Local Orientation and Local-Sounding Speech in Pittsburgh: Complicating the Picture

80 sociolinguistic interviews in Pittsburgh, PA are used to explore the relationships between two phonological features and speakers’ “local orientation.” One of these features sounds local to Pittsburghers; the other does not. If speakers use features that sound local to them to index local orientation, and if they do not use features that do not sound local for this purpose, then we should find a positive correlation between /aw/-monophthongization and local orientation, but not between /l/-vocalization and local orientation. We also hypothesize that some of the differences in the usage of these features associated with other sociodemographic variables can be explained in terms of local orientation in the case of /aw/-monophthongization, but not in the case of /l/-vocalization.

Overview

“local variants”Recent work on the distribution of geographically localized variants explores how the use of “local” variants might be explained in terms of speakers’ orientations to the places where such variants occur. In some of this work, local variants are defined as variants occurring in a physically bounded geographical area. Johnstone (2004) suggests that places are better seen as cultural/discursive constructs, arising out of repeated ways of experiencing and talking about physical spaces. Eckert (1996, 2004) shows how sociolinguistic variation can be recruited into this process. Phonological variants that come to point to and help to construct place need not even be variants that are geographically bounded in a physical sense. Thus in order to identify the variants that can be used to index local orientation, we must do ethnographic, discourse analytic, and perceptual work to find out which features in fact sound local to the speakers in question.

“Sounds Local”

Our hypotheses were not categorically refuted, but neither were they confirmed. A summary of findings:

For (aw), local orientation factors (LOFs) did not replace demographic factors. Moreover, the LOFs that measured lifestyle rather than attitude towards Pittsburgh were those that predict (aw). This suggests that the role of identity orientation is not as strong as we believed. In other words, it’s not about Pittsburgh, it’s about choices about how to live: (class-based) practices, not (identity-based) attitude.Different LOFs did not have the same effect on (l-voc) and (aw). More factors were chosen for (aw) than (l-voc), and the factors chosen for (aw) show stronger effects. These results partially support our hypothesis that (l-voc) would not correlate with LOFs, while (aw) would.Many LOFs did not pattern as expected for both variables. For (aw), “Attitude to Pittsburgh” favors the ‘nonlocal’ variant as attitude becomes more positive toward Pittsburgh.For (l-voc), “Location of college,” “consumption practices,” “Leisure activities,” and “Attitude to Pittsburgh” all show a negative correlation between ‘localness’ and vocalization.The local category that has the most effect for both variables is at the extreme non-local end of the scale, but this category does not have a uniform effect.The neighborhood factor in (aw) is unexpected; Cranberry is the most suburban and non-Pittsburgh. However, the raw percentages have it as the least vocalizing. LOFs could account for this discrepancy

Local Identity or Local Practice?

Scott F. Kiesling (University of Pittsburgh) Jennifer Andrus, Neeta Bhasin, and Barbara Johnstone 

(Carnegie Mellon University)

/aw/-monophthongization sounds local to Pittsburghers. Monophthongal /aw/ is mentioned far more often than any other feature in lists of features of “Pittsburghese,” used more in stylized imitations, and drawn on more in descriptions of local identity. In a perception task 72% said that the guise with the monophthongal variant sounded more “like the way a Pittsburgher would say it.”/l/-vocalization does not sound local to Pittsburghers. Vocalized /l/ is almost never mentioned in lists of features of “Pittsburghese,” used in stylized imitations, or drawn on descriptions of local identity. In a perception task, only 3 of 32 respondents could hear a difference between the two guises, and only 2 said that the guise with the vocalized variant sounded more “like the way a Pittsburgher would say it.”

What is “Local Orientation?”

Exte

rnal

 Fac

tors

 for (

l­voc

)

[stIwrz]OccupationSkilled 0.33Clerical 0.52Unskilled 0.54Professional 0.57

SWPA NativeNative 0.46Non-native 0.82

NeighborhoodLawrenceville 0.40Forest Hills 0.50Cranberry 0.61

1 2 3 4 50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Life Experience

Location of college

Leisure activities

Attitude to Pittsburgh

Attitude to being a Pittsburgher

Local Consumption

Less local Local Orientation More local

Voc

aliz

ed

N

on-V

ocal

ized

Exte

rnal

 Fac

tors

 for (

aw)

[da:nta:n]1 2 3 4 5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Life Experience

Location of college

Location of Education

Work

Leisure activities

Attitude to Pittsburgh

Attitude to Neighborhood

Being a Pittsburgher

Identify as Pittsburgher

Consumption

Less local Local Orientation More local

Mon

opht

hong

D

ipht

hong

NeighborhoodCranberry 0.44Forest Hills 0.46Lawrenceville 0.58

Year of BirthBefore 1925 0.191926-1945 0.301946-1965 0.541965-1985 0.71After 1985 0.82

In addition to being assigned to a category in each of the customary sociolinguistic variables – age, gender, neighborhood, and so on -- each speaker was assigned a “local orientation score” on the ba-sis of the following categories of measures. The relevant information was elicited in the interview.

Demography: How much of the speaker’s life experience is local or tied to local institutions? (6 measures)

Lifestyle/Consumption: How local are the choices they make about what to do with their time, what to buy, whether to follow local news and sports events? (at least 2 measures)

Attitude: How do they say they feel about lo-cal people and places? (5 measures)

While it still needs refinement, this way of mea-suring local identity has the advantage of com-bining the traditional demographic approach to identity with a sociological approach to identity based on social practice and one drawn from so-cial-psychological research on language atti-tudes.

Further analysis will consider the possibility that the unexpected pat-terns are due to conflicting atti-tudes among subgroups in the speech community. Younger speakers orient differently to (aw) than older speakers; analyses of these groups separately might show different attitude patterns.We will also consider to what ex-tent the questions asked to mea-sure LO (and the coding proce-dure) are valid measures.

EducationBA 0.32HS 0.46HS or less 0.49Post-BA 0.58Some college 0.72

OccupationUnskilled 0.20Clerical 0.42Skilled 0.58Professional 0.64

SWPA NativeNative 0.46Non-native 0.84

Low weight = more monophthongization

Low weight = more vocalization

Further Questions

Local Orientation Factors

Local Orientation Factors