Talking Appalachian Page 2
Linguistic bigotry stems from ignorance about how language is constructed, its place in society, and the human tendency to project prejudicial attitudes about a group of people by attacking a cultural trait such as language.13 For this reason, perhaps more than any other, many Appalachians have struggled with the concept of an Appalachian identity—what it is and whether to claim it—given that Appalachians can “pass” as being from somewhere else simply by standardizing their dialects (see Silas House’s essay in part II). Traits such as race and gender, which part of Appalachia you’re from, and the type of dialect you speak further complicate the issue. Stephen L. Fisher, an urban Appalachian, has written of his failure to fit in with the “creekers,” the “middle-class whites from the suburbs,” and the “inner city Blacks” because of his accent and the way he presents himself; he was characterized as a hillbilly in college simply because he was from West Virginia.14 Crystal Wilkinson (see part II), a founding member of the Affrilachian poets, has written of the agony of “constantly trying to disprove that [she] was a black version of Ellie Mae Clampett or Daisy Duke,” going so far as to homogenize her speech.15 Both Fisher and Wilkinson eventually reconciled their complex feelings about claiming an Appalachian identity. Fisher now sees himself as a product of both a “working-class, rural life and . . . [an] urban, middle-class culture.”16 Wilkinson discovered her identity in being Affrilachian—“a black woman from a mostly white rural area” for whom being “country is as much a part of me as my full lips, my wide hips, my dreadlocks, my high cheekbones.”17 One of our hopes is that readers will connect on some level with the contributors’ struggles and awakenings (particularly in part II) as they come to terms with their Appalachian or Affrilachian identities, with their dialects forming the core of their understanding.
Major Appalachian studies published in the late twentieth century and into the twenty-first have offered valuable insights into the history, origins, myths, varieties, and educational and social contexts of Appalachian Englishes. Such texts include Encyclopedia of Appalachia, edited by Rudy Abramson and Jean Haskell; Back Talk from Appalachia: Confronting Stereotypes, edited by Dwight Billings, Gurney Norman, and Katherine Ledford; Craig Carver’s American Regional Dialects: A Word Geography; the two-volume Appalachia Inside Out, edited by Robert J. Higgs, Ambrose N. Manning, and Jim Wayne Miller, which includes both research and creative pieces; The Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, edited by Charles Reagan Wilson, William Ferris, and Ann J. Adadie; and Walt Wolfram and Donna Christian’s Dialects and Education: Issues and Answers. Some well-known works dedicated entirely to a specific Appalachian speech variety or speech area include The Dictionary of Smoky Mountain English, edited by Michael B. Montgomery and Joseph S. Hall; Anita Puckett’s Seldom Ask, Never Tell: Labor and Discourse in Appalachia; Verna Mae Slone’s How We Talked; and Walt Wolfram and Donna Christian’s Appalachian Speech. Too numerous to mention are the journal and magazine articles examining Appalachian Englishes that have been published over the past 120 years, particularly those by legendary Appalachian scholar Cratis Williams, who wrote Southern Mountain Speech.18
Talking Appalachian was born from the aforementioned interdisciplinary publications and was inspired by both scholarly and creative voices that sparked an awareness of the region’s dialects. Since there is no one self-contained volume on the varieties of Appalachian English, we have assembled a book that combines both academic discussions and interpretations of the dialects found along the core of Appalachia. Given that range, we are not claiming that Appalachian Englishes make up a monolithic language shared by millions of people in a region thousands of miles long. Rather, we examine uniquely situated dialects in a way that is accessible to both academics and novices interested in Appalachian studies.
Talking Appalachian takes a qualitative approach to a topic that resides in the vastly interdisciplinary field of Appalachian studies. In this volume, we combine research studies, testimonials, and creative works about the dialects of Appalachia. Part I is a collection of essays written by experts who specialize in this topic. They take what can best be described as a postpositivistic approach to thinking about Appalachian Englishes, as the authors recognize that social research can only approximate reality; however, these essays focus on the evidence that supports or refutes what we believe about Appalachian Englishes. Part I suggests answers to the questions that we and the contributors believe are most significant: Where and how did Appalachian Englishes originate? Why do people in Appalachia talk the way they do? What makes these dialects different from other dialects? How can dialects be used to subordinate others? What are some of the problems with how Appalachian Englishes are treated in the educational system, and how can teachers create more inclusive classrooms for Appalachian students who speak with vernacular dialects? How have dialect varieties been portrayed in Appalachian literature historically, and how have Appalachian authors shaped our ideas about them?
Part II can be seen as an interpretive extension of part I, as it includes the work of some of the most well-known authors in Appalachian literature. There are many people with authentic narratives and works who could speak to this topic; however, because we envisioned this book primarily as a teaching tool, it was important to include recognizable authors whose literature might already be a respected part of Appalachian studies curriculums. Their voices and interpretations of Appalachian Englishes suggest additional ways of seeing the dialects as they exist in social and personal realities, as well as the dialects’ tremendous influence on the authors’ personal and writing lives. The essays in part II reveal the authors’ truths about themselves as native speakers, while the poetry and short fiction illustrate the dialects through character or persona.
As a whole, this volume suggests a critical approach to the study of Appalachian Englishes by combining research with the authentic perspectives of writers who are deeply committed to preserving their dialects and reaching out to those who would dismiss them as brands of ignorance. In other words, neither research studies nor creative works alone can begin to cover the depth and breadth of what there is to know about the varieties of Appalachian English.
Part I: Varieties, Education, and Power in Appalachia
Part I is written by experts who recognize varieties of Appalachian English as rule governed and the sum of speakers’ cultural heritage. In our experience, judgments about these dialects stem largely from a lack of knowledge or understanding, because the study of linguistic variation is typically limited to experts; our hope is that part I will open that field of inquiry to a wider audience. The essays are arranged thematically and explore Appalachia’s linguistic history (including myth and reality), speech communities from Pennsylvania to North Carolina, Appalachian Englishes in education, dialects and power, and the evolution of Appalachian Englishes in literature.
Part I builds on the editors’ discussion of dialectal diversity by examining the characteristics of several varieties of Appalachian English in communities both rural and urban. Michael Montgomery begins by noting the importance of understanding the history and unique circumstances of immigration into the Appalachian region. While the label “Appalachian” is useful to denote shared beliefs, identities, and language features in a general way, Montgomery stresses the importance of localness in forging community identity and language variety. To understand the variation and commonality among different Appalachian English dialects, Montgomery looks to history. He notes that the eighteenth century was particularly important in establishing language patterns. German and Scotch-Irish settlers first migrated to Pennsylvania’s central valleys and then southward and southwestward along the Appalachian Mountains and river valleys. However, this general sketch is complicated by the time periods in which migration took place, the locations where people settled, and the circumstances of migration. For example, coal towns in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania had large influxes of eastern, central, and southern Europeans, often recruited from their villages in Europe. African
Americans also settled in some of these towns. The people brought with them languages that influenced the local dialects in distinct ways—so much so that villages only a few miles apart demonstrated different language elements. Montgomery puts to rest the romantic myth that Appalachian English is Elizabethan. Further, he debunks the idea that there is only one Appalachian English. Using data from language surveys, linguistic geography, personal accounts, and literature, Montgomery paints a complex picture of Appalachian people and their dialects.
Next, Kirk Hazen, Jaime Flesher, and Erin Simmons work to debunk the stereotype of English in Appalachia as one monolithic language. They do so by investigating ten linguistic variables that exist on a continuum from stigmatized to more standardized dialect features in West Virginia. By analyzing recordings of eighty-three speakers from towns throughout West Virginia who were born between 1817 and 1989, they were able to track the number of times the variables appeared. They were also able to determine which variables were not widespread across the state (as is the case with perfective done, such as “I done read the book”) and which were persistent (as is the case with leveled was, such as “I’s in the house when the storm hit”). In addition, they analyzed whether the variables were declining or occurring with frequency based on the speakers’ ages. Although ten linguistic variables is a small sampling, their study calls into question the myths that lurk behind assumptions about Appalachian dialect varieties.
Whereas Hazen and coauthors’ essay illustrates a range of Appalachian Englishes within one particular state, Nancy Hayward goes a step further, exploding what scholar Werner Sollors calls a “previous ‘essentialist’” category—Appalachian English.19 She uses Etienne Wenger’s “community of practice” model to describe and explain how local factors play an important part in the construction of linguistic identities.20 Hayward’s essay highlights three studies of communities in or near Appalachia: (1) an ethnography of two groups of black women in one North Carolina town, which showcases the importance of active participation in developing a speech variety; (2) a 2002 study that explores how people’s affiliation with one particular ethnic identity affects their language choice in a North Carolina county; and (3) a study of how language is locally constructed and used, based on a situated, mostly working-class dialect in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. These three examples put to rest the myth of Appalachian speech as a unified language code and situate it within unique contexts. Hayward’s essay also introduces important concepts that apply to the next piece about linguistic diversity within racial or ethnic groups.
Walt Wolfram writes about the diversity of southern Appalachian dialects among African Americans. Citing studies of both African American communities and communities of practice in southern Appalachia, Wolfram discusses the demographic as well as the individual differences that make the study of these dialect varieties so complex. He begins by explaining the myth of a uniform dialect spoken by African Americans (the same myth perpetuated about Appalachians in general); this myth, which grew from early studies, has since been replaced by an emphasis on the diversity of dialects, as revealed by later research. People rely on such myths, he says, as a way of idealizing and unifying the complexities of a region and its people. Wolfram uses several language variables that are typically associated with AAVE and their frequencies of usage to describe a linguistic identity that is both shared with and distinct from European Americans in Appalachia.
The next three essays situate varieties of Appalachian English in public schools and colleges, where they are measured against standard American English (SAE). In the classroom, vernacular dialects can be a source of contention for teachers charged with teaching or preserving the “power” dialect, or SAE. Though research solidly supports Appalachia’s dialect varieties as rule governed, they are still outsiders among the dialects of prestige—namely, those associated with wealth. Negative perceptions of Appalachian Englishes are supported by a culture of product-oriented pedagogy and quantitative assessment that regards everything but SAE as incorrect. It is no surprise, then, that among the vernacular dialects that exist in the United States, those associated with Appalachia are some of the most misunderstood. In fact, many native speakers have internalized the negativity related to their dialects, including the belief that their dialects should be tempered or erased.21 In these essays, the authors also point out important intersections of dialects and literacy practices.
Jeffrey Reaser begins with a description of the interface of language and education and continues with a discussion of the impact vernacular dialects have on four areas: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. He contends that the dialects themselves are not the problem; rather, most educational systems and the tools of assessment they rely on employ a “correctionist” methodology that neither accounts for nor understands the sociolinguistic significance of these dialects and their link to literacies of the home, particularly in these four areas. Reaser then shifts to an examination of teaching practices that include the study of language variation and its history instead of traditional grammar programs, which, according to previous studies, do not work. Offering students greater linguistic options and encouraging them to “read, write, and speak in a variety of levels of formality, genres, and purposes” can be a more culturally sensitive and successful way of teaching vernacular speakers. He describes the practice of teaching code switching by way of contrastive analysis as one such method of effectively instructing vernacular-speaking students, and he offers several resources for teachers who need to obtain substantial knowledge about their students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Amy Clark’s essay picks up where Reaser’s ends by describing why the method of code switching via contrastive analysis works so well for Appalachian students who speak vernacular dialects. Clark narrates the journey she took toward understanding what it means to be a native speaker who is also expected to teach standardized English. Realizing that traditional methods were failing to reach her students (and, in some cases, turning them against writing altogether), she began to teach them to code-switch by comparing their vernacular dialects with those of standardized English, creating a classroom where students’ dialects were equally valid as the language they were expected to use in academic writing. Her success with this method led Clark and a team of teacher consultants in the Appalachian Writing Project to develop a two-year research study conducted in central Appalachian schools. The research team invited multiple dialects into their classrooms, changed their language of instruction, and allowed students to write in different voices as they learned about their grammar systems. The results of the study suggest that students’ attitudes about language instruction, as well as their writing skills, improve—sometimes dramatically—using this method.
Katherine Sohn takes this discussion to higher education and illustrates the intersection of dialects and the multiple literacies of eight central Appalachian college women. Sohn analyzes how silence, voice, and identity intersect. In particular, she considers how dialect figures in the lives of the women, who were stigmatized by outsiders, educated insiders, and their college instructors. Remarkably, says Sohn, these women took what they could from their college experience. Many of them decided to retain their regional dialects because of their allegiance to their home communities, and in the process, they experienced little disjuncture when they moved back to their home settings. Ultimately, they found their voice, along with pride in themselves and pride in their region. Sohn’s essay links Reaser’s and Clark’s, as well as Puckett’s (which follows), to issues of power. Because vernacular dialects are measured in schools against a “standard” that is perceived to be the best, Appalachian speakers (as well as their homes, families, and culture in general) may be perceived as failing to meet that standard. The teaching methods suggested by Reaser and Clark can have an equalizing effect in the classroom, allowing students to make personal choices based on the influences they respect most. That is, will they discard their vernacular dialect in place o
f a more standardized version, or, like the women in Sohn’s study, will they choose to keep it in spite of those who disrespect it?
Anita Puckett examines specifically Appalachian Englishes and issues of power. Unlike the subjects of Sohn’s study, some people feel pressured to forsake their home dialects. Puckett explores how the system of valuation of different discursive frameworks in southern Appalachia shapes or controls policies and attitudes toward the use of these frameworks and the social, political, and economic power of the speakers who rely on them. She begins with a brief overview of the historical patterns establishing these different systems of linguistic empowerment. Then she focuses on how these different patterns of valuation—language ideologies—may not be consciously articulated but nevertheless impact the ability of southern Appalachian English speakers to succeed in professional and corporate positions. Pressure to conform to language ideologies that support SAE forces speakers to abandon or devalue their ways of talking and therefore their cultural orientations and place-based identities. Strategies to adapt to the sociopolitical impact of these pressures conclude this essay.