singler (1986b) shows that it has a creole-like system of tense and aspect. Their final sentence does not necessarily follow from the one preceding it. In the Settler case, a creole-like system of tense and aspect is by no means exclusive proof of external influence; the Settlers may have brought such a system with them when they emigrated from North America.

5.

Carolina is the only LSE speaker to use be as a past-tense copula. Slim uses be damn once (given in (a) below), but this form is frozen in all varieties of Liberian English. a. She be damn we must go to the moley man first (Slim, 61-18). 'She absolutely insisted that we go to the Muslim healer first.'

6.

The input is the probability that plural marking will appear on a given noun. The number could range from .00 to 1.00. In this case, the input is .22. Because it is a low figure, it indicates that plural marking does not usually show up. For particular factors, any factor greater than .5 favors plural marking; any factor less than .5 disfavors it. The further a factor is from .5, the stronger it is. As for p, the lower its value, the greater the likelihood that the distribution cannot be explained by chance. The threshold for statistical significance is a value for ρ less than or equal to .05. (That is, the only results that will be presented as being statistically significant are ones for which the value of ρ is less than or equal to .05).

LIBERIAN SETTLER ENGLISH

271

7.

Excluded from consideration are nouns where the semantic plurality is not unambiguous as well as nouns where the phonological environment makes it impossible to determine whether or not the plural suffix is present. In the latter case, this either involves nouns followed by a word beginning with a coronal fricative or nouns where the recording was indistinct.

8.

Although following phonological segment is not statistically significant for the LSE corpus, it should be noted that the distribution of probabilities for this factor group in LSE strongly parallels that for the ex-slaves. When the factor group of following phonological segment is added to the factor groups presented in Table 4, these results obtain: C, .54; V, .52; ##, .43; input, p.70; ρ = .116. In LSE as in the ex-slave recordings, the major difference is between following pause and following segment.

9.

Some, if not all, of the ex-slaves are like the Settlers in displaying a broader constraint that disfavors even single syllable-final consonants. Thus, for example, Fountain Hughes deletes the /s/ from voice in (a). a. I can't do it on accoun' of my voice [voy] (FH: 345). Charlie Smith demonstrates a different strategy for avoiding final /s/: the addition of a paragogic vowel, as in (b). b. The man that raise [rezә] me, he didn't buy me (CS: 108-109). If even a single consonant is seen as being best avoided, then addition of the plural marker to a vowel-final noun represents a change for the worse. In contrast, addition of the plural marker to a sibilant-final noun simply adds a syllable that is 'no worse' than the final syllable of the stem.

10.

There are only sixteen tokens in the Quarterman corpus. As a result, the type of detailed analysis of plural making presented in the text for the other speakers is not possible for Quarterman by himself. From the data that are present, no semantic patterning is evident. On the other hand, a strong pattern of sensitivity to phonological factors does show up in the data, but its impact is greatly reduced by

272

JOHN VICTOR SINGLER

the limited number of tokens on which the pattern is based. This pattern involves sensitivity to preceding and following segment, as revealed in the following chart:

Non-Sib   V Pause

0/5 0/2 0/3

0/10

V_

Sib

0/3 1/1 1/1

1/1 —

2/5

1/1

_ 0/8 2/4 1/4

Simply stated, the pattern is this: when the preceding segment is a non-sibilant consonant or the following segment is a consonant, plural marking never occurs (0/13); otherwise, it always occurs (3/3). In other words, for Quarterman ~ at least in the limited data availablefromthe interview - overt plural marking never occurs when the addition of the marker would create a string of two successive consonants (even when the string would be across syllable boundaries); when the presence of the plural marker does not create such a string, then plural marking is present categorically. 11.

Standard English has more than one way of expressing generics: a. Aardvarks are great lovers. b. The aardvark is a great lover. My reference in the present situation is to those generic nouns not marked by a definite article.

12.

It should be noted that - apart from my own work on LSE and on pidginized varieties of Liberian English — Mufwene's account has not been subjected to quantitative assessment.

LIBERTAN SETTLER ENGLISH

273

Appendix A

Where the Libertan Settlers Came from, by State, 1820-1891

Slave States

Number

Percent

Virginia

3755

Pennsylvania

Georgia North Carolina Maryland South Carolina Tennessee Kentucky Mississippi Louisiana Arkansas Alabama Missouri

2265 2037 1725 1374 993 678 664

23.5 14.2 12.7 10.8 8.6 6.2 4.2 4.2

Others TOTAL

D.C. Florida Others TOTAL

316 254 199 116 114 105

2.0 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7

152

1.0

14,754

92.2

Free States New York

Slave States Free States TOTAL

Number 373 302 567 1242

Percent 2.3 1.9

3.6 7.8

14,754 1242

92.2

15,996

100.0

ΊΑ

(Sources: Fiftieth, Fifty-Fifth, Sixty-First, Sixty-Ninth through Seventy-Sixth Annual Reports of the American Colonization Society; Maryland State Colonization Papers).

274

JOHN SINGLER

Appendix 

Frequency of Plural Marking of Regular Nouns in Liberian Settler English and the ExSlave Recordings (Wallace Quarterman Excluded). LSE

Ex-Slaves

Preceding Phonological Segment Sibilant C_ Vowel Non-sibilant  Following Phonological Segment Vowel Consonant Pause Definiteness/Overt Number Possessive NP/Definitizer NP Generic NP Other NP Speaker Slim Albert Carolina TOTAL

59/63 94%

30/39 77% 155/217 71% 164/318 52%

187/218 86% 156/226 69%

75/114 66% 106/160 66% 168/300 56%

116/134 87% 118/139 85% 168/234 72%

45/78 58% 79/158 50% 225/338 67%

77/117 66% 146/170 86% 179/220 81%

109/144 76% 179/248 72% 61/182 34% 349/574 61%

402/507 79%

There's No Tense Like the Present: Verbal s Inflection in Early Black English*

Shana Poplack and Sali Tagliamonte

1.0. Introduction The verbal paradigm has frequently been used in crosslinguistic comparison to explore underlying grammatical relationships between dialects. Vernacular Black English (VBE) has perhaps received the most attention in this regard, particularly as part of an ongoing program to establish whether its synchronic form has developed from a prior creole or from Standard American English (SAE). Thus in two of the most widely studied areas of the verb system, past-tense expression and copula usage, investigators have shown, through comparison with varieties of white English (and in some cases Englishbased creoles), that the underlying systems of VBE and SAE are similar in featuring the (same) copula and past-tense markers, though some of their surface manifestations are variably removed from VBE by the application of phonological and grammatical rules which can themselves be viewed as extensions of those operative in SAE (Labov et al. 1968; Labov 1969, 1972; Wolfram 1969, 1974; Fasold 1971, 1972; Pfaff 1971; Baugh 1980; Poplack and Sankoff 1987; Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988). The extent to which the results of these independent studies replicated each other was striking; they were in large part responsible for Labov's observation (1982b:178-9) that "by 1979, the field ... had reached a consensus about the nature and origin of Black English."

276

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

In the area of verbal concord, however, very different and controversial interpretations obtain. In standard English the present tense is not inflected morphologically, except on verbs with third person singular subjects. These categorically receive the affix -s, traditionally referred to as the verbal agreement or number concord marker. Earlier studies of VBE -s inflection, including several of those cited above, found that in contrast to standard English, -s occurred variably not only on third singular verbs, but on verbs of other persons as well. Though the category of present tense was not explicitly rejected as part of the VBE grammar, it was considered not to require overt inflectional marking in the dialect (e.g., Fasold 1972:122). Cases of 3rd p. sg. -s deletion could thus be analyzed as regularization of a standard English present-tense paradigm containing a redundant marker. However, the sporadic appearance of -s elsewhere raised the question of the function of this vagrant morpheme. As will be detailed below, two decades of research have not led to a consensus on the nature, let alone existence, of such a function, nor of its origin as an incompletely acquired standard English present-tense marker or as a remnant from an earlier plantation creole. Most speculations on the origin of the form have been based on inferences from synchronic variation, though there have been some studies of historical texts (Schneider 1983; Brewer 1986a; Pitts 1981, 1986a). In this paper we propose to contribute to the understanding of this phenomenon by systematically examining the behaviour of verbal -s in two data sets on early black English as represented by tape-recorded interviews with 1) English-speaking residents of the peninsula of Samaná (Dominican Republic) and 2) the Ex-Slave Recordings housed in the Library of Congress. In so doing, we will be led to draw comparisons where possible with other dialects of black and white English (both British and American) which show parallel variability, as well as with known facts from the history of the language. Though our early black English data in (1) show the same apparently irregular distribution of -s attested in previous studies of contemporary VBE, featuring variable occurrence of verbal ~s with subjects of all persons and numbers (la) 1 even in the speech of the same individual, as well as on non-finite verbs and invariant be (lb), our analyses suggest that its conditioning is more consistent with what (little) is known about the behaviour of this marker in (early and modern) white

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

277

English than with English-based creoles or contemporary VBE. This will corroborate our earlier independent findings on the grammar of Samaná English (Poplack and Sankoff 1987; Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988). (la)

SINGULAR: 1st p.

2nd p.

When I pray. I pray for everybody who's in danger. (03/1276)2 I prays for the people. (03/1247) I says "why?" "Oh," he says, "he make too much noise." I say. "well, well the, the Bible say make a noise over Jesus?" (ESR/FH: 374-376) You know her, yes. (14/175)

3rd p. PLURAL: 1st p.

3rd p.

You knows one. (14/269) And sometimes she go. in the evening and come up in the morning. (05/232) She goes to town every morning and comes up in the evening. (05/231) We parchit. (21/563) We parches the coffee. (21/560) They said,"we wants to raise you as an intelligent nigger. We wants you to have good friends like we have got."3 (ESR/JM: 7-9) Wecelebratethat day. (ESR/LS: 187-188) They write me still. (11/1148) But still it's me they writes. (11/1149) They treating me right now that knows me, they treating me nice. (ESR/AG: 21-22) An' they all treating me mighty nice, all the white folks that know me, they treats me nice. (ESR/AG: 26-27)

(lb)

NON-FINITE: You'll put the rice on the fire and cooks it. (8/354) I don't hardly walks out. I don't hardly walks out nowhere. (17/198) 'Cause I gotta makes, you know, exercise. (3/708) The church bes crammed down with people. (19/215)

278

SHANA POPLACK AND SALITAGLIAMONTE

2.0. Previous analyses of black English -s Several competing analyses have been proposed for the behaviour of verbal -s: in what follows we briefly recapitulate some of the arguments.

2.1. Hypercorrection Early research suggests that verbal -s has no grammatical function in VBE, and is inserted irregularly in "odd, unpredictable and idiosyncratic positions" (Labov et al. 1968:165), i.e., in persons other than third, as well as in the non-finite contexts listed in (lb) above. Three types of evidence have been adduced in favour of this characterization (Labov et al. 1968; Wolfram 1969; Fasold 1972): i)

ii)

iii)

the uninflected verb was found to be the predominant form in the third singular in VBE, undergoing deletion at far greater rates than monomorphemic or plural -s (Labov et al. 1968:164),4 -s variability was not generally affected by style shifting (Labov et al. 1968:164), especially among younger speakers,5 and, most important, -s deletion was not subject to the regular phonological conditioning found in studies of deletion of other final consonants.6

"Hyper-s 7 usage was described by Bickerton (1975:134) in relation to English-based creoles as "tacking on a morpheme which [a speaker] knows is characteristic of the standard language but which he has not yet learnt to use correctly." Consistent with this interpretation, nonconcord -s in VBE has been shown to evidence considerable variability across individuals, though apparently affected by extra-linguistic factors: it is least characteristic of educated, formal, middle-class adult speech. Its "irregular and unsystematic character" (Labov et al. 1968:167) suggests that the behaviour of 3rd p. sg. -s does not represent an extension of the regular rules of standard English, as is the case of the copula and the past-tense morpheme, but is the result of external norms and overt social pressures. Myhill and Harris (1986:31) propose that -s may have been reinterpreted as

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

279

a purely stylistic or accommodative device for rendering one's speech more suitable for interaction with speakers of standard English. Moreover, Fasold's (1972) analyses of possible nonphonological constraints on 3rd p. sg. -s absence, such as collective vs. noncollective subject, showed no significant effect. The only constraint to emerge was one promoting deletion on the second member of a conjoined verb phrase (see also Myhill and Harris 1986:28) which Fasold attributes to the "rapid onset of a fatigue factor" (p. 130). These facts, taken together, do not support a characterization of -s (whether concord or nonconcord) as an integral part of the vernacular grammar.

2.2. Aspectual marker A second interpretation is that verbal -s is neither random in use nor the result of "unstable acquisition" of SAE present-tense marking, but an aspectual feature which marks durative (Jeremiah 1977; Pitts 1981; Brewer 1986a) or habitual (Roberts 1976; Pitts 1986a) aspect. These researchers accept the conclusion that VBE has no present-tense marker but eschew the assumption (Labov et al. 1968; Wolfram 1969; Fasold 1972) that -s is a hypercorrect intrusion from SAE. VBE -s is rather an "adoption of a Standard English form without the Standard English grammatical component" (Pitts 1981:304). Bickerton's brief (1975) examination of number concord in Guyanese Creole reveals the same sporadic distribution of third singular -s noted in the early studies of VBE. He suggests that some puzzling facts about nonconcord -s in that dialect might be clarified by taking into account the creole aspectual category [-punctual]. According to him, contemporary variation in -s usage is one manifestation of a developmental phase in the process of decreolization: as doz reduces to -s or -z in rapid speech, "the -s or -z remains in category but is simply transferred from pre- to post-verbal position." This -s would represent a hypercorrected version of doz, which occurs in environments that are [-punctual] (1975:136). Building on Bickerton's suggestion, Pitts (1981:307) analyzes -s as a relexification of habitual de found in Gullah (and presumably in an American plantation creole), brought about by means of a "transformation

280

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

[in which] contracted -s from is replaces the verbal suffix of progression -ing, and the durative aspect is maintained." Although these analyses differ somewhat in their derivation of the form, they generally concur that the function of -s is analogous to that of a creole-like pre-verbal aspectual marker which may have moved to postverbal position under influence from standard English.8 Of course, in the process of decreolization, dialect mixture of creole and SAE categories may result. Indeed, Pitts argues for two -s's in VBE, a tense marker and an aspect marker (1986:76),9 encoded as a single surface form with different meanings and functions within the same system.

2.3.

Verbal agreement marker

For at least some black speakers, verbal -s marks agreement with 3rd p. sg. subjects in favourable social contexts (and presumably, preferentially in certain linguistic environments as well, though these remain unspecified). This is implicit in Wolfram's and Fasold's figures for black middle-class adults (who arguably are no longer vernacular speakers), but is also discernable, though weakly, even in the "deep vernacular" speech studied by Myhill and Harris (1986:31). Exploitation of -s in this function would depend on a speaker's knowledge of the (SAE) system and her desire to accommodate to it.

2.4.

Synchronic dialectal remnant

Schneider (1983) suggests that verbal -s is neither a post-creole importation from standard English in the third person, nor a case of hypercorrection in other persons, but simply a continuation of the tendency prevalent throughout the history of English to mark (or fail to mark) -s across the verbal paradigm (see also McDavid 1969, 1977; McDavid and Davis 1972; Feagin 1979:196 and section [4.0] below). Contra the creole-origin position, Schneider reasons (p. 104) that if the inflectional system of contemporary VBE derived from an earlier suffixless system, with occurrences of -s due to hypercorrection or

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

281

convergence with SAE during the process of decreolization, -s should occur infrequently, if at all, in earlier black speech. His examination of the use of inflected and uninflected verbs in the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Slave Narratives (Federal Writers Project 1941) reveals exactly the opposite to be the case: -s appears with 72 percent of the 3rd p. sg. subjects, leading him to reject hypercorrection as an appropriate description of the phenomenon. However, he found -s to predominate in all other persons (with the exception of 2nd p. sg.) as well. Schneider suggests that the mixture of settlers from different dialect areas (specifically, Northern Britain, where the present-tense verbal paradigm has been characterized as having -s throughout, and Southern Britain, where -0 is said to prevail) resulted in a mixed linguistic concord (or nonconcord) system characterized by variable but frequent use of -s (p. 104). One could thus expect regional differences in early black English according to the origin of the majority of the settlers in a particular area, and in fact, Schneider's breakdown of the data by region shows high -s rates in all grammatical persons in the South Atlantic states, while in states situated to the west of the Mississippi (Missouri, Arkansas, Texas), there is a tendency to approximate SAE, with -0 predominating in all persons but 3rd p. sg. (pp. 104-105; this tendency is not mentioned, but may also be observed, in the data presented in Brewer 1986a). Schneider suggests two stages in the development of the VBE -s inflection (pp. 106-107): in the first stage black American slaves acquired the nonstandard inflectional system of their white linguistic models (itself a blend of two competing British English dialect systems), characterized by variable but predominant use of -s in all persons. At a later stage the growing influence of standardization led to a progressive decline of -s but this proceeded differentially according to region. This tendency would have affected not only persons where -0 inflection is grammatical in the standard language, but also 3rd singular, by means of a hypercorrective (regularizing) movement toward less -s usage. This might also account for contemporary patterns of VBE verbal inflection.

282

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

2.5. Narrative present marker Recent quantitative work on a Philadelphia dialect of VBE (Myhill and Harris 1986) offers yet another interpretation of the function of verbal -s. Observing that while VBE speakers do not have a subject-verb agreement rule, 10 they note that widespread reports of the sporadic occurrence of -s nonetheless indicate general awareness of its existence. Thus the dialect would contain a morpheme which is clearly verbal, yet which lacks a transparent grammatical role. This situation allows for the possibility of -s being assigned some function. In a quantitative study of the distribution of verbal -s in narrative and other discourse of five VBE speakers, they found it to be associated with narrative clauses, regardless of person and number of the subject (p. 27) and virtually absent from present-reference contexts. They conclude that a formerly grammatically empty inflection has been reinterpreted as a marker of Historical Present in narrative, and observe that while inflection on non-3rd p. sg. subjects has been reported for other English dialects, it has never been attested specifically as a marker of narrative clauses (p. 30). Thus, they view this usage as an innovation, made possible by the existence of an inflection with no clear grammatical function. Indeed, Labov (1985) points to the reinterpretation of -s as a grammatical device as the "single strongest piece of evidence" that VBE is diverging from SAE.

3.0.

Conflicting Analyses

The discussion in section (2.0) above gives some indication of the extent of the controversy concerning the precise status of verbal -s in VBE. The central question — that of its origin and function in the grammar — is given four different answers: 1)

-S does not have a grammatical function in the dialect. Its occurrence is irregular and is not governed by internal grammatical constraints, but rather by the exterior norms and overt social pressures exerted by SAE. It is a case of

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE H PRESENT

2)

3)

4)

283

hypercorrection (Labov et al. 1968; Wolfram 1969; Fasold 1972). At an earlier stage (and possibly now), -s had the grammatical function of marking habitual or durative aspect. Its occurrence is governed by an underlying creole grammar that is distinct from SAE (Bickerton 1975; Roberts 1976; Pitts 1981, 1986a; also Brewer 1986a). At an earlier stage (and possibly now), -s had the grammatical function of marking present tense. Its occurrence was variable but not irregular, and stemmed from the mixture of contrasting marking patterns in the English dialects to which the early slaves were exposed (Schneider 1983). In contemporary VBE -s has the function of marking Historical Present regardless of person and number of the subject. Its occurrence is variable but not irregular and is a recent innovation (Myhill and Harris 1986).

It might be supposed that with the benefit of careful examination of these analyses and of the linguistic evidence adduced in their favour (to which we have alluded only cursorily thus far; see below), it should be a simple matter to choose between them. Nothing could be farther from the case. One reason is that the approaches, data sets, and methodologies used by the authors differ considerably, often making it impossible to draw conclusions. Indeed, to our knowledge, no single aspect of linguistic variation has been so widely studied with so little progress toward reaching a consensus. Baugh (1986) has recently devoted an entire paper to precisely this point. By way of illustration it will be instructive to re-examine in more detail some of the findings cited above. The most striking example of lack of comparability appears in two quantitative analyses of the same data base, the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives (Schneider 1983; Brewer 1986a). Schneider reports that the -s suffix is not only the quantitatively dominant form in these data, but that of all persons, it is used most frequently with third singular, at a rate of 72 percent11 (p. 103). Brewer, on the other hand, finds that the occurrence of -s with non3rd p. sg. subjects is the rule while 3rd p. sg. receives only 12% marking.

284

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

Table 1 reproduces the quantitative data on which these conclusions are based. How can this discrepancy be explained? Schneider calculated the proportion of -s out of all inflected and uninflected verbs in each person, while Brewer analyzed only what percentage of the inflected verbs (i.e., -s presence) was associated with each person. The figures are thus not comparable: only the former provide us with information on the propensity of a grammatical person to receive marking.12 TABLE 1 -S- Usage By Person In The WPA Ex-Slave Narratives (Taken from Schneider 1983:105 and Brewer 1986:136)

South Carolina

Texas

1 %

SINGULAR 2 %

3 %

PLURAL 1 3 % %

Schneider 1983 Brewer 1986

54.4

45.0

70.5

65.0

21.9

4.0

1.6

7.3

Schneider 1983 Brewer 1986

47.3

25.0

75.0

—

50.0

50.8

0

19.9

15.0

14.3

70.2

Brewer further reports that -s functions in the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives as a durative marker. This emerges from examining the co­ occurrence of -s with temporal adverbs: of 153 instances of -s in the immediate environment of a temporal adverb, 67 percent of those adverbs were continuous or durative. Since this analysis again neglects to take account of the distribution of uninflected verbs, the results are difficult to interpret. That more instances of -s appeared in durative contexts may simply reflect the fact that such contexts themselves occur more frequently than others. Indeed, consideration of 200 standard English present-tense sentences13 (which evidence no variation in verbal concord), reveals that

285

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

durative/continuous contexts make up nearly half the environments in which present tense is found (Table 2): TABLE 2 Distribution Of Aspectual Contexts In Which Standard English Present Tense Is Used ASPECT Durative/continuous Habitual/iterative Punctual

% 46.5 28.0 20.5

N 93 56 41

Similarly, when we reanalyze our own data on early black English according to Brewer's method (i.e., by charting the distribution of -s across aspectual contexts), we also find the misleading result that more -s's occur in durative environments (Table 3). However, as we will show in section (7.3.2.1) below, when both -s and -Ø usage are treated, we find no particular propensity in either data set for -s to mark durative aspect. Problems arising from selective analysis of the data may be illustrated graphically by yet another proposal for the aspectual function of -s (Pitts 1986a). Though he offers no quantitative data in support, Pitts contends that -s is a habitual marker, not only in the WPA Ex-Slave

TABLE 3 Distribution Of-s (Proportion Of-s Out Of All -s's) In Various Aspectual Contexts In Early Black English Samaná ASPECT Durative/continuous Habitual/iterative Punctual

% [-S]

43.5 40.8 15.6

Ex-Slave Recordings N 324 304 116

% l-s] 61.9 16.7 21.4

N 26 7 9

286

SHANA POPLACK AND SAU TAGLIAMONTE

Narratives, but also in contemporary VBE. The latter conclusion emerges from his re-examination of a segment of Labov et al.'s (1968) data, reproduced below for convenience. Vernon:

Reggie:

Richard:

Vernon:

But those police don't really wanta break it up; they just wants their share. That cop hang out in our hall cause it's warm, but that's how he in on the numbers. When things gets bad, the lieutenant get wind of something: he get mad and say, "There's gonna be no more numbers." Then they starts bringin' peoples in. They don't really wanta bring you in; they throws you out by nine in the morning. My mother says [sic] you'd think colored cops [would] be nicer than the white cops, but they just about the same. But we needs police. They protects you from the big kids that throw the rocks, make your eye go out. No one person owns [sic] the numbers. And when you win, they comes on your street and tells you. (from Pitts 1986a:79)

Pitts claims that -s usage in these data illustrates an association between the marker and verbs denoting habitual action (italicized in Pitts 1986a). This is in fact basically true (two of the -s marked contexts are actually durative: wants, needs), but a review of the uninflected verbs in the same passage (which we indicate in bold face) reveals that these too denote habitual (or iterative) aspect! 14 Pitts (1986a:76) further suggests that -s incorporates a dual function — that of tense marker and that of aspect marker, labelled "tense-z" and "aspectual-z" respectively (see also Roberts 1976). Since, as mentioned above, these two functions are encoded in the same surface form, the question arises as to how they can be distinguished. Pitts suggests that -s is a tense marker when it 1) occurs in a series with other past-tense verbs, or 2) is immediately preceded by a past-tense adverbial construction, and when its temporal reference is not anterior to that of a preceding verb. -S is an aspect marker when it occurs with 1) stative verbs not collocated with a punctual adverb, and 2) event or process verbs used in habitual contexts.

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

287

Without addressing the circularity of this definition, note that the "tense-z" alluded to by Pitts appears to encompass past temporal reference only; 3rd p. sg -s is of course also used in Standard English to mark present temporal reference, of which no mention is made. 15 Moreover, "since the present tense is essentially used to describe, rather than to narrate, it is essentially imperfective, either continuous or habitual" (Comrie 1976:66). Indeed, in many languages, including English, habitual aspectual meaning is encoded in the present tense. It therefore seems unlikely that the figures given by Pitts for "aspectual-z" and "tense-z" in the slave narratives (1986a:77) in fact correspond to mutually exclusive usages, since they probably reflect the distinction between Historical Present and other present contexts. Thus previous contentions to the effect that the function of -s is that of an aspectual marker cannot be assessed from the available data.

4.0. Historical precursors of -s variability Though contemporary prescriptive usage requires strict subject-verb agreement in the present indicative, the historical record shows that concord was not always categorical. Modern English -s is generally considered a reflex of Old English -p, which marked present indicative in 3rd p. sg. and all persons in the plural (e.g., Jespersen 1909/49:15).16 One of the chief characteristics of the transition between Old English and Middle English verbal forms is the gradual loss of many of the older verbal endings. By the Middle English period, inflection in the present indicative was basically uniform across the paradigm, though the choice of marker varied across dialects. This can be observed in the verbal paradigm for Middle English hëre(n) 'to hear,' reproduced in Table 4. Use of verbal -s for all persons and numbers was apparently a dialectal feature of Northern English (e.g., Wright 1905:175-6; Jespersen 1909/1949:16; Strang 1970:146). It was here, according to Curme (1977:52), that the original 2nd p. sg. verbal ending -s spread first to 2nd p. pl., then to other persons of the plural, and finally to 3rd p. sg., so that in the Old English period, -s was (variably) used in the North for all

288

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

persons and numbers but 1st sg. By Middle English, it appeared throughout the paradigm. At this time it spread geographically to the Midlands where it coexisted with -p in 3rd p. sg. and occurred variably in the plural. Later the -s inflection became established in London and in the South more generally, first affecting only the spoken language, and subsequently penetrating written styles. Literary use of -s to represent popular or informal speech is amply attested. Shakespeare employed it in colloquial prose, while -p was used categorically in the more serious style required for Bible translations (Curme 1977:53). By the early 17th century -s gradually became established in all styles of literary language, but only in the 3rd p. sg.,17 rather than throughout the paradigm, as in Northern English. This development, undoubtedly responsible for the contemporary form of the Standard English indicative present-tense paradigm, was nonetheless preceded by considerable variation in written texts (cf. Holmqvist 1922; Curme 1977), generally agreed to have derived from parallel variation in the spoken language. TABLE 4 Regional Distribution Of Verbal Inflections In Middle English (From Mossé 1952:78) North Singular 1st p. 2nd p. 3rd p.

hēr(e)(s) hēres hēres

Plural

hēres

18

Midlands

South

hēre hēres(t) hēres, hērp

hēre hēr(e)st hērep

hēres, hēre(n)

hērep

Though historians are not in total agreement either on the exact origin of verbal -s (whether it arose through sound change from -p [v. Holmqvist 1922:2] or through analogical extension [Holmquist 1922:3; Wardale 1937:101; Wakelin 1977:119]), or on the reasons for its replacement of -p (because it increased the number of rhymes available for poetry [Jespersen 1909/49:16]), or because it was more easily articulated (Jespersen 1909/49:17), there is general consensus on a number of points.

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

1)

2)

289

Alternation among inflections (including -s, - p , and -Ø) of the present indicative has been a longstanding, well-documented feature of the language since the Old English period (Jespersen 1909/49:16; Holmqvist 1922:15; Brunner 1963:70; Curme 1977:53; Wakelin 1977:119). The variation originated in colloquial speech, and subsequently passed into the written language (Jespersen 1909/49:17-18; Holmqvist 1922:159; Wyld 1927:256; Curme 1977:53).

3)

Competing marking patterns in the indicative present-tense paradigm were regional variants. In fact, the verbal -s inflection has been considered one of the safest criteria in determining the dialectal origin of a Middle English text (Jespersen 1909/49:76-79; Holmqvist 1922:72; Wardale 1937:102; Barber 1976:242; Curme 1977:53; Wakelin 1977:119).

4)

Until at least the early 17th century -s was apparently a marker of popular, colloquial or dialectal speech (Jespersen 1909/49:19; Holmqvist 1922:185; Strang 1970:146; Barber 1976:239; Curme 1977:53).

In view of such pervasive variability, apparent even from the historical record, it is most likely that at least some aspects of the linguistic and/or social environments exerted a regular influence on -s occurrence. Unambiguous reconstruction of these factors and their respective weights is far beyond the scope of this paper; fortunately, there do exist reports of at least two syntactic conditioning factors. One widely attested constraint involves the type of subject of the verb. From the Middle English period on, there has been a tendency throughout England for verbs to retain inflection when accompanied by a full NP subject, while verbs with pronominal subjects, especially when post-posed, have tended to remain uninflected (e.g., Brunner 1963:70-71). This pattern has spread to all persons in many modern British dialects (Wright 1905:176; Jespersen 1909/49:15; Wakelin 1977:119). Another involves the definiteness of the subject. In Modern Standard English the inflected form of the verb is prescribed after indefinite pronominal subjects (e.g., everybody, nobody, anyone, etc.); in older English the uninflected form was common in these contexts, as they were

290

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

often interpreted as plurals (Visser 1970:74; Curme 1977:51-52); this tendency has also persisted in popular modern speech (Kennedy 1970:497).

5.0.

-S variability in Modern English

The vigorous variation in -s usage throughout the history of English coupled with the dearth of reports of parallel phenomena in modern white usage would suggest that the variability has by now resolved itself in contemporary white English in favour of the standard prescriptive variant: -s in 3rd p. sg. only. However, Hughes and Trudgill (1979:16-17) observe that in a number of non-standard British (particularly East Anglian) dialects, the present-tense verbal paradigm is completely regular as a result of the absence of 3rd p. sg. -s. In the North of Britain, as well as in the Southwest and South Wales, the regularization is of the opposite kind, with -s occurring in all verbal persons. Indeed, Trudgill (1974:61) describes 3rd p. sg. -s agreement as a linguistic variable involved in very marked social as well as stylistic variation. Table 5 reproduces his proportions of 3rd p. sg. -s agreement in Norwich.

TABLE 5 Percent Of 3rd p. sg. -s Agreement In Norwich (From Hughes and Trudgill 1979:204) Social Class Upper Middle Class Lower Middle Class Upper Working Class Middle Working Class Lower Working Class

% 100 71 25 19 3

The lower-working class informants in his study show almost categorical lack of subject-verb concord, with very little style-shifting. In fact, the overall norm for the working class is less than 30 percent

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

291

concord. It is interesting to note, however, that even middle-class speakers fail to observe concord in casual speech nearly a third of the time. 19 In Reading, on the other hand, as in many other southwestern varieties of British English, Cheshire (1982) found categorical use of -s in 3rd p. sg., but it also occurred more than half of the time in other verbal persons in the speech of the young peer groups she studied (p. 32). Strikingly enough, even the formal speech of the elderly speakers in her sample showed nonconcord -s usage 30 percent of the time. There have been several anecdotal reports of both lack of subjectverb concord and nonconcord -s in white American dialects (McDavid 1969; McDavid and Davis 1972) as well as some quantitative studies (Wolfram 1971; Feagin 1979; Sommer 1986). The phenomenon has thus far only been reported in the Southern U.S., which has been considered to be least prone, until recently, to standardizing influences (McDavid 1969; Schneider 1983). Not surprisingly, those studies that have investigated linguistic conditioning of -s usage find remnants of the effects cited in the historical record. For example, though Feagin (1979:190) finds that 3rd p. pl. pronominal subjects in Anniston (Alabama) English always receive the standard -Ø mark, nonagreement (i.e. nonstandard -s usage) reaches 58.4 percent among rural informants when the subject is a full noun phrase. Hackenberg (1972, cited in Feagin 1979) found up to 69 percent nonagreement in this context in West Virginia. It is thus apparent that the accumulated body of research has not furnished a consensus on the origins, status, or function(s) of verbal -s in VBE. In the remainder of this paper, we explore empirically the behaviour of this variable, paying particular attention to the linguistic and social contexts of its occurrence, within a historical and comparative perspective. This will enable us to determine whether the variation observed in early and modern black English -s usage has a precedent in the history of the language, or is rather an intrusion from another system.

6.0. Data and methods The data on which this report is based were extracted from two data sets. The first is a corpus of tape-recorded interviews with 21 native English-

292

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

speaking descendants of American ex-slaves residing in Samaná. We consider the dialect of these informants, aged 71-103 in 1982, to derive from a variety of English spoken by American blacks in the early 1820's.20 The second data set consists of 11 recordings of former slaves born between 1844 and 1861 (see Bailey et al., this volume), who presumably acquired their language some four or five decades after the ancestors of the Samaná informants. From the tape-recorded interviews we extracted each verbal construction with the potential for variable -s or -Ø marking, totalling 2485 cases from the Samaná data base and 374 from the Ex-Slave Recordings. 21 Though we will attempt to provide explicit comparisons between the data sets where possible, it should be borne in mind that these may be vitiated by the paucity of data in the Ex-Slave Recordings.22

6.1. Circumscribing the variable context In order to examine the behaviour of verbal -s it was first necessary to delimit its context of occurrence. Observing that verbal -s alternates with zero among all speakers in all persons23 (see (1a) above), we thus extracted from both corpora every construction containing what we determined to be a present-tense verb with the potential for inflection.

6.1.1. Neutralization contexts Although this has not been explicitly addressed in the literature on this subject, the task of circumscribing the variable context for -s presents special difficulties. In particular, an independent process of consonant cluster simplification renders the surface forms of regular (weak) present­ and past-tense verbs indistinguishable, as in (2): (2)

She live0 (< [z] or [d]?) right up yonder. (05/224) So she gain0 (< [z] or [d]?) half and I gain0 (< [z] or [d]?) half. (07/866)

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

293

Inclusion of past-tense verbs with phonologically deleted markers as instances of uninflected present-tense forms will obviously skew the proportions of -s presence (cf. Myhill and Harris 1986). We thus excluded from our data base all forms for which past reference could be inferred, whether from adverbial or other temporal disambiguating constructions, as in (3) and (4), from a sequential overt past-tense inflection, as in (5), or from the larger context of discourse.24 (3) (4) (5)

He remain0 here three years. (10/940) An' he, an' he live0 with mama thirty, thirty-two years ... (ESR/LS: 291-292) I used to live down there, and where I liveØ I had all that coffee planted. (3/407). He brought me one and he remainØ with one. (3/1076)

6.7.2. Exceptional distributions In contrast to earlier studies of VBE which reported extensive use of verbal -s with non-finite constructions (e.g., questions, imperatives, modal + verb, negatives, non-finite and invariant be, etc.), we find these to be extremely rare or nonexistent in both the Samaná and Ex-Slave materials.25 There have also been suggestions that lexical factors might exert an influence on -s usage (e.g., Labov et al. 1968; Fasold 1972). In the Samaná data all verbs seem to behave comparably with the exception of got and say, both of which received very little marking in concord and nonconcord positions. 26 Since exclusion of the former from our calculations did not materially affect the results, it was retained in the analysis; say, on the other hand, was excluded (v. fn. 40). A number of constructions show no variability in -s usage (remaining categorically inflected or uninflected), and thus were excluded from further analysis. These include various frozen expressions (e.g., you believe, I tell you)?-1 verbs occurring in songs or sayings, which may have been learned by rote, as in (6), phonologically neutralized sequences as in (7), and constructions with potential have or would deletion, as in (8) and (9).

294

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

(6) (7) (8) (9)

Practice makes perfect. (ESR/BL: 146) All these children speak Spanish. (07/2038) Since that, the sugar had went up even to thirty cents .. and it 0 come back now to twenty. (02/891) Any boat we met, if it was there, we Ø sail it. (01/633)

We also excluded constructions containing verbs which are "inherently" ambiguous as to past or present reference (e.g., put, set, beat), as well as examples in which an unambiguous interpretation of temporal reference was in doubt. Although it is possible that there still remain some verbs which were not appropriately disambiguated by us, these would be few in number. Thus, the analyses which follow provide a clear picture of the use of -s in contexts which (at least in Standard English) permit or require the present tense.

6.2.

Coding and analysis

Each present-tense verb retained in the data base was coded for a series of phonological, morphological and syntactic factors which could have an effect on verbal -s expression. These included the underlying phonetic form of -s ([s, z or әz]), the surrounding phonological environment, features of the noun phrase, features of the verb, and syntactic and discourse features. These factors were first analyzed individually, and then simultaneously by means of GoldVarb (Rand and Sankoff 1988), a logistic regression package for the Macintosh computer. For the statistical analyses we adopt here it is necessary to posit a relationship between variants which specifies the set of tokens assumed to have been eligible for rule application and the set of tokens assumed to have been transformed by the rule. The resulting configuration is often formalized in terms of certain underlying forms giving rise to weaker (or deleted) variants. This additional formalization is not necessary to estimate the effects of the different factors on variant usage, however. Since there is no consensus for determining which variant of verbal -s is underlying — whether [0] (which would imply that all occurrences of [s] are insertions) or [s] (implying that instances of [0] are deletions) — we simply adopted

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

295

the standard English configuration as an operational tool. We distinguish 3rd p. sg. from all other contexts, and consider, for the purposes of the analysis, -Ø marked instances of the former to be cases of deletion, and -smarked verbs in all other persons to be insertions. Note, however, that the analyses we will present do not depend on the particular derivational sequence we have postulated28 (see also Poplack 1979:53ff.), and should not at this stage be interpreted as a theoretical claim for the underlying form of verbal -s.

7.0. Results 7.1. Distribution of-s across the verbal paradigm Table 6 depicts the distribution of verbal -s presence by grammatical person in early black English. TABLE 6 Distribution Of Verbal-sBy Grammatical Person In The Samaná And Ex-Slave Recordings Samaná Singular 1st 2nd 3rd Plural 1st 2nd 3rd Totals

%[-s]

Ex-Slave Recordings N

%[-s]

20 7 56

609 414 604

3 0 71

22 (0 31

176 7) 675

(29 (0 5

2485

N 173 59 42 7) 2 9 1) 92 374

296

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

While in the Detroit and Washington studies verbal -s was generally absent from all forms (Wolfram 1969:138; Fasold 1972:133), sometimes occurring on 3rd p. sg. and sometimes30 on other persons, the Samaná materials show -s to be present much of the time, particularly on 3rd p. sg., but also non-negligibly on 3rd p. pl. and 1st p. sg. and pl. Note that while these rates appear high in relation to the VBE materials studied in urban American contexts, they are substantially lower (in all persons) than those reported by Schneider (1983:103, 105) for the WPA Slave Narratives. On the other hand, we observe considerably more -s usage in Samaná than in the Ex-Slave Recordings, where, despite rather sparse data, -s is nonetheless virtually confined to 3rd p. sg. subjects.31 Though the association of -s with 3rd p. sg. in the Ex-Slave Recordings is consistent with the onset of "standardization" described by Schneider, the differences in rate are more likely due to other factors which we are not in a position to assess (such as interviewer or transcriber effect [see Baugh 1986]). At this point, we note only that in each of the data sets -s is most likely to occur with 3rd p. sg., where it is present over half the time.32 Because of the problems involved in assessing the relationship of different corpora to the vernacular, in ensuing sections we focus on the conditioning of -s usage according to a number of factors, rather than overall rates, in order to address the question of its function in the two data sets.

7.2. Phonological effects on -s usage One of the most widely accepted views concerning verbal -s inflection in dialects of black English is that its occurrence is not phonologically conditioned. This finding constitutes the crux of the argument that verbal -s is not part of the underlying grammar of VBE. The conclusion is based on a view of language in which a set of syntactic rules generates forms on which phonological rules may subsequently operate. Thus, if random hypercorrection were entirely responsible for the non-3rd p. sg. -s forms and 3rd p. sg. -Ø forms, there should be no way of differentiating the phonological environments containing the two. If, on the other hand, the deleted variants result from the application of phonological rules to syntactically generated -s and -Ø, the distribution of these alternate forms

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

297

may be expected to be influenced by the surrounding phonological environment.

7.2.1. Underlying Phonetic Form Each token of verbal -s was coded for one of three phonetic manifestations whose occurrence is conditioned by the phonological features of the final segment of the base word: [s] occurs following non-strident voiceless segments, [z] following non-strident voiced segments and vowels, and [әz] following stridents. In studies of the past-tense morpheme, the phonetic shape of the suffix, with parallel variants [t, d, Id], was found to have a significant effect on the frequency of its deletion, the morpheme being deleted less when it was bisegmental. In the case of verbal -s, however, it has been claimed that phonetic shape has little or no effect on retention of -s (e.g., Fasold 1971:361). Table 7 displays the distribution of -s and -Ø across different base forms in early black English. TABLE 7 Relationship of underlying phonetic form to -s usage

/z/

/s/ 3rd p. sg. Deletion (-s → -Ø)

%Ø

N

%Ø

/әz/ N

%Ø

N 27

Samaná

50

212

44

365

7

Ex-Slave Narratives

33

15

23

26

(0

Other than 3rd Insertion (-Ø → -s) Samaná Ex-Slave Narratives

%[-s]

N

%[-s]

Ν

%[-s]

21

830

21

974

31

4

117

3

207

(0

1)

N 77 8)

298

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

The table shows that when the phonetic form of -s is complex (i.e., [әz]) it is retained more often on both third and non-third persons in Samaná English,33 as has already been found for the -t, -d suffix. The bisegmental form of -s is most salient phonologically and thus it is reasonable that it should be retained more often.

7.2.2. Environmental factors No previous study of verbal -s has recognized the existence of environmental phonological conditioning of its occurrence. Labov et al. (1968:164) report a surprising tendency for a following vocalic segment to increase deletion rates, contrary to widely replicated patterns for deletion of other final consonants. Wolfram (1969:137) finds virtually identical deletion rates in intervocalic and interconsonantal environments. Fasold (1972:125) reports no significant effect of either preceding or following phonological segment. Table 8 examines the effect of phonological environment on verbal -s presence in early black English. In contrast to the above mentioned studies of VBE, we observe a small but consistent phonological effect, in the expected direction.34 A preceding vocalic segment promotes retention of -s, regardless of grammatical person, as has been found in studies of deletion of other final consonants (e.g., Labov et al. 1968:130). In the following context, a pause is least conducive to retention, as is also typical of -t, -d deletion patterns among contemporary VBE speakers (Guy 1980:28). Moreover, the effect of phonological context is consistent across the majority of individual Samaná speakers for whom there is sufficient data in each environment. (Parallels to this patterning are clear in the Ex-Slave Recordings only for the preceding segment). In fact, the ranking of following consonant versus vowel in the Samaná data is also mirrored in Fasold's (1972:127) analysis of 3rd p. sg. -s deletion among a subsample of pre-adolescent and adolescent males in Washington, and corroborated in his analysis of the effect of phonological sequence for all speakers.35

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

299

TABLE 8 Effect Of Preceding And Following Phonological Environment On Verbal -s Presence Preceding segment Vowel Consonant 3rd p. sg. deletion (-s → -Ø) Samaná Ex-Slaves non-3rd insertion (-0 → -s) Samaná Ex-Slaves

%0

N

%0

N

37 11

94 9

45 33

510 33

%[-s] 27 7

N 315 86

%[-s] 20 2

N 1566 246

Following segment Vowel Consonant 3rd p. sg. deletion (-s → -Ø) Samaná Ex-Slaves non-3rd insertion (-0 → -s) Samaná Ex-Slaves

Pause

%Ø

N

%Ø

N

%Ø

N

39 30

231 27

47 29

344 14

55 (0

29 1)

N 1184 77

%[-s] 31 Ø

N 65 20

%[-s] 24 4

N 632 235

%[-s] 20 4

In summary, looking at the phonological influences one by one, and without taking into account non-phonological factors, there appears to be a phonological effect on both concord and nonconcord s usage in early black English. On the one hand this is manifested as a tendency to preserve -s when it is bisegmental, and on the other, when it appears in nonconsonantal environments. Though the latter effect is not unattested in earlier studies of this phenomenon in VBE, despite claims to the contrary, the consistency of this effect in concord and nonconcord contexts has not to our knowledge been observed. We will have occasion to return to this result below.

300

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

7.3. Syntactic effects on -s usage While previous studies have either reported no phonological conditioning of -s or have not treated the issue at all, syntactic factors have been widely cited, even at earlier stages of the language (section 4.0). In this section we examine whether a number of constraints proposed in the literature may also account for -s variability in our data on early black English.

7.3.1. Features of the subject 7.3.1.1. Type of subject A widely cited syntactic condition on the occurrence of verbal -s is the propensity for -Ø marking following pronominal, as opposed to full NP, subjects (e.g., Sweet 1891:379; Wright 1905:176; Brunner 1963:70; Mossé 1952:79). Jespersen (1909/49:15) traces the origins of this constraint back to Old English, which subsequently gave rise to the Modern Scottish configuration. In this dialect -s is added in all persons so long as the subject is not pronominal: they cum an' teake them vs. the burds cums an' paecks them (Jespersen 1909/49:15). This pattern has also been noted for other present-day British (e.g., Midlands) dialects (Wakelin 1977:119). Thus, the trend toward more -s inflection with heavy NP subjects has been present from the inception of the verbal marking system to the present (Hackenberg 1972; Feagin 1 9 7 9 ) . 3 6 We thus divided the subjects of the verbs under investigation according to whether they were pronominal, full or full noun phrase + relative, as in (10). Table 9 displays the effect of type of subject on verb inflection. (10) H e lives on the shore. (01/181) And my brother lives in Limón. (06/1048) The one what he follows has uh- sixty-three years. (04/318)

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

301

TABLE 9 Rates Of Verbal -s Usage As A Function Of Type Of Subject Pronoun 3rd p. sg. deletion -s → -Ø S amaná Ex-slaves non-3rd insertion -Ø → -s Samaná Ex-slaves

FullNP

%Ø

N

45 27

441 26

% [-s] 20 3

N 1766 312

%Ø 45 27

Full NP + rel

N

%Ø

N

114 26

29 31

49 16

%[-s]

N

38 15

92 20

%[-s] 70 _

N 23 0

Although there is no difference in marking rates ascribable to pronominal vs. full NP subject in 3rd p. sg. in either data set, we observe a marked tendency for verbs preceded by heavy noun phrases to receive inflection in other persons. Moreover, the heaviest NP context, i.e. NP + relative, most favours -s marking, an effect which has also been reported for nonstandard Southern white English (Feagin 1979:193).37 Although the rates of nonconcord in 3rd p. sg. contexts are actually lower in early black English than those reported for contemporary white dialects (Hackenberg 1973; Feagin 1979), the patterning is identical, and replicates the historical attestations (see section 4.0).

7.3.1.2. Definiteness of the subject Another constraint noted in the literature, primarily by researchers attributing -s variability to an underlying grammatical system distinct from standard English, is the differential treatment of indefinite vs. definite subjects. Bickerton (1975:137) suggests that the acquisition of 3rd p. sg. -s inflection on verbs with indefinite subjects would be inhibited in decreolizing Guyanese English, since these subjects are never marked in the

302

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

underlying creole grammar. It has also been the case throughout the history of English that the verbs associated with some of these subjects have tended to lack inflection. Since the 18th century grammarians have frowned upon the prevalent misuse of verbal concord with grammatically singular indefinite pronominals (Visser 1970), cf. also the OED: "everyone: often incorrectly with plural verb," and "everybody: sometimes incorrectly with plural verb or pronoun." We thus distinguished indefinite subjects (including indefinite pronouns, e.g., everything, it, indefinite you; and noun phrases, e.g., a boy, boys, people, etc.) as in (11a), from definite subjects, as in (11b). (11a) Nothing worries me. (ESR/FH: 30) People here now sing about "Roll, Jordan, Roll". (ESR/FH: 332-333) Everybody knows. (ESR/CB: 26) (11b) The old people likes to quarrel. (3/174) I don't care whether you sing it or not. (ESR/FH: 354)

Table 10 in fact shows a slight tendency in both data sets (where data are sufficient) towards lesser use of -s with indefinite subjects, particularly in non-3rd p. sg. contexts. Note, however, that the constraint cited in the historical record appears to refer to indefinite pronominals, rather than to TABLE 10 Rates Of Verbal -s Usage As A Function Of Definiteness Of Τhe Subject 3rd p. sg. deletion -s

→- Ø

Samaná Ex-Slaves non~3rd insertion Samaná Ex-slaves

-Ø

→-s

Definite subject

Indefinite subject

%Ø

N

%Ø

N

43 29

478 35

48 (29

126 7)

%[-s]

26 4

N 1211 246

%[-s]

14 1

N 670 86

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

303

the feature of definiteness more generally. And in fact, when we examine the subclass of 3rd p. sg. indefinite pronominal subjects in the Samaná data in (12), the effects suggested by Table 10 are magnified, with 58 percent (N=26) deletion in this context. (12)

Everybody goes out... (18/934) Everybody wantØ to be walking up and down. (18/933) Everything change0. (05/651) Everything changes. (09/320)

Thus, while it is clear that indefinites tend not to receive inflection, it seems likely that this stems rather from the historical tendency for indefinite pronouns to remain unmarked, than from an underlying creole influence.

7.3.1.3. Collective vs. noncollective subject Collective subjects have been observed to agree variably with the verb according to whether they are interpreted as singular or plural (Visser 1970:62; Traugott 1977:133). As there were no collective subjects in either of the data sets under examination, we were unable to investigate this effect.

7.3.2. Features of the verb 7.3.2.1. Verbal aspect The essence of the debate over the semantic interpretation of verbal -s concerns its aspectual reading. In modern standard English, 3rd p. sg. -s marks present tense simultaneously with a range of aspectual meanings: punctual, durative/iterative, habitual, etc. In creole languages, where the underlying system is generally characterized as aspect-prominent rather than tense-prominent, verbal marking is conditioned by the aspect of the verb. We have reviewed earlier suggestions (Bickerton 1975; Roberts

304

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

1977; Pitts 1981, 1986a; Brewer 1986a) that black English -s is an aspectual marker, but the questions of 1) which aspect it marks and 2) the relationship of such behaviour to a prior creole grammar (over and above marking aspect at all) remain unresolved, largely because of the questionable way some of these conclusions were derived from the data. In this section we examine the tendency for -s marking according to the aspectual reading of the verb. Verbs were coded as punctual when they referred to an event (hypothetical or otherwise) which is understood to have occurred once, as in (13), as habitual/iterative when they referred to an event that takes place repeatedly, as in (14), and as durative/continuous when they referred to events or processes that are extended in time or states that exist continuously, as in (15). Note that this aspectual coding was based on contextual information (e.g., adverbials) and not solely on the verb itself. (13)

(14)

(15)

If she comes six o'clock in the morning, well, you have to be here eight o'clock to go. (10/770) All at once, it- the rain come. (01/1250) Every year she comes here. (19/225) People comes very often. (10/763) Sometimes they comes. (03/1252) I think it comes by the teachers. (17/268) The wire come from way out there. (11/961) The Rodneys come from here in this Dominican Republic. (21/96)

Table 11 shows that, contrary to Brewer's (1986a) contention, verbs tend to receive most -s marking when the aspect denoted by the verb is habitual, an effect which emerges most clearly in the Samaná data. Note, however, that this effect is most robust in 3rd p. sg. in both data sets (in the Ex-Slave Recordings there are few data on 3rd p. sg., and the effect disappears altogether in persons other than third). Can verbal -s then be characterized as an aspect marker? We return to this question in section (8.0) below.

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

305

TABLE 11 Rates Of Verbal -s Usage As A Function Of Verbal Aspect Habitual/Iterative 3rd p. sg. deletion -5

→ -Ø

Samaná Ex-slave non-3rd insertion

-Ø

→ -s

Samaná Ex-slaves

Durative/Continuous

Punctual

%Ø

N

%Ø

N

%Ø

N

27 14

150 7

50 30

347 27

50 38

107 8

%[-s]

N

36 1

542 74

%[-s] 17 4

N

%[-s]

N

864 189

13 6

475 69

TABLE 12 Rates Of Verbal -s Usage With Strong vs. Weak Verbs 3rd p. sg. deletion -s

→ -Ø

Weak Verb

%Ø

%Ø

52 32

Samaná Ex-slaves non-3rd insertion

Strong Verb

-Ø

→ -s

Samaná Ex-slaves

%[-s] 18 4

N 361 31 N 1296 176

37 33

%[-s] 23 3

N 271 15 N 664 150

7.3.2.2. Verb type Although this has not to our knowledge been specifically addressed in the literature, we wanted to ascertain whether there was any difference in marking rates between strong ("irregular") and weak ("regular") verbs. The Samaná data (but not the Ex-Slave Recordings) in Table 12 show a clear-cut tendency to retain -s on weak verbs, particularly in the third person. This is of course precisely the context where it would seem most

306

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

crucial to disambiguate present-tense verbs from those with deleted pasttense clusters: weak verbs also showed most -t, -d retention in these same materials (Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988).

7.4. Discourse factors 7.4.1. The sequence constraint The operation of a "sequence" constraint on the occurrence of verbal -s has been attested by several researchers. This is the tendency for -s to occur only on the first conjunct of a conjoined pair or series of verbs (Fasold 1972:129; Myhill and Harris 1986:28). Butters (1987) also finds a tendency towards loss of the second -s on a conjunct in both Belizean English and black English in Wilmington, S.C. The explanation for this type of sequencing is based on the assumption that -s use derives from an imported standard English rule while -Ø reflects the use of the "proper black English rule." Fasold (1972:130) notes that "while several speakers reverted to the Black English rule after having begun with the Standard English rule, ... none moved to the Standard English rule after having begun with Black English grammar." TABLE 13 Distribution Of -s In Conjoined Verb Phrases (With Same Or Deleted Subject)

Sequence

%

-s + -Ø

35.3

-Ø + -Ø

91.8

Sequence

%

N

-s + -s

64.7

34

-Ø + -s

8.2

86

Table 13 summarizes the distribution of -s in conjoined verb phrases in the Samaná data base. Samaná English shows no propensity for the type of sequencing cited for VBE. In fact, the occurrence of -s on the first conjunct (regardless of whether it is concord or non-concord)

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

307

promotes, rather than inhibits, the occurrence of -s on the second. On the other hand, once a zero is used, again regardless of person and number, another zero is most likely. A similar "local concord" effect was noted by Poplack (1981) for plural -s marking in Puerto Rican Spanish.

7.4.2. "Narrative" -s As mentioned above, Myhill and Harris (1986) have found verbal -s to be concentrated almost exclusively in narrative clauses in contemporary VBE, regardless of person and number of the subject. Of course, the use of present-tense forms in narrative discourse (the "Historical Present") has been widely attested (Wolfson 1979; Schiffrin 1981; Silva-Corvalán 1983; Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988), but as Labov (1987:8) points out, this innovative use of -s should not be confused with it (cf. Butters 1987). VBE -s is not used for general present reference, but rather, is almost entirely confined to the past. Thus verbal -s usage has become specialized for the narrative past function. Use of -s in this context was also noted by Roberts (1976), who observed that "the function of hyper-s is a feature of narrative style in almost all data on Black English. It seems to have been more common before than it is now, for if one examines the ex-slave narratives in Botkin's [1945] Lay My Burden Down it is seen to be almost universal" (p. 8). Though he concedes that the tales in the collection were not transcribed from recorded speech, he finds it "inconceivable" that interviewers could have conspired to "flavour" their transcriptions with hyper-s so consistently precisely for narrative style. We now compare the distribution of -s in narrative and nonnarrative clauses in Samaná English with that reported by Myhill and Harris. 38 Adopting the stricter definition of narrative provided in Labov and Waletzky (1967) rather than the looser characterization of events which may be construed to have taken place at some point in the past (cf. Roberts 1976; Butters 1987), we replicate Myhill and Harris' (1986) analysis on a data base of narratives of personal experience recounted by the Samaná informants (Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988). Table 14 shows no sign of association of -s with narrative clauses in early black English; on

308

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

the contrary, the Samaná materials show exactly the opposite effect to that described by Myhill and Harris, with a tendency towards -s absence in such clauses. TABLE 14 Distribution Of Verbal -s By Grammatical Person In Narrative And Non-Narrative Clauses In Samaná English And VBE (From Myhill and Harris 1986 and Tagliamente and Poplack 1988) I %[-s] N

SINGULAR he/she Full NP (sg.) we %[-s] N %[-s] N %[-s] N

 & H (1986) Narrative Non-narrative

32 1

50 458

59 7

54 241

55 9

31 96

Samaná Narrative Non-narrative

0.5 16

188 669

0.3 50

215 418

3 57

35 203

61 2

PLURAL they %[-s] N

18 45

— —

6 18 21 180

0 30

0 0

Totals %[-s] N 50 4

41 2 721 27

This appears most dramatically when compared with inflection rates for the same grammatical persons in non-narrative discourse. In persons other than third, -Ø inflection is, of course, consistent with a present-tense interpretation (Historical Present), and in fact, independent distributional analyses provided clear evidence of the existence in Samaná English of a historical or narrative present tense (Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988), identical both in form and in function to its standard English counterpart. The low rates of concord with 3rd p. sg. verbs in narrative clauses shown in Table 14 are likely due to the preponderance in this context, of verba dicendi (say, tell), which are particularly resistant to inflection (see also Schneider 1983). As mentioned earlier, these were excluded from the other calculations reported here.40

7.4.3. Summary of individual effects In sum, the factor-by-factor analyses presented above suggest that a number of factors condition the occurrence of verbal -s, only some of

153 840 497 2633 39

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

309

which have been attested previously, while other reported effects appear not to be operative at all in early black English. First, contrary to any previous reports, we observe a small but consistent phonological condition on -s variability, manifested as a tendency toward preservation when -s is bisegmental and when it appears in non-consonantal environments. This effect has been widely attested in other studies of consonant deletion and cluster simplification, and appears to be operative in both concord and nonconcord contexts. As far as the contribution of type of subject noun phrase is concerned, we observe on the one hand a tendency towards verbal inflection with heavy noun phrase (as opposed to pronominal) subjects, and on the other a tendency towards -Ø marking when the latter are indefinite. Both effects, attested in nonstandard white dialects and throughout the history of English, although never to our knowledge in VBE, are most robust in nonconcord contexts. Features of the verb also play a role. In contrast with earlier suggestions, we observe a tendency towards inflection in weak verbs denoting habitual (and not durative) aspect, which is strongest in 3rd p. sg. contexts. Finally, the two discourse factors reported to be operative in VBE — the sequence constraint and the association of -s with the narrative present — also have strong effects on -s usage in early black English, but in the direction opposite to previous reports. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these results is the finding that both 3rd. p. sg. and nonconcord -s are subject to regular, parallel environmental conditioning, although certain effects seems to be stronger in one or the other of the contexts. Now, while tabulations of effects taken one at a time, such as those reported above, are informative, they do not reveal the relative importance of factor effects to each other, nor whether all are in fact significant when considered simultaneously. We thus reanalyze the data using the logistic regression procedures implemented in the variable rule program (Rand and Sankoff 1988) to estimate the true effects of phonological and syntactic factors on both concord and nonconcord -s usage, and to remove artifacts of poor data distribution, correlated factors, or statistical fluctuations. This will enable us to determine which environmental factors have a significant effect on -s insertion and deletion when all are considered together, as well as to estimate the magnitude of individual factor effects.

310

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

7.5. Multivariate analysis of the contribution of factors to verbal -s usage Table 15 displays the results of a variable rule analysis of the factors contributing to the probability that verbal -s will be present in the Samaná data base.41 Higher numbers can be interpreted as favouring -s inflection, while lower ones disfavour it. The higher the figure, the greater the contribution of that factor to -s marking. The factors are displayed with the most significant ones first, as determined by the regression procedure. The table shows that the greatest and most significant contribution to the presence of inflection is made by person and number of the subject: 3rd p. sg. subjects may be seen to favour -s marking more than any other factor examined, with a probability of .77. Third person plural subjects also show some tendency to favour marking. The fact that a preference (albeit weak) for nonconcordial marking persists in 3rd p. pl. as compared to other

TABLE 15 Contribution Of Factors Selected As Significant To The Presence Of Verbal -s In All Grammatical Persons (-Ø → -s) In Samaná English Corrected mean:

.30 Definiteness of Subject

Person/Number

Verbal Aspect

3rd p.sg. 3rd p. pl. 1st p. sg. 2nd p. sg.

Habitual/Aterative Durative/Continuous Punctual/Instantaneous

.77 .54 .39 .25

.77 .54 .49

Preceding Phonological Segment Vowel Consonant

Definite Nondefinite

.54 .41

Underlying Phonetic Form

Type of Subject Noun phrase + relative Noun phrase Pronoun

.66 .44 .42

.62 .48

[әz] [s] [z]

.74 .51 .47

Following Phonological Segment Vowel Pause Consonant

.55 .53 .47

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

311

person numbers, is not surprising in view of the fact that historically, marking in this context is older, antedating concord in 3rd p. sg. (e.g., Curme 1977 and section (4.0) above). Verbal aspect is another important factor: inflection is favoured (at .66) only when the aspectual reading is habitual/iterative. Definite subjects, particularly when comprised of heavy NPs, also contribute to the probability of marking; the effect observed in Table 9 with regard to full vs. pronominal subjects appears quite reduced in this analysis (.54 vs. .49 respectively). Finally, the phonological effects cited above, though less significant than those of the other factors, persist. We observed in section (7.4.3) above that although the ranking of factor effects was generally parallel in concord and nonconcord contexts, certain factors assumed particular importance in specific grammatical persons. Amalgamating the data for all persons, as in the analysis depicted in Table 15, could have the result of averaging out the effect of a factor with, say, a heavy contribution in concord contexts and only a slight one elsewhere. We thus reanalyse the data according to whether or not they occurred in 3rd p. sg. contexts, adopting the methodology detailed in section (6.2) above. Table 16 displays the factor weights associated with verbal -s presence in persons other than 3rd p. sg. The factor effects are essentially identical, although we observe the factor of type of subject to assume additional importance, with a clear difference between pronominal and full noun phrases, in the expected direction. The contribution of underlying phonetic form, on the other hand, is somewhat reduced. In Table 17, we compare the probabilities with which these same factors influence the deletion of 3rd p. sg. -s. The table shows that two of the factors found to affect the presence of nonconcord -s (verbal aspect and underlying phonetic form) contribute a significant effect to the probability that 3rd p. sg. will be marked as well. That some of the other factors were not retained by the stepwise regression analysis is clearly due to the relatively small sample of 3rd p. sg. tokens — only 604 vs. 1881 for the conconcord contexts. Thus the table displays an analysis where all factors are forced into the regression.42

312

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE TABLE 16

Contribution Of Factors Selected As Significant To The Presence Of Verbal -s In Other Than 3rd p. sg. Contexts (-Ø → -s) In Samaná English Corrected mean:

.22 Definiteness of Subject

Verbal Aspect Habitual/Iterative Durative/Continuous Punctual/Instantaneous

.68 .44 .39

Definite Indefinite

.56 .39

Type of Subject Preceding Phonological Segment Noun phrase + relative .91 Noun phrase .67 Pronoun .48

Vowel Consonant

Underlying Phonetic Form

Following Phonological Segment

[әz] [s] [z]

Pause Vowel Consonant

.67 .53 .46

.62 .48

.60 .55 .47

Factors not selected: none

It is remarkable that the constraint ranking, or the order in which the factors constituting each group affect the process under consideration, is basically identical for the two analyses, i.e. for all grammatical persons.43 The result that both "insertion" and "deletion" are conditioned by the same factors indicates that verbal -s marking is a unitary process, involving both concord and nonconcord contexts. We do note, however, that the magnitude of some of the effects (e.g., preceding phonological segment, definiteness of the subject, type of subject) is sharply reduced or disappears altogether (NP vs. pronominal subject) in 3rd p. sg., and the lack of statistical significance is no doubt also due to the weaker differential conditioning of constrasting features.

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

313

TABLE 17 Contribution Of Factors Selected As Significant To The Deletion Of 3rd p. sg. -s (-s → -Ø) In Samaná English Corrected mean:

.43

Verbal Aspect Habitual/Iterative Durative/Continuous Punctual/Instantaneous

*Definiteness of Subject .33 .56 .57

.49 .54

*Preceding Phonological Segment

*Type of Subject Noun phrase + relative Noun phrase Pronoun

Definite Indefinite

.32 .51 .52

Vowel Consonant

.43 .51

Underlying Phonetic Form

*Following Phonological Segment

[әz] [s] [ζ]

Pause Vowel Consonant

.08 .56 .51

.57 .45 .53

♦Factors not selected by the multiple regression procedure.

8.0

Discussion

How can these results be explained? We have described in some detail why the literature on the conditioning of verbal -s variability in English — whether early or modern, black or white, British or American — does not permit an easy solution based on either historical or comparative grounds. However, the findings we have presented do allow the following plausible hypothesis. In section (4.0) we detailed the pervasive variability of -s throughout the verbal paradigm, which persisted in English at least until the early 17th century. Since an affix which occurred variably on all grammatical persons was unlikely to have functioned (only, if at all) as an agreement marker, it is most probable that other linguistic factors (in addition to social and stylistic factors) conditioned its occurrence. The exact nature of such factors can no longer be unambiguously reconstructed, although the two

314

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

that were mentioned in the historical texts have been shown to maintain an effect in early black English. It would not be unreasonable to assume that those factors approximated the ones depicted in Tables 16 and 17 reflect the remnants of earlier constraints — at least before the resolution of -s variability into a 3rd p. sg. agreement marker. The person/number constraint displayed in Table 15 would have been incorporated thereafter, so effectively compressing the variable effects as to render them statistically non-significant in most cases (Table 17). More specifically, the verbal inflection system brought by the British settlers to the Southern United States would have embodied the constraints on -s variability depicted in Tables 16 and 17, or alternatively, Table 15, depending on the time the tendency toward 3rd p. sg. -s agreement began to make inroads into the spoken language of the populace.44 Extrapolating from Schneider's (1983) suggestion, we hypothesize that the early slaves would have acquired this variable system, along with the constraints on its variability. This would be consistent with the major findings of this study, i.e., that 1) the expression of nonconcord -s is a result of regular variable conditioning, 2) the factors conditioning its occurrence are identical to those conditioning the occurrence of 3rd p. sg. -s, and 3) the grammaticalization of -s as the contemporary standard English agreement marker (as expressed by the heavy contribution of the factor of 3rd p. sg. in Table 15) subsequently overrides quantitatively many of those conditioning effects in 3rd p. sg. contexts. We have seen from Table 17 that there are only two strong constraints on 3rd p. sg. -s usage: a phonological one inhibiting deletion when -s is a bisegmental morpheme, and an aspectual one inhibiting deletion when the aspectual reading of the verb is habitual. The latter result, which has appeared consistently across the analyses presented here, inevitably raises the question of whether -s can be interpreted as an aspectual marker, thereby implying that it would be fulfilling a function which is somehow alien to English grammar. -5 clearly does mark habitual aspect (more than durative and punctual aspects), but this function is not in contradiction with that of the present tense in sandard English or more generally. Comrie (1985:37) observes that the most characteristic use of the present tense is to refer to situations which occupy a longer period of time than the present moment, but which include the present

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

315

moment within them, i.e., situations which can be construed as "habitual"). He defines the situation referred to by a verb in the present tense as simply one which literally holds at the moment of speaking (Comrie 1985:38). Whether or not this situation is part of a larger one extending into past or future time is an implicature which must be worked out on the basis of other features of the real world and of the sentence. Of these, Comrie characterizes sentential aspect as one of the most important in deciding whether the situation is restricted to the present moment (punctual). We have already noted the fact that in many languages, including English, habitual aspectual meaning is in some sense embodied in the present tense. Comrie illustrates the special position of habitual meaning in tense-aspectmood systems by observing that it is situated at the intersection of the three: it can be expected to be expressed by means of a tense, since it involves location of a situation across an extended segment of time, it can be aspectual since it refers to the internal temporal contour of a situation; but it can also be modal since it involves generalizations about possible worlds from observation of the actual world (Comrie 1985:40). Indeed, since there apparently exists no separate habitual tense apart from the present, he observes that the grammatical expression of habituality will always be integrated into the aspectual or modal system rather than into the tense system. Thus, as we we remarked in section (3.0) above, there is no straightforward way of distinguishing a tense function from an aspectual function of -s, since the two are inextricably linked. We are now in a position to return to the original question raised in this paper: that of the origin and function of verbal -s in early black English. We begin by reviewing the available evidence for the status of -s as an intrusion vs. an integral part of early black English grammar. Recall that the arguments marshalled in favour of the status of -s as a hypercorrect intrusion (in contemporary VBE) rest on three premises: 1) -s is frequently absent in concord contexts, 2) -s is frequently inserted in other persons, as well as in non-finite forms, and 3) -s absence is not subject to regular phonological conditioning. We address each of these in turn. First, we have shown that while 3rd p. sg. subject-verb agreement is far from categorical in either data set on early black English, it is present in this environment at least half (in the Ex-Slave Recordings, more than

316

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

2/3) of the time. More important, arguments against standard English origins based on variable inflection rates cannot be considered fully convincing when we take into account that the frequencies (of non-standard deletion and non-standard insertion) are in fact lower than those attested for the few local British (Trudgill 1974; Cheshire 1982) and American (Bailey p.c.) white dialects which have been systematically studied; no one has suggested that verbal -s is not an integral part of these white dialects. An argument based on the distribution of -s across grammatical persons cannot be viewed as decisive of this question either, given the known facts about the history of inflection in English. In any event, our analysis showed 3rd p. sg. to be the most common environment for inflection in early black English; indeed, it was revealed by the regression analysis to be the single factor most favourable to -s presence. Finally, our study demonstrated that at least at an earlier stage of black English, -s variability showed regular phonological conditioning (also detectable in Fasold's 1972 Washington data), in the expected direction. This conditioning, although clearly apparent in all contexts in the individual factor analysis, was largely overridden in 3rd p. sg. by the strength of the standard concord rule. This paper has also demonstrated that, contrary to what would be expected from hypercorrection, nonconcord -s presence is also subject to regular conditioning (over and above the phonological), identical to that obtaining for concord -s. Based on our finding that two of the constraints reported throughout the history of English are operative in early black English, we suggested that this pattern might be a synchronic reflex of the constraint ranking in the varieties of English which provided the linguistic model for the slaves. Given the difficulty of reconstructing the conditioning of a variable process which has now basically gone to completion, this suggestion remains speculative. But whether or not the scenario we have outlined actually accounts for the facts of earlier white English does not weaken our finding that verbal -s marking within the early black English systems we have examined is not random hypercorrection. The behaviour we have described represents a stage of the language in which a concord function for -s has already made a certain amount of progress in supplanting whatever earlier functions it might have had. We thus conclude that verbal -s, as well as the

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

317

present tense, formed an integral part of the early black English grammar. Further support in favour of this conclusion may be adduced from the behaviour of the individuals we have studied. We have already had occasion to observe the surprising degree of inter-speaker consistency (where the data permit comparison) on the ranking of constraints. Fasold (1972:146) had hypothesized that if -s insertion in nonconcord contexts and 3rd p. sg. -s absence were to be taken together as evidence for the absence of -s from the underlying grammar, then it ought to be the case that individuals who show most "hypercorrection" should be precisely those with least 3rd p. sg. -s presence. Table 18 shows no such relationship between the tendency toward lack of concord in 3rd p. sg. and -s insertion elsewhere among our Samaná informants. On the contrary, we observe a highly significant (p < .001) correlation (coefficient = .667) between concord and nonconcord contexts, such that speakers with high rates of -s marking in one show parallel rates in the other, and vice versa. Our speaker sample is thus constituted of two types of individuals: those who tend to mark -s and those who do not, regardless of grammatical person. Our suggestion that variability in -s marking was acquired as an inherent part of the language as a whole receives strongest support from an examination of the contribution of extra-linguistic factors to its occurrence. The only extra-linguistic factor found to exert a consistent effect on -s usage in Samaná is access to formal instruction (Table 18). Contrary to expectation, individuals who have had any schooling at all, and who are closely connected with church activities, are precisely the ones with most verbal -s presence in both concord and nonconcord contexts! This suggests that -s usage was a prestige marker in the dialect at an earlier point in time, as would be expected if it were associated with the speech of the white masters (whatever its affect in their variety), and that its ulterior movement towards an indicator of nonstandard speech in non­ concord contexts had not penetrated the language of the ancestors of the Samaná informants by the time they sailed for the Dominican Republic in 1824.45 Their subsequent lack of contact with other standardizing influences (Poplack and Sankoff 1987) explains the contemporary pattern.

318

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE TABLE 18 The Effect Of Education On -s Usage46

Some Formal Education

Concord -s presence

Nonconcord -s presence

% [s]

N

% [-s]

N

83 82 78 75 74 72 69 67 62 56

29 11 27 32 58 25 39 42 92 27

44 48 33 27 21 17 34 30 14 23

108 23 51 108 222 48 161 126 231 100

Speaker #

16* 15 09* 06* 02 17 19* 18* 03* 14 Mean No Formal Education

71.8

Mean

Concord -s presence % [-s]

29.1

Nonconcord -s presence

N

% [-S]

N

30 17 22 22 42 21 9 55

0 39 20 18 18 8 11 11

23 36 66 107 73 89 44 198

Mean

15.6

Speaker #

04 08 10 01 05 11* 21 07 Mean

47 47 45 36 33 29 22 13 41.0

*Individuals connected with church activities

In sum, the facts we have presented here concerning the linguistic and extra-linguistic conditioning of verbal -s usage all militate in favour of the suggestion that present-tense marking via verbal -s was an integral part of the early black English grammar, insofar as this is reflected by the data we have examined. This process was variable, but not random, and may well have reflected synchronic variability in the input language at the time of acquisition. The reasons for its disappearance, if it has indeed disappeared from contemporary VBE, must remain an open question.

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

319

NOTES

*This paper first appeared in Language Variation and Change 1.1. (1988). It is reprinted here with minor editorial changes. We would like to thank Guy Bailey, whose cooperation with this project has far exceeded the call of duty, as well as Don Hindle, Bill Labov and David Sankoff, for reading and commenting on this work. 1.

The Samaná English data contained only seven instances of 2nd p. pl. in a present context, none of which occurred with -s , and the Ex-Slave Recordings, only one. Given the paucity of data in the Ex-Slave Recordings overall, there is not always an illustrative example for each context.

2.

The numbered codes in parentheses refer to the speaker and line number in the Samaná corpus. ESR designates the Ex-Slave Recordings and the initials identify the speaker.

3.

The two sole instances of [-s] in 1st p. pl. in the Ex-Slave Recordings occur in this direct quotation of JM's white masters.

4.

Note, however, that Labov refers only to adolescent and pre-adolescent speech here. With the exception of his Southern-raised lower working class adults in casual style, the inflected verb form predominates among the adults he studied (Labov et al. 1968:161-2).

5.

Labov (1987:8) observes that -s is involved in "radical" style-shifting.

6.

Additional experimental evidence comes from Torrey's (e.g. 1983) investigations of perception and production of -s among black second graders in Harlem. Her results for 3rd p. sg. -s confirm the view that the affix does not form part of the VBE grammar, but only insofar as its number interpretation is concerned (p. 636). Interestingly enough in view of the analysis we present in Section 8.0, the children do interpret -s as a present tense marker (p. 640), suggesting that at least one of the Standard English functions of -s is present in the dialect.

7.

-S variability in persons other than 3rd p. sg. is variously referred to in the literature as hyper-s, hyper-z, and nonconcord -s.

8.

Though Brewer (1986a) cites 18th- and 19th-century British dialects as the source of nonconcord -5, she does not specifically address the issue of the origin of its use as a durative aspectual marker in early black English.

9.

This possibility is at least implicitly endorsed by Bickerton (1975) and Roberts (1976) as well.

10.

Presumably on the basis of the earlier studies by Labov et al. (1968), Wolfram (1969), and Fasold (1972).

11.

This figure is for Schneider's amalgamated data.

320

12.

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

Such spurious comparisons can easily be discarded when detected. More puzzlingis the discrepancy between the studies in marking rates of the 3rd p. sg. verbs, for which Brewer did calculate the proportion of -s out of all inflected and uninflected forms: Percent of-s marking on 3rd p. sg. verbs in the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives (-s/-s + -Ø) South Carolina Brewer 1986 Schneider 1983

7.0% 70.5%

Texas 43.8% 75.0%

Whether the incongruity stems from the data base or other factors remains an open question. It was not addressed in the later paper. 13.

These were extracted from a corpus of casual conversations with white middle-class Canadians recorded by Tagliamonte in 1982.

14.

The only example containing both inflected and uninflected verbs provided by Roberts (1976:9) in support of his claim for a habitual function of -s shows exactly the same pattern: both the -s marked (in italics) and the -Ø marked (in bold face) verbs denote habitualAterative aspect: Well, when I cuss Master Ed, I goes 'way down in the bottoms where the corn grow high ... I looks east and west... I see no Master Ed. Then I pitches into him and gives him the worst cussing... Then when I goes back my feeling is satisfied ...

15.

Perhaps this "tense-z" corresponds to what we and others have analyzed as historical present, and Myhill and Harris (1986), as narrative present.

16

Holmqvist (1922:2) suggests that it may simply be an analogical extension from 2nd p. sg. which ended in -s in Old EngUsh and other Germanic languages.

18.

The reasons for this rather unusual development have not been treated in any work on the history of English which we have consulted: 3rd p. sg. is considered the most basic form, on which the morphology of the other person forms of a tense is modelled (e.g. Bybee and Brewer 1980). Manczak (1963:36) has suggested that the persistence of -s on 3rd p. sg. can be accounted for by his "hypotheses XIII and XIV: that the roots and endings of the third person and of the singular undergo fewer analogical changes than those of other persons and numbers.

17.

The (s) has been added to the table by us to reflect Mossé's observation in a footnote to his table that "in the Northern dialect the -s ending is gradually extended to the 1st p. sg. of the present indicative" (p.79); see also Wright (1905:175-6); Curme (1977:53); Wakelin (1977:119).

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

321

19.

Trudgill (1974) only provides data on the social and stylistic conditioning of -s occurrence.

20.

For the relationship of Samaná English to early American black English, see Poplack and Sankoff (1980, 1983, 1987); Tagliamonte and Poplack (1988). These references also provide details of sample selection and corpus constitution.

21.

The analyses we report of the Ex-Slave Recordings are based on data extracted from high-quality, reel-to-reel copies of the original Library of Congress tapes, kindly made available to us by Guy Bailey, and not from the transcripts or the cassettes.

22.

The majority of the Ex-Slave informants (8/11) had 25 potential contexts for verbal -s or less per person.

23.

With the exception of 2nd p. pl., for which there were sparse data in both corpora; see fn. 1 above. This context was excluded from further analysis.

24.

An obvious exception is that of present-tense verbs in complicating action clauses of narratives, which, by virtue of their occurrence in these contexts, have past temporal reference. Because expression of historical present falls within the standard uses of the English present tense, such forms were necessarily retained in our data base. It is only when these verbs are regular (weak) that an unavoidable ambiguity arises as to whether their uninfected form results from deletion of present- or past-tense inflections (For more detailed treatment of this problem, see Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988: 517-18). In this study, however, verbs in narrative clauses only represent approximately 15 percent of the data (Ibid. Table 14), and of these, less than a quarter fall into the regular category (Table 1). We thus estimate the number of verbs in the data set which are truly ambiguous as to past- or presenttense inflection to be under 4 percent. Compare Myhill and Harris (1986:29), who include regular past-tense verbs in the variable environment for -s. Additional motivation for excluding past-reference contexts from analysis comes from the fact that -s inflection here was virtually non-existent in our data (v. also section (7.4.2), especially Table 14).

25.

Only 20 examples of "invariant" be occurred in the Samaná corpus, half of which were inflected with -s. Instances of inflection on other non-finite verbs were very infrequent (N=10) in these data, and, with one exception, non-existent in the ExSlave Recordings. Finite forms of be were also excluded from our study, both because of its suppletive present-tense forms which may have been acquired independently, and because widespread deletion of the copula by an independent process (Poplack and Sankoff 1987) makes concord impossible to determine in many cases. Finite forms of have were also excluded, following Fasold (1972).

26.

This is in contrast to Labov et al. (1968:166) who found that the verb got in Non­ standard Negro English showed a high concentration of "hyper-s" in 3rd p. sg. as well as other persons.

27.

Productive uses of these verbs were retained in the analysis, e.g., But that I tells people sometime (03/1258).

322

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

28.

Indeed, given the fact that only two variants are treated, figures for the alternate analysis may be obtained simply by subtracting the ones provided from 1.

29.

Parentheses indicate sparse data.

30.

In Washington only 13 percent of the time.

31.

The extremely low rate of verbal -s usage in the Ex-Slave Recordings (42 cases in all) is not a reflection of generalized absence of this consonant in the data. Though we have not yet examined this systematically, -s is apparently used freely in plurals. In view of the distribution in Table 6, we are unsure of how to interpret Holm's (this volume) remark that "the use of the uninflected verb for the present tense ... predominates in the language of each speaker" in the corpus, unless he is referring to persons other than third, since we have seen that 3rd p. sg. verbs are in fact inflected 71 percent of the time. If this is the case, can lack of inflection in non-3rd p. sg. contexts - the norm in most contemporary dialects of English - be appropriately characterized as an apparent remnant of an earlier English-based creole (Holm, this volume)?

32.

Of course -s is also most likely to occur with 3rd p. sg. in Detroit and Washington, but at substantially lower rates. It is nonetheless the case that Wolfram (1969:133) reports up to 43 percent 3rd p. sg. -s in Upper Working Class speech. It is also of interest that the rate of retention of 3rd p. sg. -s in Samaná exactly parallels that found by Bailey in contemporary Southern white folk speech: 57 percent (Bailey p.c.).

33.

Occurrences of this context in the Ex-Slave Narratives are too rare to permit analysis.

34.

Of the eight contrasts between vocalic and consonantal effects in Table 8, there are enough data and enough of a difference so that one is significant at the 0.01 level and three more are significant at the 0.1 level (using a x 2 test with continuity correction).

35.

The phonological effect found in the Washington phonological sequence data is actually quite strong; as in Samaná, an intervocalic environment clearly promotes retention of -s. 3rd p. sg. -s absence by surrounding phonological sequence

Detroit Washington Samaná

v_#v

v_#c

%Ø

%

61.8 50.8 31.4

72.2 72.9 36.0

c_#v Ø

% 67.4 64.2 41.6

c_#c Ø

%Ø 62.4 65.5 48.1

Given these findings, it is unclear why Fasold was so categorical in rejecting the possibility that verbal -s could be phonologically conditioned.

THERE'S NO TENSE LIKE THE PRESENT

323

36.

Although not reported, a (slight) preference for inflecting verbs with full noun phrase subjects is also observable in Myhill and Harris' (1986) VBE data: 14.9 percent vs. 9.6 percent marking for pronominal subjects (abstracted from Table 2, p. 27).

37.

Though the figures for -s insertion on nonconcord verbs preceded by full NPs necessarily involve only 3rd p. pl., the contrast with pronominal subjects is genuine, as marking occurs at a rate of 28% here, compared to 38% with full NPs and 70% with full NP + relative (Samaná data).

38.

The Ex-Slave Recordings contain no structured narratives to speak of, and could not be analyzed in this way.

39.

These figures are taken from a gross data tabulation of all potential present-tense examples from the entire body of narrative and non-narrative discourse. In subsequent analyses many of these contexts were eliminated in accordance with the criteria outlined in section (6.1).

40.

There is ample evidence to support the unique behaviour of verba dicendi in narrative style in general. Johnstone (1985:18) suggests that in stories these function as "semantically neutral place markers, indicating only that what follows is supposed to be taken as someone's exact words." Vincent (1983) showed that in Montreal French narratives, il dit, je dis, etc. function as discourse particles, replacing others like tu sais, n'est-ce pas, which occur in non-narrative contexts. In the Samaná narratives, 3rd p. sg. say0 is nearly categorical.

41.

The data contained in the Ex-Slave Recordings are too sparse to permit multivariate analysis.

42.

The two significant factor groups show essentially the same values with or without the presence of the other factor groups. Two others, following phonological environment and type of subject, were almost significant at the .05 level.

43.

Recall that Tables 16 and 17 depict analyses with different underlying forms, so that a factor with a heavy contribution to "insertion" will show up as contributing a small one to "deletion".

44.

Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila's recent (1989) analysis of the factor conditioning -s variability in late 15th-century English letters lends strong support to this suggestion.

45.

Only 18 of the 21 speakers are considered here because the remainder had sparse data.

45.

It will be noted that speakers with higher levels of eductation show a greater differential between marking of concord and nonconcord -s, as measured by the difference between the rates in the two contexts. This in large part due to their overall average inflection value being situated near 50%, whereas the other speakers are compressed at the lower end of the scale; when the averages are made comparable by the application of the logit transform, the difference between the two groups is reduced by about a half. The significance of the residual tendency of

324

SHANA POPLACK AND SALI TAGLIAMONTE

educated speakers to distinguish more between the two contexts as evidence of rapprochement to Standard English norms is outweighed by their even stronger tendence to use -s in nonconcord contexts.

APPENDIX Two Letters Written by Former Slaves (Transcribed by Cynthia Bernstein)

[From the Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill] th Georgia Bullock Co. August [2?]9 1857 My Loving Miss Patsy I hav long bin wishing to imbrace this presant and pleasant opertunity of unfolding my Seans and fealings Since I was constrained to leav my Long Loved home and friends which I cannot never gave my Self the Least promis of returning to I am well and Injoying good hlth and has every Since I Left Randolph whend I left Randolph I went to Rockingham and Stad there five weaks and then I left there and went to Richmon virgina to be Sold and I stad there three days and was baught by a man by the name of Groover and braught to Georgia and he kept me about Nine months and he being a trader Sold me to a man by the Name of Rimes and he Sold me to a man by the Name of Lester and he has owned be four years and Says that he will keep me til death siparates us without Some of my old north Caroliner friends wants to buy me again my Dear Mistrus I cannot tell my fealings nor how bad I wish to See you and old Boss and Miss Rahol and mother I do not now which I want to See the worst Miss Rahol or mother I have thaugh that I wanted to See mother but never befour did I no what it was to want to See a parent and could not I wish you to gave my [love?] to old Boss Miss Rahol and bailum and gave my manafold love to mother brothers and Sister and pleas to tell them to Right to me So I may here

328

APPENDIX

[page 2] from them if I cannot See them and also I wish you to right to me and Right me all the nuse I do want to now whether old Boss is Still Living or now an[d?] all the rest of them and I want to now whether bailum is maried or no I wish to now what has Ever become of my Presus little girl I left her in goldsborough with Mr Walker and I have not herd from her Since and Walker Said that he was going to carry her to Rockingham and gave her to his Sister and I want to no whether he did or no as I do wish to See her very mutch and Boss Says he wishes to now whether he will Sell her or now and the least that can buy her and that her wishes a answer as Soon as he can get one as I wis him to buy her and my Boss being a man of Reason and fealing wishes to grant my trubled breast that mutch gratification and wishes to now whether he will Sell her or now So I must come to a close by Escribing my Self yours long loved and well wishing play mate as a Survant until death ([vilot?] Lester) of Georgia To Miss Patsy Padison of North Caroliner My Bosses Name is James  Lester and if you Should think a nuff of me to right me which I do beg the faver of you as a Servant direct you leter to Millsas Bullock County Georgia Pleas to right me so fare fare yiou well in love

APPENDIX

329

th Stag Ville 3 Sept. 1839 My Dear Master we ar much The Same as you left us Exsept Ben he had a chill on Sunday and monday I gave him a dost of Mr & Calomel and he had no Chill to day he is no fever & I am giving quinine pills of 1 grane each [?] Cold is Better and we ar all doin the Best we can Judge Bally had Jones & Praut Eate dinner hear yesterday and the Judge says he will return on friday or Sattuday I send by [?] 100 hams & 6 kegs of lard wigth your fathful Servant 100 hams 869 6 kegs lard 483 Virgil 1352 Total

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alleyne, Mervyn  1980. Comparative Afro-American: An HistoricalComparative Study of English-Based Afro-American Dialects of the New World. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc. American Colonization Society, Annual Reports. 1837-1910. [Reprinted, 1969. New York: Negro Universities Press.] Ash, Sharon and John Myhill. 1986. "Linguistic Correlates of InterEthnic Contact." Diversity and Diachrony. ed. by David Sankoff, 33-44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bailey, Beryl. 1966. Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Transformational Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, Guy. 1981. "The Phonological Content of a Field Record." LAGS Working Papers 1st series, no. 6. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Bailey, Guy. 1985. A Social History of the Gulf States. LAGS Working Papers 2nd series, no. 1. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Bailey, Guy. 1987a. "Are Black and White Vernaculars Diverging?" Papers from the NWAVE XIV Panel Discussion. American Speech 62.32-40. Bailey, Guy. 1987b. "From Folk Speech to Street Speech: The Emergence of the Black English Vernacular." Paper Presented to the American Dialect Society, South Atlantic Section, Atlanta, Georgia. Bailey, Guy. 1989. "Black English." Encyclopedia of Southern Culture ed. by William Ferris and Charles Wilson, 194-195. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

332

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey, Guy. Forthcoming. "Approaches to the Study of AfricanAmerican English." To Appear in American Dialect Research ed. by Dennis Preston. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bailey, Guy and Marvin Bassett. 1986. "Invariant be in the Lower South." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 158-179. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Bailey, Guy and Cynthia Bernstein. 1990. "The Idea of Black English." To appear in The SECOL Review. Bailey, Guy and Natalie Maynor. 1985. "The Present Tense of be in Southern Black Folk Speech." American Speech 60.195-213. Bailey, Guy and Natalie Maynor. 1987. "The Verbal -s Inflection in Early Black English." Paper presented to the Southeastern Conference on Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia. Bailey, Guy and Natalie Maynor. 1989. "The Divergence Controversy." American Speech 64.12-39. Bailey, Guy, Natalie Maynor, and Patricia Cukor-Avila. 1990. "Variation in Subject-Verb Concord in Early Modern English." Language Variation and Change 1.285-300. Bailey, Guy and Cynthia Schnebly. 1988. "Auxiliary Deletion in the Black English Vernacular." Linguistic Change and Contact: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation ed. by Kathleen Ferrara, Becky Brown, Keith Walters, and John Baugh, 34-41. Austin: The University of Texas, Department of Linguistics. Baker, Philip and Chris Corne. 1986. "Universals, Substrata and the Indian Ocean Creoles." Substrata Versus Universals in Creole Genesis ed. by Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith, 163-183. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barber, Charles. 1976. Early Modern English. London: Deutsch. Baugh, John. 1980. "A Reexamination of the Black English Copula." Locating Language in Time and Space ed. by William Labov, 183195. New York: Academic Press. Baugh, John. 1986. "Linguistic Divergence or Linguistic Innovation: A Review of Suffix /-s/ in Vernacular Black English." Paper presented at the American Dialect Society, New York City.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Bellow, Saul. 1961 [1956]. Seize the Day. New York: Viking Press. Bennett, John. 1908. "Gullah: A Negro Patois." South Atlantic Quarterly 7.332-347. Bennett, John. 1909. "Gullah: A Negro Patois." South Atlantic Quarterly 8.39-2. Bickerton, Derek. 1973. "On the Nature of a Creole Continuum." Language 4. 640-669. Bickerton, Derek. 1974. "Creolization, Linguistic Universals, Natural Semantax, and the Brain." Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawaii 6.124-141. [Published in Issues in English Creoles ed. by Richard R. Day, 1-18. Heidelberg: Groos.] Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Blassingame, John W. 1972. The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. New York: Oxford University Press. Blassingame, John W., ed. 1977. Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, Interviews, and Autobiographies. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Blassingame, John W. 1979. The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. New York: Oxford University Press. Bluestein, Gene. 1972. The Voice of the Folk: Folklore and American Literary Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Boskin, Joseph. 1986. Sambo: The Rise and Demise of an American Jester. New York: Oxford University Press. Botkin, Benjamin A. 1939. "WPA and Folklore Research: 'bread' and 'song'." Southern Folklore Quarterly 3.7-14. Botkin, Benjamin A. 1949. A Treasury of Southern Folklore. New York: Crown Publishers. Brewer, J. Mason. 1965. Worser Days and Better Times. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1973. "Subject Concord of be in Early Black English." American Speech 48.5-21. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1974. "The Verb be in Early Black English: A Study Based on the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives." Diss. University of North Carolina.

334

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1979. "Nonagreeing am and Invariant be in Early Black English." SECOL Bulletin 3.81-100. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1980. "The WPA Slave Narratives as Linguistic Data." Orbis 29. 30-54. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1986a. "Durative Marker or Hypercorrection? The Case of -s in the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White_ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 131-138. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1986b. "Camouflaged Forms in Early Black English: Evidence from the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives." Proceedings of the 6th Bienneal Conference of the Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Voll. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1987. "Recording and Writing Interviews with ExSlaves." Paper presented at Southeastern Conference on Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia. Brown, Sterling A. June 20, 1937. "Notes by an Editor on Dialect Usage in Accounts by Interviews with Ex-Slaves." FWP files. Brown, Sterling A. 1986. "On Dialect Usage." The Slave's Narrative ed. by Charles T. Davis and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 37-39. New York: Oxford University Press. Brunner, K. 1963. An Outline of Middle English Grammar, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Butters, Ronald. 1973. "Black English /-z/ — Some Theoretical Implications." American Speech 48.37-45. Butters, Ronald. 1986. "Linguistic Convergence in a North Carolina Community." Variation in Language NWAVE -XV at Stanford: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation ed. by Keith M. Denning, Sharon Inkelas, Faye  McNair-Knox, and John R. Rickford, 52-60. Stanford: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University. Butters, Ronald. 1987. "Verbal -s as Past-Time Indication in Various Narratives." Proceedings of the Annual Linguistics Colloquium, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill ed. by Linda . Mclntyre, 9-18. Chapel Hill: UNC Linguistics Circle.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

Butters, Ronald. 1989. The Death of Black English: Divergence and Convergence in Black and White Vernaculars. Bamberger beitrage zur Englische Sprachwissenschaft 25. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Bybee, Joan and M. Brewer. 1986. "Explanation in Morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish Preterite Forms." Lingua 52.201242. Cade, John B. 1935. "Out of the Mouths of Ex-Slaves." Journal of Negro History 20.294-337. Cassidy, Frederic G. 1964. "Toward the Recovery of Early EnglishAfrican Pidgin." Symposium on Multilingualism, Brazzaville. London: Conseil Scientifique pour Afrique—Commission de Coopération Technique en Afrigue, publication 87.267-77. Cassidy, Frederic G. 1983. "Sources of the African Element in Gullah." Studies in Caribbean Language ed. by Lawrence D. Carrington, 7581. St. Augistine, Trinidad: Society for Caribbean Linguistics. Cassidy, Frederic G. 1986. "Some Similarities Between Gullah and Caribbean Creoles." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 3037. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Cheshire, Jenny. 1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cukor-Avila. 1989. "Determining Change in Progress VS Stable Variation in Two Studies of Black English Vernacular." The SECOL Review XIII.92-124. Cukor-Avila. 1989. "The Urbanization of Rural BEV." Paper presented at Southeastern Conference on Linguistics, Norfolk, Virginia. Cukor-Avila. 1989. "BEV and the Southern Shift." Paper presented at International Conference on Linguistic Approaches to Phonetics, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cunningham, Irma Aloyce Ewing. 1970. "A Syntactic Analysis of Sea Island Creole ("Gullah")." Diss. University of Michigan.

336

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Curme, George. 1977. A Grammar of the English Language. Essex, CT: Verbatim. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Davis, Charles T. and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., eds. 1985. The Slave's Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press. DeCamp, David. 1971. "Toward a Generative Analysis of a Post-Creole Speech Continuum." Pidginization and Creolization of Languages ed. by Dell Hymes, 349-370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. den Besten, Hans. 1986. "Double Negation and the Genesis of Afrikaans." Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis ed. by P. Muysken and N. Smith, 185-230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans. 1987. "Review of Einführung in Geschichte und Struktur des Afrikaans by E. Raidt." Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2.67-92. Dillard, J. L. 1972. Black English: Its History and Usage in the United States. New York: Random House. Dillard, J. L., ed. 1975. Perspectives on Black English. The Hague: Mouton. Dillard, J. L. 1987. "The Ex-Slave Narratives: Failures in Interview Technique". Paper presented at South Central section of the American Dialect Society, Houston, Texas. Abstract in Newsletter of the American Dialect Society 19.3.8. Dorson, Richard M. 1956. Negro Folktales in Michigan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Drewry, Henry. 1980. "Black Americans." Academic American Encyclopedia 3.304-313. Princeton: Arete. Dunlap, Howard G. 1974. Social Aspects of a Verb Form: Native Atlanta Fifth-Grade Speech - the Present Tense of be. Publication of the American Dialect Society 61-62. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Escott, Paul D. 1979. Slavery Remembered: A Record of TwentiethCentury Slave Narratives. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ewen, David. 1970. Great Men of American Popular Song. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

Faine, Jules. 1936. Philologie créole: études historiques et etymologiques sur la langue créole d'Haïti. Port-au-Prince: Imprimerie de l'État. Fasold, Ralph. 1971. "Minding Your Z's and D's: Distinguishing Syntactic and Phonological Variable Rules." Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 360-367. Chicago: Department of Lingusitics, University of Chicago. Fasold, Ralph. 1972. Tense Marking in Black English: A Linguistic and Social Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Lingusitics. Fasold, Ralph. 1976. "One Hunderd Years from Syntax to Phonology." Diachronic Syntax ed. by Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker, and Salikoko S. Mufwene, 79-87. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Faulk, John Henry. 1940. "Ten Negro Sermons." Austin: University of Texas Thesis. Faulk, John Henry. September 1941. Letter to Alan Lomax and Elizabeth Lomax. FWP files. Faulk, John Henry. July 1979. Recorded interview sessions with John Henry Faulk in Madisonville, Texas. Feagin, Crawford. 1979. Variation and Change in Alabama English: A Sociolinguistic Study of the White Community. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Federal Writers Project. 1941. Slave Narratives, A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves. Washington, D.C.. Fry, Gladys-Marie. 1975. Night Riders in Black Folk History. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. Genovese, Eugene D. 1974. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon Books. Gonzales, Ambrose E. 1922. The Black Border: Gullah Stories of the Carolina Coast (with a glossary). Columbia, S.C.: The State Co. Gutman, Herbert G. 1976. The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925. New York: Pantheon Books. Guy, Greg. 1980. "Variation in the Group and the Individual: The case of Final Stop Deletion." Locating Language in Time and Space ed. by William Labov, 1-35. New York: Academic Press. Hackenberg, R. G. 1972. "Appalachian English: A Sociolinguistic Study." Diss. Georgetown University.

338

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hancock, Ian F. 1971. "A Survey of the Pidgins and Creoles of the World." Pidginization and Creolization of Languages ed. by Dell Hymes, 509-523. Cambridge: University Press. Hancock, Ian F. 1986. "On the Classification of Afro-Seminole Creole." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 85-101. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Hatfield, Edwin F. 1840. Freedom's Lyre. New York: S.W.Benedict. Herskovits, Melville J. 1941. The Myth of the Negro Past. Boston: Beacon Press. Holm, John. 1978. "The Creole English of Nicaragua's Miskito Coast: Its Sociolinguistic History and a Comparative Study of its Lexicon and Syntax." Diss. University of London. Holm, John. 1980. "African features in White Bahamian English." English World-Wide 1.45-65. Holm, John. 1984. "Variability of the Copula in Black English and its Creole Kin." American Speech 59.291-309. Holm, John. 1987. "Creole Influence on Popular Brazilian Portuguese." Pidgin and Creole Languages: Essays in Memory of John E. Reinecke ed. by G. Gilbert, 406-430. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Holm, John. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holm, John and A. Shilling. 1982. Dictionary of Bahamian English. Cold Spring NY: Lexik House. Holmqvist, Erik. 1922. On the History of the English Present Inflections Particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Hughes, A. and Peter Trudgill. 1979. English Accents and Dialects. London: Edward Arnold Publishers, Ltd. Jacobs, Donald M., ed. 1981. Index to the American Slave. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Jellison, Charles A. 1977. Tomatoes were Cheaper: Tales from the Thirties. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Jeremiah, Milford Astor. 1977. "The Linguistic Relatedness of Black English and Antiguan Creole." Diss. Brown University.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

Jespersen, Otto H. 1909/49. A Modern English Grammar. Part VI Morphology. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Johnson, Charles S. 1934. The Shadow of the Plantation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnson, Guy. 1930. Folk Culture on St. Helena Island, South Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Johnstone, Barbara. 1985. '"He says . . . so I said,': Past/Present Tense Alternation in Narrative Depictions of Authority." Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual NWAVE Conference, Washington, D. C . Jones, Charles  1888. Negro Myths from the Georgia Coast, Told in the Vernacular. Boston: Houghton Mifflin & Co. Jones-Jackson, Patricia. 1978. "The Status of Gullah: An Investigation of Convergent Processes." Diss. University of Michigan. Jones-Jackson, Patricia. 1984. "On Decreolization and Language Death in Gullah." Language in Society 13.351-362. Jones-Jackson, Patricia. 1986. "On the Status of Gullah on the Sea Islands." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 63-72. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Joyner, Charles. 1984. Down by the Riverside: A South Carolina Slave Community. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Joyner, Charles. 1986. Foreword to When Roots Die, by Patricia JonesJackson, ix-xvii. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Kennedy, Arthur G. 1970. Current English. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Krapp, George Philip. 1924. "The English of the Negro." American Mercury 2.190-95. Labov, William. 1969. "Contraction, Deletion and Inherent Variability of the English Copula." Language 45.715-762. Labov, William. 1972a. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William, 1982a. "Building on Empirical Foundations." Perspectives on Historical Linguistics ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann

340

BIBLIOGRAPHY

and Yakov Malkiel, 11-92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Labov, William. 1982b. "Objectivity and Commitment in Linguistic Science: The Case of the Black English Trial in Ann Arbor." Language in Society 11.165-201. Labov, William. 1985. "The Increasing Divergence of Black and White Vernaculars: Introduction to Research Reports." Unpublished ms. Labov, William. 1987. "Are Black and White Vernaculars Diverging?" American Speech 62.5-12. Labov, William and Wendall Harris. 1986. "De Facto Segregation of White and Black Vernaculars." Diversity and Diachrony ed. by David Sankoff, 1-24. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Labov, William and J. Waletzky. 1967. "Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience." Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts ed. by J. Helm, 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and John Lewis. 1968. A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. 2 vols. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey. LePage, Robert B. and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levine, Lawrence W. 1977. Black Culture and Black Consciousness: Afro-American Folk Thought from Slavery to Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press. Lomax, John A. April 22, 1937. "Supprementary Instructions #9-E to the American Guide Manual." FWP files. Lomax, John A. 1937. "Field Experience with Recording Machines." Southern Folklore Quarterly 1.57-60. Manczak, W. 1963. "Tendances générales du développement morphologique." Lingua 12.19-38. Maynor, Natalie. 1988. "Written Records of Spoken Language: How Reliable Are They?" Methods in Dialectology ed. by Allan Thomas, 109-119. London: Multicultural Matters.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

Maynor, Natalie. Forthcoming. "Review of American Earlier Black English by Edgar W. Schneider." To Appear in American Speech. McDavid, Raven I., Jr. 1969. "Dialects: British and American Standard and Nonstandard." Linguistics Today ed. by Archibald A. Hill, 7988. New York: Basic Books. McDavid, Raven I., Jr. 1977. "Evidence." Papers in Language Variation: SAMLA-ADS Collection ed. by David L. Shores and Carole P. Hines, 125-132. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. McDavid, Raven I., Jr. and Lawrence M. Davis. 1972. "The Dialects of Negro Americans." Studies in Linguistics in Honor of George L. Trager ed. by M. Estellie Smith, 303-312. The Hague: Mouton. Montgomery, Michael. 1979. "A Discourse Analysis of Expository Appalachian English." Diss. University of Florida. Montgomery, Michael and Guy Bailey. 1986. "Introduction." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guh Bailey, 1-29. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Montgomery, Michael and Adrienne Chingkwei Lee. 1987. "Relative Clauses in Written and Spoken English." Proceedings of the Annual Linguistics Colloquium, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 33-42. Chapel Hill: UNC Linguistics Circle. Mossé, Fernand. 1952. A Handbook of Middle English. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1986a. "Restrictive Relativization in Gullah". Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 1.1-31. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1986b. "Number Delimitation in Gullah." American Speech 61.33-60. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1987a. "Review of Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey." Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2.93-110. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1987b. "The Small Pro and Inflectional Morphology." MS. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1989. "Some Equivocal Structures in Gullah Complex Sentences." American Speech 64.304-326. Mufwene, Salikoko. Forthcoming(a). "Why Study Pidgins and Creoles?" To Appear in Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3.2.

342

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mufwene, Salikoko. Forthcoming(b). "Serialization and Subordination in Gullah." Mufwene, Salikoko and Marta . Dijkhoff. 1989. "Notes on the So-Called 'Infinitive' in Creoles." Lingua 77.297-330. Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1987. "Tracing Predicate Markers in Pacific Pidgin English." English World-Wide 8.97-121. Myhill, John and Wendell A. Harris. 1986. "The Use of the Verbal -s Inflection in BEV." Diversity and Diachrony ed. by David Sankoff, 25-31. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nichols, Patricia  1976. "Linguistic Change in Gullah: Sex, Age, and Mobility." Diss. Stanford University. Nichols, Patricia C. 1983. "Black and White Speaking in the Rural South: Differences in the Pronominal System." American Speech 58.201215. Nichols, Patricia  1986. "Prepositions in Black and White English of Coastal South Carolina. Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 73-84. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Oaks, James. 1982. The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders. New York: Random House. Olmstead, Frederick Law. 1857. A Journey Through Texas. New York: Dix, Edwards and Co. Pedersen, Lee. 1974. "Tape/Text and Analogues." American Speech 49.5-23. Pedersen, Lee; Guy Bailey; Marvin W. Bassett; Charles E. Billiaard; and Susan E. Leas, eds. 1981. LAGS: The Basic Materials. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Pederson, Lee; Susan Leas McDaniel; Guy Bailey; and Marvin Bassett. 1986. The Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States, Vol. 1: Handbook. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Perdue, Charles L., Jr.; Thomas E. Barden; and Robert K. Phillips, eds. 1976. Weevils in the Wheat: Interviews with Virginia Ex-Slaves. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Pfaff, Carol. 1971. Historical and Structural Aspects of Sociolinguistic Variation: The Copula in Black English. Inglewood, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory, Technical Report 37.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Pitts, Walter. 1981. "Beyond Hypercorrection: The Use of Emphatic-z in BEV." Chicago Linguistic Society 17.303-310. Pitts, Walter. 1986a. "Contrastive Use of Verbal -z in Slave Narratives." Diversity and Diachrony ed by David Sankoff, 73-82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pitts, Walter. 1986b. "Linguistic Variation as a Function of Ritual Frames in the Afro-Baptist Church in Central Texas." Diss. University of Texas. Poplack, Shana. 1979. "Function and Process in a Variable Phonology. Diss. University of Pennsylvania. Poplack, Shana. 1981. "Mortal Phonemes as Plural Morphemes." Variation Omnibus ed. by David Sankoff and Henrietta Cedergren, 59-71. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc. Poplack, Shana and David Sankoff. 1983/80. "Resultados del contacto inglés-español en Samaná." Boletín de la academia puertorriqueña de la lengua española VIII,2.103-121. Poplack, Shana and David Sankoff. 1987. "The Philadelphia Story in the Spanish Caribbean." American Speech 62.291-314. Rand, D. and Sankoff, David. 1988. GoldVarb. Macintosh application. Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal. Ransom, Roger L. and Richard Sutch. 1977. One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawick, George P., ed. 1972. The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Contributions in Afro-American and African Studies. 19 vols. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rawick, George P., ed. 1977. The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Supplement, Series 1. 12 vols. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rawick, George P., ed. 1979. The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Supplement, Series 2. 10 Vols. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rawley, James A. 1981. The Transatlantic Slave-Trade: A History. New York, London: Norton.

344

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reinecke, John Ernest. 1937. "Marginal Languages: A Sociological Survey of the Creole Language and Trade Jargons." Diss. Yale University. Repka, Patricia and Rick Evans. 1986. "The Evolution of the Present Tense of the Verb 'to be': Evidence from Literary Discourse." Paper presented at the Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Trinidad. Rickford, John R. 1980. "How Does doz Disappear?" Issues in English Creoles: Papers from the 1975 Hawaii Conference ed. by R. Day, 77-96. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag. Rickford, John R. 1983. "What Happens in Decreolization." Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition ed. by Roger W. Andersen, 298-319. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Rickford, John R. 1985. "Ethnicity as a Sociloinguistic Boundary." American Speech 60.99-125. Rickford, John R. 1986a. "Social Contact and Linguistic Diffusion: Hiberno English and New World Black English." Language 62.245289. Rickford, John R. 1986b. "Some Principles for the Study of Black and White Speech in the South." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 38-62. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Rickford, John R. 1987a. Dimensions of a Creole Continuum. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rickford, John R. 1987b. "The Haves and Have Nots: Sociolinguistic Surveys and The Assessment of Speaker Competence." Language in Society 16.149-177. Rickford, John R. (forthcoming). "Contemporary Source Comparison as a Critical Window on the Afro-American Lingusistic Past." Descriptive and Theoretical Issues in Creole and Black Linguistics ed. by Walter F. Edwards, Salikoko Mufwene, Arthur Spears, and Donald Winford. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Rickford, John R. and Renee Blake. 1990. "Copula Contraction and Absence in Barbadian English, Samaná English, and Vernacular Black English." Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 16) ed. by K. Hall, J. P. Koenig, M. Meacham, SA. Reinman, and L. A. Sutton, 257-68. Berkeley:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc. (Published version accidentally omits two pages of the original -- write authors for copies). Roberts, Peter A. 1976. "Hypercorrection as Systematic Variation." Paper presented at the Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Guyana. Schachter, J. 1974. "An Error in Error Analysis." Language Learning 24.205-214. Schneider, Edgar W. 1981. Morphologische und syntaktische variablen im amerikanischen early black English. Bamberger beitrage zur Englische Sprachwissenschaft 10. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Schneider, Edgar W. 1982. "On the History of Black English in the USA: Some New Evidence." English World-Wide 3.18-46. Schneider, Edgar W. 1983. "The Origin of Verbal -s in Black English." American Speech 58.99-113. Schriffrin, Deborah. 1981. "Tense Variation in Narrative." Language 57.45-62. Shick, Tom W. 1980. Behold the Promised Land: A History of AfroAmerican Settler Society in Nineteenth-Century Liberia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1983. "Tense and Aspect in Oral Spanish Narrative: Context and Meaning." Language 59.761-780. Singler, John V. 1977. "Language in. Liberia in the Nineteenth Century: The Settlers' Perspective." Liberian Studies Journal 7.73-85. Singler, John V. 1986a. "Copula Variation in the Settler English of Liberia." Paper presented at the Fifteenth NWAVE Conference, Stanford University. Singler, John V. 1986b. "Liberian Settler English." Paper presented at the Workshop on Creoles in Time, Space, and Society, LSA Institute, City University of New York. Singler, John V. 1987a. "The City, The Mesolect, and Innovation." Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2.119-147. Singler, John V. 1987b. "Where Did Liberian English na Come From? English World-Wide 8.69-95. Singler, John V. 1989. "Plural Marking in Liberian Settler English, 18201980." American Speech 64.40-64. Singler, John V., J. Gbehwalahyee Mason, David K. Peewee, Lucia T. Massalee, and J. Boima Barclay, Jr. 1981. An Introduction to

346

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Liberian English. East Lansing: Peace Corps/Michigan State University African Studies Center. Smith, Reed. 1926. Gullah. Columbia, S. : Bureau of Publications, University of South Carolina. Sommer, Elisabeth. 1986. "Variation in Southern Urban English." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 180-201. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Spaeth, Sigmund. 1958. A History of Popular Music in America. New York: Random House. Stewart, William A. 1967. "Sociolinguistic Factors in the History of American Negro Dialects." Florida FL Reporter 5; reprinted in Black-White Speech Relationships ed. by W. Wolfram and N. Clarke, 74-89. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Stewart, William A. 1968. "Continuity and Change in American Negro Dialects." The Florida FL Reporter 6; reprinted in Black-White Speech Relationships ed. by W. Wolfram and N. Clarke, 51-73. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Stewart, William A. 1969. "Historical and Structural Bases for the Recognition of Negro Dialect." Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics ed. by James E. Alatis, 215-233. Washington, D. C : Georgetown University Press. Stewart, William A. 1970 [1967, 1968]. "Toward a History of American Negro Dialect." Language and Poverty ed. by Frederick Williams, 351-379. Chicago: Markham. Stewart, William A. 1977. "1930s Federal Writers Project: Collecting Gullah Folklore (Interviews by Genevieve W. Chandler). Southern Exposure 5.119-121. Stoddard, Albert H. 1944. "Origin, Dialect, Beliefs, and Characteristics of the Negroes of the South Carolina and Georgia Coasts." The Georgia Historical Quarterly 28.186-195. Stoddard, Albert H. 1949. Animal Tales Told in the Gullah Dialect. (record albums and mimeo transcriptions). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Stoney, Samuel G., and Gertrude M. Shelby. 1930. Black Genesis. New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

Strang, Barbara. M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Sweet, Henry. 1891. New English Grammar. Parti. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sylvain, Suzanne. 1936. Le créole haïtien: morphologie et syntaxe. Portau-Prince, Wetteren: Imprimerie de Meester. Tagliamonte, Sali and Shana Poplack. 1988. "How Black English PAST Got to the Present: Evidence from Samaná." Language in Society 17.513-533. Taylor, Arnold H. 1976. Travail and Trimuph: Black Life and Culture in the South Since the Civil War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Thompson, Stith. 1955. Motif-Index of Folk Literature. 6 vols. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth  1977. A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambidge University Press. Turner, Lorenzo Dow. 1949. Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tyler, Ronnie  & Lawrence R. Murphy. 1974. The Slave Narratives of Texas. Austin: The Encino Press. Vaughn-Cooke, Fay B. 1986. "Lexical Diffusion: Evidence from a Decreolizing Variety of Black English." Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White ed. by Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, 111-130. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Vincent, D. 1983. "Les ponctuants de la langue." Diss. Université de Montréal. Visser, F. T. 1970. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 parts. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Wakelin, Martyn F. 1977. English Dialects: An Introduction. London: Athlone Press. Wardale, E. E. 1937. An Introduction to Middle English. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Wector, Dixon. 1948. The Age of the Great Depression, 1929-1941. New York: Macmillan.

348

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Whinnom, Keith. 1971. "Linguistic Hybridization and the 'Special Case' of Pidgins and Creoles." Pidginization and Creolization of Languages ed. by Dell Hymes, 91-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, Newman L 1928 [1965 reprint]. American Negro Folk Songs. Hatboro, PA: Folklore Associates, Inc. Williams, Rev. John G. 1895. "A Study in Gullah English." The Charleston (S.C.) Sunday News, Feb. 10. Author's ms. in the University of South Carolina Library, Columbia, S.C. Wolfram, Walter. 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wolfram, Walter. 1971. "Black-White Speech Differences Revisited." Black-White Speech Relationships ed. by Walter Wolfram and Nona H. Clarke, 139-165. Washington, D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wolfram, Walter. 1974. "The Relationship of White Southern Speech to Vernacular Black English." Language 50.498-527. Wolfram, Walter and Donna Christian. 1976. Appalachian Speech. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wolfson, N. 1979. "The Conversational Historical Present Alternation." Language 55.168-182. Wood, Peter H. 1974. Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina From 1670 Through the Stoner Rebellion. New York: Knopf. Woodward,  Vann. 1974. "History from Slave Sources." American Historical Review 79.470-481. Woodward,  Vann. 1985. "History form Slave Sources." The Slave's Narrative ed. by Charles T. Davis and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 48-58, New York: Oxford University Press. Work, Bertram G., compiler. No date [c. 1864-1895]. Songs of Henry Clay Work. New York: Press of J. J. Little and Ives Co. Wright, Gavin. 1986. Old South New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Wright, Joseph. 1905. The English Dialect Grammar. Oxford: Henry Frowde. Wyld, H.  1927. A Short History of English. London: John Murray.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

349

Yetman, Norman R. 1967. "The Background of the Slave Narrative Collection." American Quarterly 19.534-553. Yetman, Norman R., ed. 1970. Voices from Slavery, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Guy Bailey Department of English Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078

John Holm Department of English Hunter College New York, NY 10021

Jeutonne P. Brewer Department of English University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27412

Natalie Maynor Department of English Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS 39762

Patricia Cukor-Avila Department of English University of Houston Houston, TX 77204

Michael Montgomery Department of English University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208

Paul D. Escott Department of History Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, NC 27109

Salikoko S. Mufwene Department of Anthropology and Linguistics University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602

Joe Graham John E. Connor Museum Texas A&I University Kingsville, TX 78363

Shana Poplack Department of Linguistics Université de Ottowa Ottowa, Canada KIN 6N5

352

John R. Rickford Department of Linguistics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 John Victor Singler Department of Linguistics New York University New York, NY 10003 Sali Tagliamonte Department of Linguistics Université de Ottowa Ottowa, Canada KIN 65N

CONTRIBUTORS