Canadian-American Speech Differences Along the Middle Border

Abstract

Recent evidence of renewed interest in the Linguistic Atlas of Canada makes pertinent the publishing of relevant data gathered for the comparable regional atlases of the United States. To the information already published from the files of the Linguistic Atlas of the North Central States there can now be added that from the collections of the Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Midwest.The Upper Midwest atlas, centered at the University of Minnesota, includes the five states of Minnesota, Iowa, the two Dakotas, and Nebraska. Fieldwork for the entire area, begun in 1947, has been completed, and editing of the materials is in process (though interrupted in 1958–59 by the Director’s absence abroad). Besides the records from 202 American field informants based upon personal interviews, these materials include five Canadian records and the responses for 136 lexical items on 1069 checklists returned by mail from informants in all but two of the counties in these five states. The Canadian field records were made at the suggestion of Albert H. Marckwardt of the University of Michigan, Director of the Linguistic Atlas of the North Central States. In advance of future atlas organization in Canada it seemed desirable to supply at least tentative answers to questions about the relationships of Canadian and American regional English.

Deconstructing variation in pragmatic function: A transdisciplinary case study

“…In the SCVE, its use is even more marginal, 0.47% (N = 2551). Given the variety of contextually derived functions we have shown to be associated with eh, it is perhaps surprising that its use is not more widespread in these datasets, particularly given its status as a quintessential Canadian shibboleth and an important marker of Canadian identity (Allen 1959;Avis 1972;Love 1973;Johnson 1976;Gibson 1977;Schecter 1979;Denis 2013). This raises two interrelated questions.…”

take up #9as a semantic isogloss on the Canada‐US border

“…These newer studies continue in important ways an earlier but short‐lived empirical tradition that put cross‐borders studies at its centre. Starting with Avis's self‐report surveys (1954, 1955, 1956) and Allen's () analysis of LAUSC data, quantitative data has been available and added a new level of objectivity. Chambers’ (, , , ) dialect topography has continued that tradition through the 1990s and offered important glimpses into a handful of mostly traditional variables in seven Canadian and four American locations (Chambers , 2007; Burnett ).…”

How Canadian was eh? A baseline investigation of usage and ideology

“…For example, he notes that Americans find eh to be “characteristic of Canadian habits of speech” (Avis 1972: 91). Indeed, Gold (2008a: 141) notes that discussion of eh as a stereotype of CanE has appeared in the literature and popular press for the last 60 years beginning with Avis in 1957 and then Allen (1959: 20) who observes its shibboleth status in contrast with American English. Gold (2008b: 74) provides many additional similar examples in the linguistics literature from the decades that follow 3…”