could of (was 'dialect in novels')

[Bruce Dykes]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Victoria Neufeldt" <vneufeldt at MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 00:13
Subject: could of (was 'dialect in novels')


> > Auxiliary have brings up a variant on eye-dialect, one in which
> > the spelling is conventional but the grammar not.  I come across
> > "would of", "could of", etc. pretty regularly in student writing,
> >
> > Herb
>
> I have never come up with a satisfactory analysis of what exactly is
> happening in these cases, or what to call the phenomenon.  It seems that
if
> a person writes the preposition 'of' instead of the auxiliary 'have' or
even
>
> Victoria

The only place I've encountered the phenomenon is in amateur writings on the
internet, be they messages in public fora, original content on web pages, or
amateur fiction, but that's due more to my reading habits than any actual
attempt to survey this particular usage. Those of you who read students'
writings and submissions for periodicals are certainly presented with a
broader range to draw from.

In every single case of it I find, it's always in place of an -ould've
contraction, and I'm sure that it's never more than a phonological
formation. Were I to read "I would've gone to church, but I auctioned my
soul on eBay," it would sound exactly the same as "I would of gone to
church, but I auctioned my soul on eBay."

Now as to why this is occurring, I can think of a couple of possibilities.
The writer's offline reading diet may consist primarily of nonfiction and
similarly dialogue-light material that eschew contractions, and so, hasn't
seen the -ould've contraction enough to make an impression. It may also be
that the writer is hasn't seen the inside of a classroom for many a year
before hitting the keys. There's probably a paper in there somewhere.

bkd
(abuser of 'lemme' and 'ferinstance')