NATIVE AMERICAN ENGLISH IN OKLAHOMA: ATTITUDES AND VITALITY By JUSTIN TITUS MCBRIDE Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma 1999 Master of Arts in English, Option in Teaching English as a Second Language Oklahoma State University Tulsa, Oklahoma 2009 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 2015 NATIVE AMERICAN ENGLISH IN OKLAHOMA: ATTITUDES AND VITALITY Dissertation Approved: Dennis Preston Dissertation Adviser Nancy Caplow Carol Moder Laurie Schick Shelia Kennison ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my wonderful family—near and far, biological and otherwise—for their emotional, spiritual, intellectual, financial, and at times even physical support during my graduate studies. I am honored to share the earth with you all. Thanks go out in particular to my wife Amanda and to my daughter Maya who mean more to me than even music. Second, I would like to thank the individual members of my committee for their encouragement and inspiration. Dennis Preston, thank you for believing in me at every turn, for helping me to find my scholarly niche, for providing shelter from oh so many storms (including several of my own creation), for untold hours of good conversation, and for more than a couple of delicious meals. Nancy Caplow, thank you for being a calm, rational, and intelligent influence and also for exhibiting genuine concern for my wellbeing. Carol Moder, thank you for demonstrating unwavering faith in my abilities and for always challenging me to do my best, even when I was not sure what that might be. Laurie Schick, thank you for always encouraging me to follow my own line of thought, for guiding me through my master’s program and into my doctoral studies, for helping me to see what is and what is not important along the way, and for being a most excellent friend. And, Shelia Kennison, thank you not only for your advice and expertise, but also for encouraging Amanda and me to take an active interest in language research way back in our OU days; that is surely where this all began. Third, I would like to thank my research participants, many of whom invited me into their lovely homes and offered me much gracious generosity. It was a blessing from the Creator to speak with each one of you. I wish you well in all of your endeavors. Ahó! Fourth, I would like to thank my many, many friends from my time at the Kaw Nation who have always been so welcoming, so encouraging, and so important to me. I struggle daily to live up to your example of goodness. Zaáni kóya wíta, wíblahaⁿ. I especially thank the late Robert Rankin for, well, everything. I dedicate this dissertation to you, sir. Finally, I want to thank my OSU family, without whom this work would not be possible. Thanks are due to Gene Halleck for constant guidance and care, the late Ravi Sheorey for wit and encouragement, and Phillip Weirich for hours of great conversation and invaluable help with my maps. Thanks also to my many friends here whose names I just do not have the room to include. Your friendship kept me going through my studies, even when I was unsure of myself. Last but not least, I owe a debt of gratitude to the Graduate College for awarding me both the Robberson Trust Summer Research Fellowship and the Research Excellence award. I am deeply honored to have been selected for both. iii Acknowledgements reflect the views of the author and are not endorsed by committee members or Oklahoma State University. Name: JUSTIN TITUS MCBRIDE Date of Degree: MAY, 2015 Title of Study: NATIVE AMERICAN ENGLISH IN OKLAHOMA: ATTITUDES AND VITALITY Major Field: ENGLISH, SPECIALIZATION IN LINGUISTICS Abstract: This study offers an assessment of the subjective ethnolinguistic vitality (SEV) of Native American-accented English varieties—or just Native American English (NAE)—among tribal people in Oklahoma through an investigation of the linguistic attitudes of several individual members of the NAE speech community. The mixed-methods assessment involves (a) the thematic analysis of ethnographic interviews about language variety use, (b) the aggregation of responses to a perceptual dialectological mapping task, and (c) the statistical analysis of responses to a computer-mediated SEV survey. Vitality is measured in terms of Native Americans’ perceptions about several speech and ethnic community pairings. These pairings include tribal heritage languages among tribal groups, NAE among the supratribal Native American community within the state, and mainstream U.S. English (MUSE) in the broader Oklahoma mainstream. Twenty-seven mixed-blood Native Americans from across the state ranging from eighteen to seventy-six years of age and claiming various tribal backgrounds participated in this study. Through comparative analysis of collective and individual results from the methodologies employed, NAE is shown to be a vital but domain-specific, geographically-clustered, and highly informal variety of English within its Oklahoma speech community. While comparatively less vital than MUSE, NAE is perceived by study participants as more vital than tribal heritage languages. As such, it indexes and helps to establish a common Native American ethnicity in the state. However, attitudes toward NAE entail numerous conflicts in Oklahoma’s Native American community, including perceptions of it having both positive and negative aspects, as well as both authentic and inauthentic status, and of it indexing both Native American and mainstream social expectations about its users. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 1.1 Opening Remarks...............................................................................................1 1.2 Organization .......................................................................................................2 1.3 Terminology .......................................................................................................3 1.4. Native Ethnicity, Social Identity, and Language Varieties ...............................3 1.5 NAE in Scholarship and Communities ..............................................................8 1.6 Purpose .............................................................................................................11 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................12 2.1 Organizational Overview .................................................................................12 2.2 Native American English .................................................................................16 2.3 The Oklahoma Connection ..............................................................................27 2.4 Language Regard and Folk Linguistics ...........................................................32 2.4.1 Attitudes and the language regard model. ...............................................32 2.4.2 A folk linguistic approach. .....................................................................36 2.5 Ideologies and Communities ............................................................................37 2.5.1 Definition. ...............................................................................................39 2.5.2 Multiplicity of sets. ................................................................................40 2.5.3 Multiplicity of analytical levels. .............................................................44 2.5.4 Multiplicity of relationships. ...................................................................47 2.5.5 Multiplicity of tenets. .............................................................................49 2.6 Ethnolinguistic Identity and Vitality ................................................................52 2.6.1 Available repertoires and ethnolinguistic identities. ...............................60 2.6.2 Vitality metaphors. ..................................................................................62 2.7 Language Variation in Minority Populations ..................................................64 2.8 Summary ..........................................................................................................67 2.9 Looking Forward to Method and Expectations of Findings ............................69 III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................72 3.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................72 3.1.1 Organization ............................................................................................73 v Chapter Page 3.2 Overview ..........................................................................................................73 3.3 Population and Sample ....................................................................................74 3.3.1. Overview ................................................................................................74 3.3.2 Recruitment .............................................................................................77 3.4 Materials ..........................................................................................................79 3.4.1 Interview materials..................................................................................79