To understand the communications of country folks in the rural South, it is useful to begin with the fact that they (we) constantly use contractions. This has nothing to do with childbirth. It is a linguistic device that shortens sentences by combining words, eliminating one or two letters; for example, “don’t for “do not.” Note the apostrophe to show that the o in not has been omitted.
Everyday English is replete with contractions, more than 150 of them. They are of two types. Subject and verb may be conflated, as in “they’re” for “they are” and “you’re” for “you are.” The editor and teacher in me makes me a scold. “They’re” is not the same as their or there and “you’re” is not the same as your. Spelling is important and spell checker will not protect unwary writers.
Another type of contraction conflates subject and verb into one word, e.g., “she’s for ‘she is” and those cited above. Another combines verb with its modifier, particularly not, into a single word. Examples include “wasn’t” for “was not,” “isn’t” for “is not,” etc. These useful simplifications are completely acceptable in everyday discourse.
However, some words do not slip together smoothly. It is impossible to combine am not into a pronounceable word. Amn’t can be written but not spoken. It is tongue-tangling. At some time, “ain’t” was created and its misuse has exasperated teachers and mothers ever since. If restricted to use for am not, it likely would have been accepted, but it came to be a sort of universal negative, replacing isn’t, weren’t, etc. A further complication is the fact that some people use the same pronunciation for ant, the bug, and aunt, a parent’s sibling or spouse of a sibling.
Some other contractions displaced accurate ones. “Don’t” for “do not” is often substituted for “doesn’t,” perhaps because of the drift toward simplicity in discourse. Words that are difficult to pronounce get simplified, shortened or substituted for in daily use. “Shan’t” for “shall not” becomes the familiar “won't” normally used for “will not.” Note: won’t and want get pronounced alike, but they “ain’t no kin.”
The plain folk speech pattern of dropping the final g from words leads to some problems when combined with contractions. “I ain’t gone” means I have not departed, but “I ain’t gone do that” indicates strong determination not to take certain action, the same as “I ain’t fixing to.” Here, “gone” is short for going as in intent to act or progress in an act. For those familiar with this version of a sub-dialect, the meaning is clear because of context.
Many people who are fluent in “proper English” use plain folks' ways of speaking when among friends and family. This should not be seen as condescension. It is more an act of solidarity and familiarity. It is a demonstration that such speakers have not “gotten uppity on us” in a culture where “gettin above your raising” violates unwritten rules protecting social bonds. These same people use appropriate language in more formal settings.
Parents, particularly mothers, sometimes address their children in formal tones. “You will not do that again, young man (or lady), not ever. Do you hear me?" This has nothing to do with actual hearing and all about clear understanding. Formal language signals serious communication. The only sensible response is “Yes, ma'am.”
Failure to remember could have significant consequences.
As I wrote in an earlier column, migrants to the colonies from Ulster, Ireland and Scotland brought with them many cultural elements that have been passed down to their descendants, including double negatives, in their speech. As Elvis sang, “You ain’t nothin but a hound dog.” That illustrates both a double negative and, as usual, ain’t as part of the negative, and no "G" on nothin.
The double negative was not placed into discourse out of ignorance but to make clear a negative meaning. They came from a tough environment — Scots moved to Northern Ireland, often against their will; Irish displaced, sometimes persecuted in their homeland; rapidly growing population too great for the land. Even among neighbors, communication needed to be clear. Double negatives contributed to clarity. Their cultural descendants have retained some of their troubles and their double negatives.
Some of us even declare, “I ain’t never gone do none of that.”
Roger G. Branch Sr. is professor emeritus of sociology at Georgia Southern University and is a retired pastor.