The southern shift and regional identity in Appalachia

Abstract

The Southern Vowel Shift (SVS) historically occurred across the Southern U.S. (e.g., Labov et al., 1972; Feagin, 1986). Several recent studies document the retreat of the SVS in the urban (Fridland, 1999; Prichard, 2010; Dodsworth and Kohn, 2012). However, Irons (2007) found the SVS advancing in rural Kentucky. Thus, Fridland notes the SVS might not be supra-regional norm, serving rather as ecological distinction within the South (2012:187). As an ecological distinction, SVS features might reflect a speaker’s orientation toward differing ecologies. Thus, a speaker with a rural orientation might use more SVS features than a speaker who is less rurally oriented. The present paper investigates the SVS in rural speech examining three features: monophthongization of /aI/, rotation of /E/ and /e/, and rotation of /I/ and /i/. Data come from sociolinguistic interviews, reading passages, and words lists from 25 speakers from rural northeast Tennessee. Additionally, every participant completed a Rootedness Metric, a psychometric survey that quantifies place-based orientation. Results indicate that speakers exhibit SVS features, with reversals of the relative front vowel positions and monophthongization of /aI/ in all positions (cf. Irons, 2007). However, more rooted speakers exhibited the most advanced SVS features. Thus, the central difference of SVS features may not merely be ecological, rather the speaker’s relationship to the differing regional ecologies.The Southern Vowel Shift (SVS) historically occurred across the Southern U.S. (e.g., Labov et al., 1972; Feagin, 1986). Several recent studies document the retreat of the SVS in the urban (Fridland, 1999; Prichard, 2010; Dodsworth and Kohn, 2012). However, Irons (2007) found the SVS advancing in rural Kentucky. Thus, Fridland notes the SVS might not be supra-regional norm, serving rather as ecological distinction within the South (2012:187). As an ecological distinction, SVS features might reflect a speaker’s orientation toward differing ecologies. Thus, a speaker with a rural orientation might use more SVS features than a speaker who is less rurally oriented. The present paper investigates the SVS in rural speech examining three features: monophthongization of /aI/, rotation of /E/ and /e/, and rotation of /I/ and /i/. Data come from sociolinguistic interviews, reading passages, and words lists from 25 speakers from rural northeast Tennessee. Additionally, every participant completed a Roo...