R‐Lessness in Post‐Katrina Greater New Orleans
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Sociolinguistics 21/5, 2017: 696–719 Displacement and local linguistic practices: R-lessness in post-Katrina Greater New Orleans1 Katie Carmichael Virginia Tech, Virginia, U.S.A Variable r-lessness in New Orleans English is a salient linguistic feature tied to local place-based identity. In this study, I examine rates of r-lessness in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which caused large-scale displacement in the region. Participants come from the linguistically conservative suburb of Chalmette, where r-lessness is more robust than in New Orleans proper. Participants’ connections to Chalmette were measured in two ways: (1) post-Katrina location status, i.e. whether participants returned or relocated after the storm; (2) place orientation, captured via an ethnographically informed, multifaceted measure of stance and exposure to places outside of Chalmette. Analysis revealed that place orientation better predicts rates of r-lessness than post-Katrina location. I argue that the marked quality of r-lessness makes it available for identity-driven use to express a connection to Chalmette. This study demonstrates one way to account for the linguistic implications of individuals’ shifting allegiances to places they live(d). KEYWORDS: Sociolinguistic variation, place, identity, mobility, displacement, New Orleans English, r-lessness 1. INTRODUCTION Place has long been cited as an explanatory factor for linguistic variation. For instance, research in variationist sociolinguistics and dialect geography has demonstrated how language use across locales can reveal information about settlement patterns, contact, and sociopolitical developments. Likewise, certain regional linguistic variants can tie a speaker to a locale, echoing that place’s particular history and development. But individual places may have contested identities, resulting in varied views on what it means to be ‘from’ there (Modan 2007; Becker 2009). Moreover, speakers may have ties to more than one place, as the global population becomes increasingly mobile in contrast with the targeted NORMs (Non-Mobile Older Rural Males) of early dialectological research (Chambers and Trudgill 1998). As sociolinguists work to improve our © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd R-LESSNESS IN POST-KATRINA NEW ORLEANS 697 models of variation in situations of movement across dialect areas, factors relating to place orientation must be considered. In this study, I employ ethnographic and variationist sociolinguistic methods to examine a white, working-class dialect in Greater New Orleans (GNO). The linguistically conservative GNO suburb where this dialect is spoken, Chalmette, has seen large-scale displacement and reorganization since Hurricane Katrina devastated the region in 2005. To better understand the effects of this movement on linguistic features tied to place, I analyzed the speech of both individuals who returned following the storm (returners), and those who relocated to a different dialect area within GNO (relocators). Here, I report on linguistic data from 57 speakers, examining their rates of r-lessness, or variable absence of post-vocalic /ɹ/. Results demonstrate that overall, (r) patterning cannot be predicted by whether speakers returned or relocated following the storm. It is, however, predicted by a multi-faceted measure of place orientation, developed based on local insights after nine months of ethnographic fieldwork in the area. I propose, in conclusion, that sociolinguists consider including more complex measures of place orientation in models of variation. Engaging more deeply with speakers’ orientation to the places they live(d) would make our models better able to account not only for situations of displacement, but also for situations of immigration, gentrification, and globalization that have formed the focus of much recent sociolinguistic inquiry (e.g. Shin 2012; Newlin-Łukowicz 2015; Sharma and Rampton 2015). As the field has developed more flexible ways of measuring and analyzing identity factors like gender/sexuality (Kiesling 2008; Zimman, Davis and Raclaw 2014) and ethnicity (Benor 2010; Nagy, Chociej and Hoffman 2014), this paper builds upon others (e.g. Johnstone 2004; Becker 2009; Reed 2016) providing evidence that including nuanced treatment of place orientation as an identity factor in models of sociolinguistic variation can similarly improve our ability to account for the variation observed. 1.1 Place and displacement in sociolinguistic research Several foundational variationist studies focus on place in terms of orientation towards local versus extra-local norms. Labov (1972 [1963]) found that Martha’s Vineyard residents producing the highest rates of diphthong centralization were long-term residents that either lived in isolated parts of the island or expressed a strong desire to stay on the island. Milroy’s (1980) analysis of working-class neighborhoods in Belfast demonstrated that speakers with denser social networks – those who interacted with the same groups of people across different spheres – tended to adhere more closely to local linguistic norms. Finally, in Detroit, Eckert (2000) examined high schoolers she dubbed ‘jocks’ and ‘burnouts’ based on participation in school activities and desire to stay within the Detroit area. While jocks attended more to extra- local linguistic norms, burnouts featured higher rates of local Northern City © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 698 CARMICHAEL Shift features, indicating each group’s orientation towards local linguistic norms. More recent research has noted the crucial role of not only local orientation, but also place identity, in linguistic expression. Johnstone’s work on Pittsburghese has shown that, as linguistic features become enregistered and tied to a given place (e.g. Pittsburgh), they become available for performance and commodification, to demonstrate that a given individual aligns themselves with popular notions of being ‘from’ that place (Johnstone, Bhasin and Wittkofski 2002; Johnstone 2009). Of course, not all individuals from a given place agree on what it means to be ‘from there’. Such conflicts about the identity of a locale can impact the linguistic strategies speakers use to construct a sense of place while challenging others’ ideas of their homeplace (cf. Mt. Pleasant in Washington, D.C. [Modan 2007]; the Lower East Side of Manhattan [Becker 2009]). In circumstances of displacement and migration, speakers’ relationships with places can become especially highlighted (Cotter and Horesh 2015). Sometimes these relationships are framed in terms of ethnic identity, especially in the case of immigration and diaspora (Hoffman and Walker 2010; Nagy, Chociej and Hoffman 2014; Newlin-Łukowicz 2015). However, in such contexts ethnicity, heritage, and homeland can become so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable. Most research on displacement and migration is focused on situations where speakers cross oceans or political borders, facing integration into a new community with an unfamiliar culture and tongue (e.g. Schleef, Meyerhoff and Clark 2011; Sharma and Sankaran 2011). These sorts of L2 immigration contexts are fundamentally different from movement across dialectal boundaries within the same country, as issues of intelligibility and citizenship render these contexts hyper-salient for migrant and recipient community alike. For this reason, examination of movement on a smaller scale – across dialect boundaries but not national boundaries, for example – can provide a clearer picture of the subtle ways speakers exploit connections between places and their associated linguistic features. Geographic mobility in and of itself – even if speakers do not permanently relocate across dialect boundaries – has been shown to impact both linguistic production (Meyerhoff and Walker 2007; Urbatsch 2015) and perception (Clopper and Pisoni 2004). Moreover, the very existence of mobile speakers may highlight the ties between certain linguistic features and the places they are most commonly used, providing the opportunity for speakers to agentively produce variants that express orientation to one place or another (Johnstone, Andrus and Danielson 2006; Hazen and Hamilton 2008; Barnes 2016). In second dialect acquisition research, linguistic factors are often the primary focus, and social factors, if included, are typically limited to time spent in different dialect areas, or occasionally social networks (Nycz 2015). Such approaches do not account for personal agency in adhering to linguistic patterns tied to an identity a speaker values – such as being ‘from’ their © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd R-LESSNESS IN POST-KATRINA NEW ORLEANS 699 original dialect area, or being an ‘honorary member’ of their new dialect area. Degree of integration into the linguistic norms of a new location has indeed been shown to be dependent on intangibles, such as: • desire to return to the homeland (Drummond 2012); • development of positive relationships with individuals in the new speech community (Lybeck 2002); and • awareness of certain linguistic features being tied to social capital (Solomon 1999; Meyerhoff and Walker 2007; Hazen and Hamilton 2008; Cho 2012). Thus, a number of extralinguistic factors influence one’s orientation towards homeplace versus new terrains, and also the ways those ties are expressed linguistically. A goal in this study was to capture relevant factors that contribute to participants’ place orientation and to create a measurable scale of (extra-)local orientation that could be included in statistical analyses of