Some notes on contractions in Flight of the Heron

[regshoe]

This post was inspired by three things: first, bookhobbit's excellent post on contractions in Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, second, luzula posting a searchable ebook of Flight of the Heron and, finally, my intuition when writing and reading Flight of the Heron fic that a canon-typical style should avoid using too many contractions, because the book itself doesn't. Was I right?

Having done some investigating, the short answer is yes and no: Broster does use contractions fairly often, but she usually prefers not to contract phrases that could be contracted, and does so significantly less than a typical modern author would.

I started by doing a quick, non-exhaustive search for contractions in the text of the novel. Here's what I found: this shows all the contractions used ten or more times, with the number of uses of the corresponding uncontracted phrase for each one and the ratio between them.

Contraction	Uses of contraction	Uses of uncontracted phrase	Contraction:uncontracted ratio
I'll (I will)	53	48	1.10
he'll (he will)	13	19	0.68
'tis (it is)	54	114	0.47
that's (that is AND that has)	25	46	0.54
there's (there is AND there has)	21	52	0.40
don't (do not)	36	102	0.37
you'll (you will)	24	86	0.28
I'd (I had)	17	67	0.25
I'm (I am)	32	185	0.17
it's (it is AND it has)	21	124	0.17
he's (he is AND he has)	16	115	0.14
'twas (it was)	11	378	0.03
TOTAL	323	1336	0.24

Also of interest are contractions which were never used—here are all the ones with more than fifty uses of the uncontracted phrase: he'd (471 he had), couldn't (102 could not), who'd (70 who had), you've (65 you have), wouldn't (62 would not).

There are quite a number of contractions, then, but the uncontracted phrases are used more often. Only one, I'll/I will, is contracted more often than not, and if we include the never-contracted phrases, contractions are used on just 13% of the occasions they could be.

The numbers in the above table gave me another idea. Broster's most-used contraction relative to the uses of the uncontracted phrase is I'll, whereas her most-avoided is he'd. Now, Flight of the Heron is written in the third person past tense and mostly from the point of view of male characters, so we'd expect to get a lot of he had in the narration, whereas I will is basically only ever going to appear in dialogue. The rest of the table bears this out: all the contractions used are in either the present or future tenses or the first person, all of which we'd only expect to occur in dialogue, whereas all but one of the never-used contractions are in the past tense and so would be expected more often in narration.

To test this I had a closer look at the top five contractions: 'tis, I'll, don't, I'm and that's. Of the 197 total uses of these, 192 are in dialogue; four are in writing by the characters and one is in a character's directly quoted thoughts—none are in the narration.

Conclusions so far, then: some contractions in dialogue, but not many, and virtually none in the narration.

When searching for those most-used contractions I also looked at whose dialogue they were being used in. Side characters who speak in written-out vernacular dialect (mostly Scots, but the nice bit of Yorkshire dialect from Mr Fosdyke contains a high concentration) tend to use contractions more often than others, including cool exotic ones like thou'rt. As for the main characters, Ewen uses many more contractions than Keith: of those 192 contractions occurring in dialogue, 46 are Ewen's and only 21 are Keith's. Of course, this might just be because Ewen has more dialogue than Keith, so I did a quick search for phrases like 'Keith said' to check for this—but after correcting for the number of times each character's name appears in dialogue tags, Ewen still uses contractions more than twice as often as Keith. I suspect this may have to do with the formality of the setting: a lot of Ewen's dialogue is spoken to his family and friends, in a context where he might be more informal, whereas much of Keith's dialogue is spoken to fellow officers, superiors and enemies, to whom we might expect him to speak more formally.

I then looked at how Flight of the Heron compares to other books, concentrating on one contraction, don't—one of Broster's most-used. bookhobbit uses Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman as an example of a 'typical' modern contemporary novel: it has 32 don'ts for every do not, a much higher ratio than Flight of the Heron's 0.37. I was also interested in how Flight of the Heron compares to contemporary books written in the 1920s, and to books from the 1740s, when it's set. Here are the results:

Book	Year of publication	don't:do not ratio
The Flight of the Heron by D. K. Broster	1925	0.37
Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman	1990	32
Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf	1925	2.0
The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie	1920	1.8
Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding	1742	1.1
Clarissa by Samuel Richardson	1748	1.1

So Flight of the Heron not only uses don't much less than a modern book, it also does so substantially less than contemporary novels from the 1920s—in fact, even less than novels from the 1740s, although it's closer to these than to anything else. (It does, however, use don't much more than Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell or the novels of Jane Austen, for which bookhobbit also gives numbers—I guess the Regency period in particular hates contractions?)


So there you go! I hope this was interesting; I, for one, intend to put this nerdery to good use by writing a 100,000 word slow-burn slash fic in which the contraction ratio for each chapter is carefully calibrated to reflect the growing closeness and informality of the relationship between the characters, as well as how much time each of them has spent in Yorkshire recently.

Comments

[luzula]

Oooh, thank you for posting this! I also searched for contractions in canon and adjusted in my fic accordingly when I went through the fic the last time, but I didn't analyze it as closely as you have done. Very interesting comparison between different novels, too.

I am entirely unsurprised that there are no contractions in the narrative. I didn't think consciously about this when I wrote, but I'm pretty sure I have no contractions at all in my narrative, either.

I, for one, intend to put this nerdery to good use by writing a 100,000 word slow-burn slash fic in which the contraction ratio for each chapter is carefully calibrated to reflect the growing closeness and informality of the relationship between the characters, as well as how much time each of them has spent in Yorkshire recently.

This sounds like an excellent idea! *g*

[regshoe]

Yeah—I was interested to see the huge differences between eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early twentieth-century novels especially. (I might look at some Victorian novels at some point, too). It's easy to think 'old = formal = no contractions', and in some cases that seems to be true, but the full picture is much more complicated!

Out of curiosity, I had a look at my own fic. Up in the Grey Hills has two do nots and no don'ts—so the sample size is small but I'm doing all right so far, and if I use do not once more I should use don't once to balance. It's certainly something I'll keep in mind in future writing!

[theseatheseatheopensea]

My feeling about this was that contractions were less present in the narration passages and more so in the dialogue ones, especially informal ones, but this is an excellent and very informative analysis, and I really appreciate it! Thanks for sharing it!

So there you go! I hope this was interesting; I, for one, intend to put this nerdery to good use by writing a 100,000 word slow-burn slash fic in which the contraction ratio for each chapter is carefully calibrated to reflect the growing closeness and informality of the relationship between the characters, as well as how much time each of them has spent in Yorkshire recently.

YES GOOD WONDERFUL, this sounds very relevant to my interests! (Also, I'm now thinking about a TFOTH+JS&MN crossover, and it's all your fault! ;)

[regshoe]

I do like turning vague impressions into statistics :D

Ooh, tell me your thoughts on a JSMN crossover! I think the magic of JSMN would fit right into the universe of Flight of the Heron, with its suggestions of the supernatural and its birds—perhaps Scottish magic isn't as dormant as English magic in the middle of the eighteenth century...? (To say nothing of all the fascinating potential for how the politics of Clarke's Northern England might interact with Jacobitism!)

[theseatheseatheopensea]

I haven't thought about it too much (OK, who am I kidding, I have, but I only have some vague-ish ideas) but I mostly thought that magic never really left Scotland, and maybe that's the root of the conflict? And Northern england remains loyal to the magic cause, although the rest of England doesn't? And maybe people who are magicians are persecuted and have to flee to France. Or maybe everyone can do magic, but some people repress it out of fear?

On a less political note, Ewen is an earth magician, if I ever saw one <3 No one could have such a deep connection to the land and not be able to work a bit of magic! Maybe there are different types of magic: so, earth, but also wind and water and fire...

I think the magic of JSMN would fit right into the universe of Flight of the Heron, with its suggestions of the supernatural and its birds

Yes! Maybe in this crossover universe, the second Sight is more frequent, and so are heron prophecies (or bird ones, generally speaking) and (I've just decided) ornithomancy. And lots of folk magic stuff, like predicting the weather from the way the clouds look, etc. etc. Maybe these are also separate types of magic? And people can do one or two or several?

Also: maybe the Scottish magic preserved some of the old pagan religions+beliefs, and that's another reason why it's persecuted? From what I know about it, Scottish mythology is very nature-based (including a goddess portrayed as a mountain giantess, which I've always liked because it reminds me of the goddess Mari, from the mythology of the Basque people-some of *my* people, by the way! <3) so I think it ties in nicely.

WELL I guess that someone has to write it now!

[regshoe]

Fascinating stuff! :D

I mostly thought that magic never really left Scotland, and maybe that's the root of the conflict? And Northern england remains loyal to the magic cause, although the rest of England doesn't?

Yeah—I can definitely see there being an association between magic and the Stuart cause, and perhaps those still loyal to John Uskglass might form an alliance with the Jacobites on those grounds. And I reckon there would definitely be a link between the sort of Enlightenment Whiggism of Keith's background and the (canonical) dismissal or outright denial of practical magic as a real and important thing by the English magio-historians of the time—whether in their own past, or in other countries...

so are heron prophecies (or bird ones, generally speaking) and (I've just decided) ornithomancy.

The image just popped into my head of Keith going, 'you know, I always thought ravens were supposed to be the most magical birds—or, at least, in England they are,' and Ewen grinning and saying, 'oh, but it's different up here'. Anyway, I definitely support more bird prophecies!

[theseatheseatheopensea]

I like the idea of there being a sort of Northern English resistance (mainly because I see it as an easy way to put Childermass et al into the story, hehe).

Also, it's fitting that Strange should be the one to bring magic back, because he is half Scottish! And, somewhere in the book, Scotland is described as a magical place (I need to check exactly where!).

I like the idea of the dismissal/denial of magic being related to the Raven king leaving england, mirroring what Mr Norell feels about it. Maybe people are so angry that he left, that they start a war over it?

The image just popped into my head of Keith going, 'you know, I always thought ravens were supposed to be the most magical birds—or, at least, in England they are,' and Ewen grinning and saying, 'oh, but it's different up here'.

I truly love this idea, and I guess that now you have to write the whole thing. How wonderful! ;)

[regshoe]

I like the idea of there being a sort of Northern English resistance (mainly because I see it as an easy way to put Childermass et al into the story, hehe).

Oh, I would love to ask Childermass his opinions on the Jacobites! I think he'd at least sympathise with them, what with his own nothing would please me better than that my King should come home.

I truly love this idea, and I guess that now you have to write the whole thing. How wonderful! ;)

Well, I'll see what I can do :D There doesn't have to be just one fic about this, however, and I think you should write one too!

[isis]

This sounds like something that the folks at historium might find interesting!

[regshoe]

I'll post a link over there—thanks for the suggestion :D

[genarti]

I followed the link from there, and just wanted to say, thanks for doing this -- super interesting!

[regshoe]

Aww, I'm glad you found it interesting :D

[hrj]

I love this sort of linguistic nerdery! (Saw the link on the historium group.) I'm always fascinated by what people perceive to be true about the past versus what is measurably/observably true.

[regshoe]

Oh, yes—there's certainly a gap between the stereotypical image of How People Talked Back Then and what contemporary writing from (various different times/places in) the past is actually like, and it's really interesting to examine that in detail.

[rosefox]

I guess the Regency period in particular hates contractions

Yes. There are some very faithful film/TV adaptations of Austen's novels where the constant use of "do not you" (where we would say "don't you") really jumps out, even more than it does in prose. Some years ago I stopped using as many contractions in writing and I really think it coincided with my period of reading a lot of Regency romances.

[regshoe]

Oh yes, those phrases like 'do not you' or 'is it not' are very distinctive. (Although just because authors weren't using contractions in writing doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't using them in everyday speech, of course!) I don't really think about how many contractions I use in my own writing, but I expect I'll pay more attention to it now!

[rosefox]

When I'm writing Regency-era things, I try to find a balance between dialogue as Austen would have written it and dialogue as a 21st-century reader expects to read it. It's a challenge!

I find that expanding a contraction allows for more nuanced emphasis, which I enjoy. "I'm going to the store" is unlikely to be read as anything other than a simple statement. "I am going to the store" is so much more sensitive to the context and the speaker's tone of voice: "I, and not you, am going to the store"; "I am in fact going to the store". And that opens the door to more subtle stresses on "going" or "the store", until there's a wealth of subtext packed in under six very plain words. I can see the appeal to Regency-era speakers, who cared so much about subtext and nuance and what's being said under what's being said.

[regshoe]

Huh, yes—it's great fun working out all those little subtleties and nuances of language when writing!

[greerwatson]

Seeing your analysis makes me wonder whether the eighteenth-century novelists' use of contractions varies depending on context, i.e. dialogue vs. narrative. I can quite well imagine that they might feel a certain tension between the need for verisimilitude in the former and the propriety of formality in the latter. (Much as we today eschew contractions in academic writing.)

Makes me want to check out my own historical fic.

[regshoe]

Hmm, yes—I haven't read many eighteenth-century novels, so I really don't know what the answers to those questions might be, but it would be a good topic for further research!

[garonne]

I came here via Luzula's journal, and I'm glad I found this post. I love this sort of "text analysis statistics" or whatever the proper name for it is. Thanks for posting!

It's also interesting to see the confirmation that novelists writing in the 18th century *did* use quite a lot of contractions. Some modern authors of historical fiction seem to have decided to follow the rule "never ever use contractions under any circumstances", which can be quite painful to read :D

[regshoe]

Yeah—I think it comes from conflating 'formal' with 'old-fashioned' (which is true up to a point, but...) and then applying that to all of the past rather than just the bits that influenced what reads as old-fashioned now. It's certainly fascinating doing more analysis of the real situation :D

[sunlit_stone]

Oooh, this is fascinating! I love this kind o analysis, it's always so interesting :)

[regshoe]

Glad you liked it—it was interesting to put together :D

[iberiandoctor]

I’m here from historium, and this analysis has been fascinating. Also, very helpful - I’ve been recently struggling with writing in the late Regency era, post-early modern English style, and this has really helped clarify my thoughts on the use of contractions and more generally on approach. Thank you!

[regshoe]

I'm glad it was helpful :D It's certainly made me think more about my own writing in historical settings.