Digging up the roots of Southern American English: On Michael Montgomery and Connie Eble’s “Historical perspectives on the pen/pin merger in Southern American English”

Author(s):  
Guy Bailey
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ellis

Since April 2015 is the sesquicentennial of the end of the Civil War, now is a particularly appropriate time to review the progress of the Corpus of American Civil War Letters (CACWL) project and to suggest directions it might go in the future. Since 2007, we have located and collected images of nearly 11,000 letters and transcribed over 9,000 of these, totaling well over four million words. Of the transcribed letters, just over 6,000 were written by southerners (490 individual letter writers), a corpus extensive enough to begin identifying and describing what features were distinctively Southern in 19th-century American English. We have already mapped many of these features that are especially common in southern letters, for example, fixing to, howdy, past tense/past participle hope ‘helped’, qualifier tolerable, intensifier mighty, pronoun hit, and the noun heap. By way of comparison, we also have a somewhat smaller but rapidly growing collection of 3,000 transcribed letters written by individuals from northern states, and variant features from these letters are also being mapped. The work at present is very preliminary; there are thousands of additional letters to be collected and transcribed, particularly from northern states and from states west of the Mississippi. However, by mapping variants from letters that have already been transcribed, we can begin to get a better understanding of regional differences, as well as how regional features spread westward in the decades before the Civil War. We can also begin to obtain some sense of how American English in general, and particularly its regional dialects, may have changed since the mid 19th century. This article presents a preview of a number of those findings.


2017 ◽  
Vol 142 (4) ◽  
pp. 2678-2678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abby Walker ◽  
Amy Southall ◽  
Rachel Hargrave

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 729-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
EWA JACEWICZ ◽  
ROBERT ALLEN FOX

ABSTRACTSpeech intelligibility in a multitalker background can be affected by the language of both the talker and the interfering speech. This study investigated whether this interaction is modulated by dialect variations of the same language. American English listeners were presented with target sentences in either their own General American English (GAE) or a different accent (Southern American English [SAE]) masked by either GAE or SAE two-talker babble at three sound to noise ratios (SNRs): +3, 0, and –3 dB. All speech materials were produced by male talkers. Across all conditions, SAE target was more intelligible than GAE. Intelligibility of either target decreased as the level of the interfering babble noise increased. Target accent interacted with masking accent: at +3 dB SNR, GAE (and not SAE) was the more effective masker. The target-masker interaction was different as listening conditions deteriorated: at 0 and –3 dB SNR, masking accent did not affect GAE target, but when the target was SAE, the SAE masker (and not GAE) was more effective. Thus, at increased noise levels, listeners benefited from the mismatch between the target and masking accents only when the target was in a nonnative accent. These results demonstrate that dialect variation can influence listeners’ performance in a multitalker environment. The apparent asymmetry in intelligibility of accents may be in part related to dialect-specific prosodic and phonetic features.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Bailey ◽  
Jan Tillery

Language ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 188
Author(s):  
Glenn G. Gilbert ◽  
James B. McMillan ◽  
Michael B. Montgomery

Author(s):  
Youssef A. Haddad

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:Personal dative constructions (PDCs) are problematic from a syntactic perspective because they seem to violate Condition B of Binding Theory without leading to ungrammaticality. Condition B states that a pronoun should be locally free. Therefore, by allowing a pronoun to be coreferential with a local c-commanding antecedent, PDCs are expected to induce a violation, but they don’t. How can syntactic theory account for these facts in a principled way? I explore two approaches, focusing on Southern American English and Lebanese Arabic, both of which indicate that PDCs fall outside the constraints of Binding Theory, which explains why their realization as free pronouns does not lead to ungrammaticality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document