A Dialect Turned Inside Out

Abstract

Migration to economically more prosperous areas has been an attractive choice for many Appalachians. This paper traces the effects of migration on language variation within one Appalachian family. Through qualitative and quantitative analysis of phonological, morphological, and lexical variables, we draw distinctions between family members who remained in West Virginia and those who migrated to Ohio and Michigan. The data come from interviews with nine members of one southern West Virginia family. Aside from migration status, education is the most influential factor in language variation patterns for migrant and non-migrant speakers. Our findings indicate that Appalachian migrants negotiate their sociolinguistic identities by drawing on the norms both of their family members and of their adopted homes. This phenomenon is not isolated to one family; economic conditions have fostered the introduction of external sociolinguistic norms into Appalachian communities for at least seventy years.

Using Mahalanobis Distances to Investigate Second Dialect Acquisition: A Study on Quebec French

“…As the number of studies investigating phonetic and phonological aspects of SDA increased, it soon became clear that heterogeneity was the rule, with some speakers barely adapting while others do so more extensively, some features being quickly adopted and others lagging behind (e.g., Munro et al, 1999 ). Several factors have been put forward to account for this, some of them social in nature, as well as linguistic and cognitive: the speakers’ integration and involvement in the new community ( De Decker, 2006 ; Pesqueira, 2008 ), age ( Hazen & Hamilton, 2008 ), regional identity ( Campbell-Kibler et al, 2014 ; Evans & Iverson, 2007 ), attitudes toward the second dialect ( Bigham, 2010 ; Sprowls, 2014 ) and interlocutors ( Giles, 1973 ); the linguistic level and complexity of a feature ( Chambers, 1992 ; Kerswill, 1996 ; Rys & Bonte, 2006 ; Vousten & Bongaerts, 1995 ); the speakers’ linguistic sensitivity ( Nycz, 2013 ), degree of attention to the communication situation ( Sharma, 2018 ), and robustness of their representations ( Reubold & Harrington, 2018 ); and so on.…”

“…However, in the long term, understanding how SDA happens and why it is so heterogeneous is hampered by the focus of most studies on the outcome of SDA as either a complete success or failure, that is, “a matter of all or nothing” ( Siegel, 2010 , p. 138). Most studies also infer from external sources what should have been the speakers’ original dialect ( Auer et al, 1998 ; Bigham, 2010 ; Campbell-Kibler et al, 2014 ; Conn & Horesh, 2002 ; Evans, 2004 ; Foreman, 2003 ; Hazen & Hamilton, 2008 ; Hernández & Maldonado, 2012 ; Ivars, 1994 ; Miller, 2005 ; Munro et al, 1999 ; Nuolijärvi, 1994 ; Omdal, 1994 ; Sprowls, 2014 ; Ziliak, 2012 ; etc. ); therefore, changes (or absence thereof) can only be presumed.…”

Cross-dialectal vowel mapping and glide perception

“…The diphthongal, mainstream production of [aɪ] was "more fitting for her current social identity" and likely helped evade negative connotations of Appalachian identity (Reed 2018). Conversely, some native Appalachians retain Appalachian English speech forms in new social contexts for a sense of connection to their linguistic and cultural roots (Hazen & Hamilton 2008).…”