Apart and yet a part: Social 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

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).

Goals for Today’s 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.

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 it ’ s 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).

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).

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

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)

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

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 ) and Younger (born c )  African American fieldworkers interviewed AAs  European American fieldworkers interviewed EAs

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))

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

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.

Mid-to-late 20th Century Columbus Speech  Today ’ s 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 ); Younger (born c )  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

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

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

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  , Desegregation Voluntary  , Busing in Effect  Much higher face-to-face daily contact among black and white talkers during “busing era” as a result

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.

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?

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

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.

Presentation and Additional Materials A draft squib of today’s 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: