Apart and yet a part: Social class, convergence, and the vowel systems of Columbus, OH AA(V)E and EAE

1
Apart and yet a partSocial class, convergence,
and the vowel systems of Columbus, OH AA(V)E and
EAE

• David Durian, Jennifer Schumacher, and Melissa
  Reynard
• The Ohio State University

2
Metropolitan Columbus, OH

• Columbus has
• Population of 1.6 million residents in the
  Columbus Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
  Area.
• Roughly 25 are African American and roughly 68
  are European American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

3
Goals for Todays Presentation

• Present the results of a pilot study comparing
  middle class African American and European
  American speaker vowel systems.
• Explore how these systems compare to previously
  documented systems of working class African
  American and European American speakers.
• Briefly consider the social motivations for the
  class-based patterns found in our data.

4
Socio-Historical Background

• Until the 1970s, most African Americans in
  Columbus were working class, as a result of
  Columbus being a predominately separate but
  equal community since its founding in 1803
  (Jacobs, 1994 James, 1972).
• Since the end of the Civil War, this led to
  decades of discrimination in hiring practices by
  local businesses, as well as housing segregation
  (Orideo, 1982 Burgess, 1994).

5
Socio-Historical Background

• During the late 1960s, civil rights movement and
  the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 puts
  an end to enforcement of overt housing and
  employment discrimination practices in the
  community (Jacobs, 1994).
• Simultaneously, Columbus Public Schools changes
  from separate but equal to first voluntary
  desegregation (late 1960s), then later court
  ordered desegregation via the use of busing, in
  1979 (Foster, 1997).

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Early 20th Century Columbus Speech

• EAE Features (as per Thomas (2001))
• Southern Shift Features
• Frontward movement of the nuclei of the non-low
  back vowels SHOES, BOOT, PUT, BOAT, and BOUT
• Historically North Midlands Features
• r-fullness
• The backing of BOT
• The merger of NORTH and FORCE

9
Early 20th Century Columbus Speech

• AAVE Features (as per Thomas (1989/1993))
• r-lessness
• Glide-weakening of BITE in open syllables and
  before voiced consonants
• Non-low back vowels remain back (non-fronted)

10
Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech

• Working Class AAVE and EAE
• Comparative Studies
• Thomas (1989/1993)
• Primarily impressionistic
• 32 speakers (16 males 16 females)
• Speakers born c. 1968-1970

11
Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech

• Working Class AAVE and EAE
• Comparative Studies
• Durian, Dodsworth Schumacher (to appear)
• Primarily instrumental
• 8 speaker vowel plots (4 males 4 females)
• 4 African American speakers 4 European American
  speakers
• Two age cohorts Older (born c. 1950-1960) and
  Younger (born c. 1969-1985)
• African American fieldworkers interviewed AAs
• European American fieldworkers interviewed EAs

12
Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech

• Working Class AAVE Features
• Convergence with Working Class European Americans
• Frontward movement of the nuclei of non-low back
  vowels SHOES, BOOT, PUT, BOAT, and BOUT (Thomas,
  1989/1993) (Durian, et al. (to appear))
• Partial merger of BOT/BOUGHT before /t/ (Thomas,
  1989/1993) (Durian, et al. (to appear))

13
Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech

• Working Class AAVE Features (as found by Durian,
  et al., (to appear))
• Divergence with Working Class Europeans
• Some evidence of nucleus lowering for BOAT among
  some older female and younger male European
  American speakers
• Tendencies towards raised BIT, BET, and BAT
  articulations
• Lowered PUT realizations
• Fronter realizations of BOT and BOUGHT
• More robustly raised BUT articulations

14
Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech

• Working Class AAVE
• Convergence and divergence found to have stronger
  tendencies among younger speakers than older
  speakers.
• This suggests change in progress is occurring.

15
Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech

• Todays Study Comparison of Middle Class AAE
  EAE
• 8 speaker vowel plots (4 males 4 females)
• 4 African American speakers 4 European American
  speakers
• Two age cohorts Older (born c. 1955-1963)
  Younger (born c. 1969-1985)
• Socioeconomic status occupation level of adult
  informants and/or mean household income of the
  area in which informants were raised during the
  time of their childhood.
• African American fieldworkers interviewed AAs
• European American fieldworkers interviewed EAs

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Comparison of Results

• Working Class AAVE vs. EAE
• Convergence with Working Class EAE for
• Fronting of the nucleus of SHOES, BOOT, PUT,
  BOAT, and BOUT

• Middle Class AAE vs. EAE
• Convergence with Middle Class EAE for
• Fronting of the nucleus of SHOES, BOOT, PUT,
  BOAT, and BOUT

21
Comparison of Results

• Working Class AAVE vs. EAE
• Divergence with Working Class EAE for
• Raised Articulations of BIT, BET, and BAT
• Fronter Articulations of BOT and BOUGHT
• Raised Articulations of BUT

• Middle Class AAE vs. EAE
• Convergence with Middle Class EAE for
• Non-raised or mildly lowered articulations of BIT
  and BET
• Backer Articulations of BOUGHT
• Divergence with Middle Class EAE for
• Lowered and Mildly Retracted BAT Articulations
• Fronter Articulations of BOT

22
Potential Social Motivations for Results

• The contact situation between working class
  African Americans and European American talkers
  may be leading to a complex situation of home
  vs. school language influence impacting the
  patterns show in our study.
• Pattern Younger speakers show strong
  similarities of fronter articulations
• Convergence among Working Class African American
  and European Speakers for the non-low back vowels
  (fronting)
• School Desegregation policies in Columbus,
  especially post 1980 one factor possibly having
  an impact
• 1967-1979, Desegregation Voluntary
• 1979-1995, Busing in Effect
• Much higher face-to-face daily contact among
  black and white talkers during busing era as a
  result

23
Potential Social Motivations for Results

• Pattern Younger speakers show stronger patterns
  of difference
• Divergence for the front vowels BIT, BET, and BAT
• Raising among Working Class African Americans
  versus non-raising or mild lowering among Working
  Class European Americans
• Divergence for BOT and BOUGHT
• Fronting among Working Class African Americans
  versus backer articulations among Working Class
  European Americans
• All of our working class speakers hail from
  Southeast Columbus, a majority African Americans
  area
• Outside of school, high degree of face-to-face
  daily interaction among African American talkers.
• May be leading to stronger use of variables that
  serve as markers of ethnic affiliation.

24
Potential Social Motivations for Results

• Back vowel fronting may be less perceptually
  salient as a marker of ethnic identity among
  either ethnic group.
• Hence, stronger patterns of convergence among all
  speakers, regardless of class background?

25
Potential Social Motivations for Results

• Pattern Younger speakers show strong
  similarities for both trends
• Convergence among Middle Class African American
  and European American speakers for the non-low
  back vowels (frontness)
• Convergence among Middle Class African Americans
  and European Americans speakers for BIT and BET
  non-raising and backer articulations of BOUGHT
• Mixed socio-economic and more geographically
  periphery areas, although more predominately
  European American, are also typified by stronger
  racial integration
• Stronger integration among speakers may be
  leading to stronger patterns of convergence

26
Acknowledgements

• We wish to thank
• Yolanda Holt and Tinisha Tolbert for conducting
  interviews with middle class AA informants and
  Rick Jones and Tammy Snow for conducting the
  working class AA fieldwork.
• In addition, we wish to thank
• Don Winford for access to the AA data Cynthia
  Clopper, Mary Beckman, Erik Thomas, Malach
  Yaeger-Dror, and the Changelings and Phonies
  discussion groups for comments that strengthened
  our analysis.
• Funding for this presentation was provided by the
  OSU Department of Linguistics Language Files
  Travel Fund and the OSU Department of Speech and
  Hearing Science Ruth Becky Irwin Fund for Support
  of Student Research.

27
Presentation and Additional Materials

• A draft squib of todays paper, as well as a set
  of normalized and raw Hz plots for both middle
  class and working class speaker data sets, can be
  downloaded at
• http//www.ling.osu.edu/ddurian/AAE