A little more on y'all redux

Sat Mar 5 01:30:28 UTC 2005

Most of what you say below, Ron, is quite unexceptionable. But surely there was no good linguistic reason for the loss of the OE dual pronoun or a great many other phenomena discussed here, including the various reversals of meaning currently under discussion. (It's not quite parallel, but what about the creation and Tidewater spread of "mongst-ye" as a second-person plural? Truly a strange development.) Once plural "y'all" gets sufficiently lexicalized that speakers no longer think of it as two morphemes, there's little enough to stop them from using it in the singular.

As far as "hot-button issues" are concerned, Mencken long ago observed that the literature on "y'all" was "extensive and filled with bitterness."  When I broached the subject in Tennessee nearly thirty years ago, two or three academic colleagues made clear that they thought the notion of singular "y'all" was not just preposterous, it was an example of dismal Yankee and Hollywood  ignorance - with "arrogance" implied.

The earliest discussion cited by Mencken came in 1907 by Virginian C. Alphonso Smith, reportedly a denier of singular "y'all." In contrast,  Mencken also cites Vance Randolph's assertion in the 1920s that he heard singular "y'all" in the Ozarks on a daily basis.

One reason I checked Mencken was to see whether he makes any sweeping, unsupported claims about the usage of singular "y'all."  He does not.  He agrees with all of us that it accounts for a small percentage of all usages.

The existence of singular "y'all" even in frozen expressions is very significant, because it opens the door for more widespread use in the future.  Although a single respondent's claim to be a user of singular "y'all" proves little about actual usage, the existence of many such claimants reveals their understanding that the second morpheme in "y'all" is indeed no longer morphemic.

One should be cautious, however, about Internet claims by laypersons that "y'all" is singular and "y'alls" is plural.  The posters may be using the term "singular" in an ad hoc way, i.e., "not redundantly plural like 'y'alls'."

Is there a good linguistic reason for the existence of "y'alls" as something of a "superplural"?  I've never heard it myself.

There is both empirical and theoretical evidence for the existence of singular "y'all." The details of its distribution remain murky. What will DARE say about these grammatical matters ?

JL

RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: RonButters at AOL.COM
Subject: A little more on y'all redux
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think anyone disagrees with the following (correct me, please, if I=20
am wrong):

1. The form "y'all" is overwhelmingly used in the plural in American English=
,=20
when it is used at all.
2. The form "y'all" is sometimes used in frozen expressions (e.g., "Y'all=20
come back") to address single persons.
3. Some Southerners will tell you, when asked, "Y'all can be used in the=20
singular."
4. People sometimes make slips of the tongue when speaking.
5. Most published articles on the subject in scholarly journals seek to=20
demonstrate that "y'all" is overwhelmingly used in the plural, i.e., most sc=
holars=20
who have seriously studied the subject--enough actually to publish articles=20=
on=20
the topic--agree.
6. One article, by Guy Bailey et al., based on telephone surveys in Texas (o=
r=20
was it Oklahoma?) presents some evidence that, under direct question, a=20
healthy minority of respondents agreed with the proposition that "Y'all can=20=
be used=20
in the singular." The article has been criticized for its methodology, but i=
t=20
certainly supports the anecdotal evidence represented by (3) above.

To this I would add (wondering if there is any disagrement from any quarter)=
:

1. "Y'all" pretty clearly started as a plural, parallel to "yuhnz" (< "you"=20=
+=20
"ones"), "yuhz" (< "you" + "{Plural Suffix}"), and "you guys."
2. There is little if any linguistic reason (psychological or social) for=20
speakers to use "y'all" as a singular, since "you" already exists and "y'all=
" is=20
rather transparently plural given its morphology. Thus one would not EXPECT=20
"y'all" to be used as a singular, except maybe in dialect mixture, by outsid=
ers=20
trying to sound like insiders.

I myself don't know of any "Southern academics and intellectuals" for whom=20
putative singular "y'all" is a "hot-button issue"--or any "sophisticated=20
Southerners" who issue "striking, dogmatic refusal[s]" and "deny categorical=
ly that=20
it can or does" exist. It does seem to be a "hot-button issue" for=20
wuxxmupp2000, who sounds right angry in the message below, apparently becaus=
e people on=20
the listserve have taken issue with various specific pieces of data that hav=
e=20
been asserted seeking to demonstrate specific instances of singular "y'all."

Of course singlular "y'all" "exists." It "exists" in frozen expressions. It=20
"exists" in slips of the tongue. It exists in the minds of some Yankees tryi=
ng=20
to speak Southern. It exists, if only as an artifact of how one asks the=20
question, in Guy Bailey's study. Most importantly, it clearly exists as a=20
grammatical possiblity in the minds of some speakers of American English, as=
some of=20
the writers on this list-serve have demonstrated (just as there are other=20
Southerners, generally a majority, for whom it does not exist as a grammatic=
ally=20
possiblity). It may even exist as a very minor subset of all the unselfconsc=
ious=20
utterances of "y'all" that are generated in America on a given day by bone=20
fide adult nonsenile nonpathological Southern speakers (though why they woul=
d do=20
so seems a historical and linguistic mystery).=20

A serious linguist will ask, "How frequent is this form? Under what=20
circumstances is it actually used? What is the historical and psychological=20=
and social=20
function of such a form?" A serious linguist will not simply rant against=20
against the "academics and intellectuals" who, for reasons that are not clea=
r to=20
anyone, including the ranter ("I find it amazing and symptomatic - of what I=
'm=20
not certain"), do not see the issues the way he does.
>=20
>=20
In a message dated 2/24/05 9:51:49 AM, wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM writes:

> Jim, you misunderstand me. We are on the same side. That was my own=20
> Damyankee hypothesis, and your wife's comment clearly supports it. For the=
average=20
> Southerner, singular "y'all" is not the hot-button issue it is for so many=
=20
> Southern academics and intellectuals.
>=20
> As you say, the repeatedly observed fact is that a singular y'all does=20
> exist.=A0 My post merely addressed the striking, dogmatic refusal of some=20=
s
> ophisticated Southerners to deny categorically that it can or does.=A0 Thi=
s is not new,=20
> and hardly peculiar to this list.=A0 I find it amazing and symptomatic - o=
f=20
> what I'm not certain.
>=20
> An inspection of posts on the issue reveals people taxing our credulity to=
=20
> explain away, oinie by one, singular "y'all" : users are "really" (and alw=
ays)=20
> thinking of other persons not present or otherwise referred to, any instan=
ce=20
> reported by Northerner is untrustworthy, the speaker must have been a=20
> transplanted Yankee, the tendency toward singularity of other second-perso=
n plural=20
> pronouns doesn't matter, the waitress was tired or hung over,=A0 the South=
ern=20
> speaker was deliberately funnin' the interlocutor who she mistakenly took=20=
for=20
> a furriner, etc.
>=20
> What gives?=A0 I'm still awaiting a reference to a printed source claiming=
=20
> that all Southerners use singular "y'all" all the time; maybe there is one=
.=A0 And=20
> don't forget my previous Damyankee hypothesis about the origin of this=20
> sensitivity.
>=20
> JL
>=20

---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
 Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web