Explanatory.—Some years ago when the subject of dialect study in
Kansas, or rather of Kansas dialect, was mentioned, Mr. Noble Prentis,
a gentleman who is warranted in speaking with authority on Kansas,
was inclined to think that he settled the question in short order by
declaring that there is no Kansas dialect. Probably the majority of
intelligent citizens of the state would turn off the subject with the
same reply. In the sense of a mode of speech common to the inhabitants
of Kansas and peculiar to them, Mr. Prentis was indeed right. There is
no vocabulary, at least no extensive vocabulary, by which the native of
Kansas may be recognized in the American Babel. We have no distinctive
pronunciation by which we may be known from the inhabitants of Nebraska
or set apart from the citizens of Missouri. The verb fails to agree
with its subject and the participle is deprived of its final ‘g’ with
about equal frequency in Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado.
But in the same sense it is true that there is no Kansas flora, no
Kansas fauna; that is, there is no plant and there is no animal found
quite generally in Kansas and found nowhere outside of Kansas. The
remark that there is no such thing as a Kansas dialect rests upon a
misapprehension of what is meant by the term. In just the same way
that we speak of the flora and the fauna of Kansas we may speak of
the dialect of Kansas. Yet to avoid popular misapprehension it may be
better to speak of dialect in Kansas, rather than of Kansas dialect.
Dialect study involves the observation and description of all facts
concerning the natural living speech of men, and especially those
points in which the speech of individuals or groups differs from that
of the standard literary language as represented in classic writers
and classic speakers. Standard literary English is always a little
behind the times. It is the stuffed and mounted specimen in the
museum. Dialect is the live animal on its native heath. Most people,
indeed, will think that their speech does not differ materially from
standard English. They say, “We speak near enough alike ‘for practical
purposes’. But a thousand years hence the pronunciation of our country
may have changed so much that it will seem like another language, and
our descendants will write learned theses to prove that we pronounced
‘cough’ like cow or like cuff. A new language will have grown out of an
old one, but no one know how it came about. Careful dialect study will
help explain it.”
Kansas is a peculiarly favorable field for dialect study. We have here
side by side representatives from nearly every state in the Union, and
from a dozen foreign countries. The observer has here what elsewhere
he must travel over half the world to find. In a district where the
people are all natives, the speech is so nearly homogeneous that it
is difficult to find any one who recognizes the peculiarities of his
own language, but here the contrast of strange tongues strikes us
immediately and we become conscious early of the fact that all men do
not speak alike.
Study of dialect may be classified under the heads of pronunciation,
grammar and vocabulary. Of these the last two are the easiest, and may
be carried on by almost any one with pleasure and valuable results.
Pronunciation is the most difficult of these matters to study, as
competent observation and reports can be made only by one who has made
a thorough study of Phonetics. To those who might wish to take up the
study of this branch of the subject, Sweet’s Primer of Phonetics, and
Grandgent’s “Vowel Measurements” and “German and English Sounds” are
recommended.
In the study of dialect vocabularies it may become of the greatest
importance to establish the exact locality of a word and the origin
of the persons by whom it is used. For instance, in a family of my
acquaintance the word ‘slandering’ = sauntering was familiar. It
was a great puzzle to me until I learned that some of the children
had been in the care of a German maid. The German word ‘schlendern’
suggested the unquestionable source of the peculiar word. As a source
of information regarding the origin of the foreign elements of our
population when their native speech shall have been forgotten, but
when the influence of it will be left in vocabulary and pronunciation
I have thought that a map of the state with the location of all the
foreign settlements of even quite small size would be of interest and
in time of great value. In the following pages I transmit the results
of my inquiries so far as received. It is my intention to make the
report complete and to publish the map, when as complete as it can be
made, in colors. Unexpected difficulties have delayed the work and
prevented its being complete. I depended for my information upon the
County Superintendents of the State, a class of unusually intelligent
and well-informed men and women. But in not a few cases there seems to
have been a suspicion in the mind of my correspondent that I might
be a special officer of the state trying to locate violations of the
law requiring district schools to be conducted in English, and hence
information regarding schools in foreign tongue was withheld or given
but partially. And in some cases my informants were not well posted. A
superintendent by the name of Schauermann in a county containing a town
called Suabia, tells me that there are no foreigners in his county. In
such cases time must be taken to secure a correct result.
The questions asked were: Locate, and give origin, date and approximate
numbers of any settlements—six or more families—of foreigners in
your county. Do they still use their language to any extent? Do they
have church service and schools conducted in their native tongue? In
many replies one or more of these points was neglected so that the
information is not yet by any means what I desire to make it. However,
for the purpose of dialect study approximate correctness in location is
of chief importance, and accuracy as to numbers quite secondary.
Through the aid of ministers and others to whom I have been referred
by the superintendents I hope to make this report complete in the
following respects: The more exact limits of the settlement; the
numbers of those foreign-born; the province as well as land from
which they came; the number of churches; the number of schools and
the length of time the same are conducted. I solicit the co-operation
of everyone interested in this work, and also in the whole subject of
dialect study. As intimated above, interested observers can without
especial training do a service to science and at the same time find a
fascinating pastime for themselves by making collections of words and
constructions which they believe to be unusual or new. If any such
are sent to the writer they will be duly acknowledged. They should in
every case be accompanied by a statement of the age, condition and
birth-place of the person using them.
I wish here to call attention to the work of the American Dialect
Society which exists to promote this study. It desires as wide a
membership as possible, and membership is open to all interested in
the subject. The publication of the Society, Dialect Notes, contains
reports of word-lists and other studies, and will be an aid to any
who wish to undertake similar work. Subscriptions and membership fees
should be sent to Mr. C. H. Grandgent, Treas., Cambridge, Mass.