Appalachian English stereotypes: Language attitudes in Kentucky

Abstract

Nonstandard language varieties typically become social markers of the social groups that use them. Through this connection, the varieties reflect commonly held stereotypes of those groups from the perspective of outsiders, as well as symbolize group membership for their speakers. This study employs the matched guise technique to compare attitudes toward Appalachian English and Standard American English held by speakers of both language varieties. Most studies of nonstandard language varieties have shown an acceptance by nonstandard speakers of dominant negative stereotypes of their groups. By varying content of speech samples evaluated, this study suggests that speakers of Appalachian English partially accept low status evaluations of their dialect, but reject other negative stereotypes of their speech community in terms of integrity and social attractiveness of its members. In particular, results suggest significantly higher evaluations of male speakers of Appalachian English that are shared by Standard English speakers. (Appalachian English, speech community, language variety, language markers, language stereotypes, dialects, social status) Appalachian English is one of the surviving nonstandard regional dialects of English in the United States. It is associated with residents of the Appalachian mountain range, particularly with West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Its current distinctiveness from Standard American English stems both from the isolated physical environment and from the industrial economic development of the area. The mountains have served until recently as an effective geographical barrier against physical mobility, and the coming of industrial economic development (which focused on resource extraction such as coal and timber) has proved detrimental to the economic mobility of its residents (Banks 1980). Dialects thrive in such physical and social isolation.Dialects are language varieties that are linguistically and generally also politically linked to a standardized language variety. The standard variety retains a degree of societal prestige through the official institutional support

English or Englishes? Outer and Expanding Circle Teachers’ Awareness of and Attitudes towards their Own Variants of English in ESL/EFL Teaching Contexts

“…Most studies focusing on the attitudes of L1 English speakers towards varieties of English speech have revealed that standard accents (also named 'social status' accents) aim to be evaluated more prestigious compared to 'non-standard' accents (also named 'social attractiveness' or 'solidarity' accents) (Bradac & Wisegarver, 1984;Cheyne 1970;Coupland and Bishop 2007;Johnson & Buttny, 1982;Luhman, 1990;Tucker & Lambert, 1969). As Milroy (2007, p. 133) mentions 'language attitudes are dominated by powerful ideological positions that are largely based on the supposed existence of this standard form, and these, taken together can be said to constitute the standard language ideology or 'ideology of the standard language'.…”

Perception of Dialect Variation by Young Adults with High-Functioning Autism

“…The TD adults were expected to exhibit performance similar to the participants in previous studies examining the perceptual classification of and language attitude judgments towards regional varieties of American English (Baker et al 2009;Pisoni 2004a, b, 2006;Luhman 1990;Preston 1993). In particular, the TD listeners were expected to exhibit modest accuracy and to make a clear distinction between dialects that are geographically closer and dialects that are geographically farther away in the free classification and localness judgment tasks.…”

“…In these tasks, listeners are asked to rate a set of unfamiliar talkers on a range of personal attributes, such as intelligence, level of education, reliability, and friendliness. Correlation and factor analysis techniques have demonstrated that these attributes can be divided into two categories, reflecting dimensions of status (e.g., intelligence and level of education) and solidarity (e.g., friendliness and reliability) (Giles 1970;Luhman 1990). The results of these studies typically reveal that socially prestigious linguistic varieties are rated higher than less prestigious local varieties on attributes reflecting status, but lower than local varieties on attributes reflecting solidarity.…”

“…The results of these studies typically reveal that socially prestigious linguistic varieties are rated higher than less prestigious local varieties on attributes reflecting status, but lower than local varieties on attributes reflecting solidarity. For example, Luhman (1990) found that General American English was rated higher for status, but lower for solidarity, than Appalachian American English by listeners from Kentucky. Similar results have been obtained for English and French in Montreal (Lambert et al 1960), regional varieties of English in the United Kingdom (Ladegaard 1998a), regional varieties of Danish in Denmark (Ladegaard 1998b), and ethnic varieties of English in Australia (Gallois and Callan 1989).…”

Study into the Health and Wellness of Appalachian English Dialect: A Portrait of an Endangered Dialect

“…It has been associated with persons living in the southern Appalachian mountain range, especially West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, extending southward into the mountainous portions of East Tennessee (Luhman, 1990). Until the period preceding the 1940s, the mountains served as an effective geographical barrier against physical mobility.…”