The effect of borders on the linguistic production and perception of regional identity in Louisville, Kentucky

A great deal of scholarly research has addressed the issue of dialect mapping in the United States. These studies, usually based on phonetic or lexical items, aim to present an overall picture of the dialect landscape. But what is often missing in these types of projects is an attention to the borders of a dialect region and to what kinds of identity alignments can be found in such areas. This lack of attention to regional and dialect border identities is surprising, given the salience of such borders for many Americans. This salience is also ignored among dialectologists, as nonlinguists‟ perceptions and attitudes have been generally assumed to be secondary to the analysis of “real” data, such as the phonetic and lexical variables used in traditional dialectology. Louisville, Kentucky is considered as a case study for examining how dialect and regional borders in the United States impact speakers‟ linguistic acts of identity, especially the production and perception of such identities. According to Labov, Ash, and Boberg (2006), Louisville is one of the northernmost cities to be classified as part of the South. Its location on the Ohio River, on the political and geographic border between Kentucky and Indiana, places Louisville on the isogloss between Southern and Midland dialects. Through an examination of language attitude surveys, mental maps, focus group interviews, and production data, I show that identity alignments in borderlands are neither simple nor straightforward. Identity at the border is fluid, complex, and dynamic; speakers constantly negotiate and contest their identities. The analysis shows the ways in which Louisvillians shift between Southern and non-Southern identities, in the active and agentive expression of their amplified awareness of belonging brought about by their position on the border.

Changing Road Signs in Israel: Production and Perception

In Palestine/Israel the struggle to control the land and the people is not merely conducted through physical violence. More subtle attempts for controlling the region and labeling it as belonging for one side rather than the other are implemented. This paper focuses on an Israeli suggestion to change the orthography of city names on road signs so that they are transliterations of the Hebrew name of the city. This one event, the Israeli suggestion to change city names on road signs, is represented to the public by two competing, and mostly opposing, discourses. This paper uses critical discourse analysis to analyze four articles, two of which are written by Arabic media sources, and the other two are written by Israeli ones. This analysis is paired with a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the reactions of participants of different political affiliations to chosen excerpts of the articles. The paper aims at showing how one event is represented differently through different discourses, and how people who are affected be specific discourses react to them.