Minstry of higher and secondary specialized education of the republic of uzbekistan

and, uh, I had to rush off to meetings when I come home from work and everything
When I got home from work, I had to hurry to the meetings, this sentence is used as an untense form of the verb to come. This form is much older than Modern Standard English and is very common throughout Great Britain.
It shows how old forms persist in popular speech long after they have been replaced by the authoritative standard language.
there’s not that sort of employment in Penrith for them
A very subtle difference between the different dialects in the UK is the way the negative particle is attached, not to the words. This reduces the speaker's existing verbal construction and preserves the fully articulated note—a process known as auxiliary contraction.
Speakers of other dialects may favor an absent construction in which the verb is pronounced in full, with the negative particle shortened. Although you'll hear the latter construction throughout the UK - forms such as - I don't, won't and they don't - alternate with an unreduced negative particle, such as I don't, won't and they' Not very common in Scotland and Northern England.
You'll also hear alternative negative particle forms like nae or no (I believe and it's impossible) in Scotland, or older dialect forms like divvent in North East England, or absent in most parts of the UK. . In some parts of the Midlands, the sound may not be dropped at all, for example not sounding like and not sounding like , or the sound being a weak vowel, so it didn't sound like and didn't like . In many parts of the country, the sound is not, wasn't, and not, and the sound is can't, shouldn't, and can't.
Grammatical variation in the contemporary spoken English of England
Standard English is a minority dialect in England. Surveys of speech communities across the country over the past several decades have consistently found that the majority of the population of a geographically based speech community uses at least some non-standard dialect forms. determined.
Trudgill was the first person to estimate what proportion of the UK population spoke Standard English. He suggested that only 12% of the population knew the word (so about 49 million people didn't speak it). He later presented a case to justify this figure. His survey of Norwich speech in East Anglia, common then but unusual in social dialectological work today, used an electoral roll as a sampling frame based on a random sample of the Norwich speech community.
Given that only 12 percent of his random sample had non-standard grammatical features, he said this figure was a fair estimate even nationally. He acknowledged that there may be (small) sampling error, and that some towns and cities may have more standard speakers than this ratio, and others may have less.
Many have looked at this claim in detail, but the closest we have to a modern one is a 1995 report by Dick Hudson and Jason Holmes on the use of non-standard grammatical features found among schoolchildren in four parts of the country (the South) . -West, London, Merseyside and Tyneside). The authors note that the recordings were not made to learn about children's (semi)formal speech, but about everyday informal vernacular speech, which is the main focus of social dialectological research.
"Children were recorded in situations where they might be encouraged to use standard rather than non-standard English, and the focus of the study was on the extent to which they used standard forms in these situations...students in school settings may have been more inclined to . using standard rather than non-standard forms.
The students spoke mainly in the presence of unfamiliar adults they knew, and they performed specific speaking tasks. Despite this formality, and with only five to ten minutes of speech collected from each child, they found that 61 percent of 11-year-olds and 77 percent of 15-year-olds used non-standard forms at some point.
Given the formal context in which the data were collected and the possibility that they may contain information that is not present in their informal speech standard, Trudgill's figure of 88% non-standard speakers is not too far wrong even today. The figures also show that exposure to formal education does not necessarily increase the use of Standard English - 15-year-olds in this survey use less Standard English than 11-year-olds.
Supporting this evidence of clear non-standardization is the work of a number of social dialectologists, who have found a significant degree of non-standardization in detailed variation studies - two important examples of work on grammatical variation include the work of Jenny Cheshire, mainly in Southern England - Reading , Milton Keynes, London - but with variation work on Hull in North England, as well as national surveys and Sali Tagliamonte's work on mainly North English communities, but comparative work in South West England.
Cheshire et al.'s study of British dialect grammar also focused on school students and found that many non-standard forms were reported in more than four out of five questionnaires.
The suggestion that there is a common core of non-standard forms used by the majority of people in a country and seemingly not regionally restricted is supported by the survey of Cheshire et al and other work.
This common core appears to include the following:
them as a demonstrative;
absence of plural marking on nouns of measurement;
never as a past tense negator;
regularised reflexive pronouns;
there’s/there was with notional plural subjects;
present participles using the preterite rather than continuous forms;
adverbs without –ly;
ain’t/in’t;
non-standard was.
All these features are discussed in more detail below. Surveys such as Cheshire et al., Hudson and Holmes have also been useful in elucidating the actual geographical distribution of some grammatical non-standard variants.
Some that were thought to be common across the country were, according to these surveys, either restricted to certain parts of the country or found in higher proportions in some areas than others—a collection that, perhaps surprisingly, showed negative agreement. including (see below), reported at much lower levels in the north than in the south.
Similarly, recent work on the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects (FRED), a collection of transcripts of oral history records from around the country, also shows the robust grammatical variation found across England (and the geographical extent of this variation distribution) made it possible to carry out comparative work. and the rest of the British Isles.
Thus, England (and the rest of the British Isles) should not be viewed as a homogenous, largely standard-speaking speech community, distinct from the largely non-standard English spoken elsewhere. It is also very varied and variable, and it is fair to say that it is more variable from a grammatical point of view than other inland English spoken outside the British Isles.
A large proportion of its speakers also suffer from potential discrimination due to the use of non-standard varieties and the standard ideologies that have permeated the society in which they live. The remainder of this chapter presents a survey of the best documented features of this grammatical variation. Here I present some of the research on changes in specific parts of the grammar of non-standard dialects spoken in England over the past few decades.
Space limitations mean that this cannot be an exhaustive survey, but readers are referred to other, often more detailed, reports in Britain, Edwards, Trudgill and Weltens, Kortmann, Burridge, Mestri, Schneider and Upton, Milroy and Milroy. can find. Present Tense Verbs Perhaps the most common non-standard variation in the present tense verbal system belongs to the circle of the -s sign. In some varieties, mainly in the south-west of England, but also in parts of northern England, -s is used interchangeably throughout the verbal paradigm, and the third as in (1) the individual is not limited to unitary contexts.
(1) We eat there most Sundays. These generalized symbols appear to be linguistically limited in two respects. The first is called the Northern Subject Rule, according to which -s is preferred after noun phrases and nonadjacent pronouns, but not after adjacent pronouns.
The second is the "restriction of the clause below" that Cheshire and Ouhalla expressed in their case of the great city of Reading. Here, a) if the subject is not the third person singular, and b) the complement of the verb is an adverbial clause or a heavy noun phrase, then - as in (2) and (3) are not found:
(2) I'm sure the landlord hates him (see: The landlord hates him). (3) They think he is completely mad (see * they think he is completely mad). In these varieties, such oral signs are almost decreasing. Second, the -s marker is often found in third singular contexts, perhaps indicating a gradual shift towards a standard-like paradigm. In East Anglia, on the other hand, present tense verbs traditionally have no verbal markings, even in third person singular contexts (4):
(4) He likes to go out on the town. As with generic -s in the Southwest, this non-standard form seems to be going through obsolescence.
Duffer, Kingston and Spurling all found that while rural and urban declines were nil in Norfolk and Suffolk over a specific time period, attrition appears to be more pronounced in rural areas of the region, perhaps unsurprisingly.
The zero sign occasionally occurs in third-person singular contexts in the Southwest because, as mentioned above, the -s sign is variable there across paradigms.
Despite Edwards et al.'s claim that the present tense of BE "almost all dialects simplify the conjugation of be", there are very few empirical reports and quantitative studies of simplification apart from much debate over the use of singular forms. plural in existential contexts.
Ihalainen and Piercy (forthcoming) report the use of cliticized 'm in Somerset and Dorset respectively, but both indicate that these forms are attached only to pronominal subjects and not to full NPs (5). The British East Anglian Fens report the use of belar, indicating a typical continuity aspect, (6):
(5) You put a big notice on your door about donating blood (Pearcy, forthcoming). (6) Stephen says he will be at the Wisbech Arms a lot. Piercy (forthcoming) reports that Dorset (7) may be unchanged:
(7) So I was born and bred in Dorset (Pearcy, forthcoming). The use of is or usually ' in plural existentials is a very common phenomenon, Hudson and Holmes 1985 (who listed it as the most frequently used non-standard grammatical form in their survey), Ojanen 1982, Peitsara 1988, Petyt 1985, Piercy, forthcoming, (8):
(8) there are shards all over the floor
Periphrastic do/did
Unstressed periphrastic in south-west England