This article explores the sociolinguistic history of a U.S. city. On the basis of historical research, ethnography, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistic interviews, the authors describe how a set of linguistic features that were once not noticed at all, then used and heard primarily as markers of socioeconomic class, have come to be linked increasingly to place and “enregistered” as a dialect called “Pittsburghese.” To explain how this has come about, the authors draw on the semiotic concept of “orders of indexicality.” They suggest that social and geographical mobility during the latter half of the twentieth century has played a crucial role in the process. They model a particularistic approach to linguistic and ideological change that is sensitive not only to ideas about language that circulate in the media but also to the life experiences of particular speakers; and they show how an understanding of linguistic variation, language attitudes, and the stylized performance of dialect is enhanced by exploring the historical and ideological processes that make resources for these practices available.
Agha, Asif. 2003. The social life of a cultural value. Language & Communication23:231-273.
2.
Auer, Peter, Frans Hinskens, and Paul Kerswill, eds. 2005. Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Beal, Joan C. 1999. “Geordie Nation”: Language and regional identity in the north-east of England. Paper presented at Methods X (Tenth Conference on Methods in Dialectology), St. John, Newfoundland, Canada.
4.
Bernhard, Andrew. 1959. Pittsburgh speech has its own differences. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 14, p. 2-2.
5.
Brown, Cynthia. 1982. A search for sound change: A look at the lowering of tense vowels before liquids in the Pittsburgh area. MA thesis, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. 1985. Dictionary of American regional English. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. 1991. Dictionary of American regional English. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. 1996. Dictionary of American regional English. Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Coupland, Nikolas. 2001. Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society30:345-375.
11.
Gagnon, Christina L. 1999. Language attitudes in Pittsburgh: “Pittsburghese” vs. Standard English. MA Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
12.
Gal, Susan, and Judith Irvine. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines. Social Research62:967-1001.
13.
Gleason, David. 1965. That's what you said. Pittsburgh Press, May 30, p. 3-3.
14.
Gleason, David. 1967. Strictly Pittsburghese: Only in western Pennsylvania do you hear ‘gum band,’ and ‘needs washed’. Pittsburgh Press, June 18, p. 3-3.
15.
Hall, Joan Houston, ed. 2003. Dictionary of American regional English. Vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Hankey, Clyde T.1965. Miscellany: “Tiger,” “tagger,” and [a] in western Pennsylvania; diphthongal variants of [∊] and [æ] in western Pennsylvania. American Speech40:226-229.
17.
Hankey, Clyde T.1972. Notes on west Penn-Ohio phonology. In Studies in linguistics in honor of Raven IMcDavid, Jr., ed. L. M. Davis, 49-61. University: University of Alabama Press.
18.
Hays, S. P., ed. 1989. City at the point: Essays on the social history of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
19.
Hill, Jane H.1995. Junk Spanish, covert racism and the (leaky) boundary between public and private spheres. Pragmatics5:197-212.
20.
Johnstone, Barbara. 1996. The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Johnstone, Barbara. 1999a. Lingual biography and linguistic variation. Language Sciences21:313-321.
22.
Johnstone, Barbara. 1999b. Uses of southern speech by contemporary Texas women. In “Styling the ‘Other,’” ed. Ben Rampton, theme issue,Journal of Sociolinguistics3:505-522.
23.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2000a. The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology29:405-424.
24.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2000b. Representing American speech. American Speech75 (Diamond Anniversary Essays): 390-392.
25.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2004. Place, globalization, and linguistic variation. In Sociolinguistic variation: Critical reflections, ed. C. Fought, 65-83. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2005. How to speak like a Pittsburgher: Exploring the role of a folk dictionary in the production of a dialect. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, New York.
27.
Johnstone, Barbara. Forthcoming-a. Linking identity and dialect though stancetaking. In Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity in interaction, ed. R. Englebretson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
Johnstone, Barbara. Forthcoming-b. A new role for narrative in variationist sociolinguistics. In “Narrative Inquiry: State of the Art,” ed. Michael Bamberg, special issue, Narrative Inquiry.
29.
Johnstone, Barbara, Jennifer Andrus, Dan Baumgardt, Anna M. Schardt, and Scott Kiesling. 2004. Whose social meaning? Pittsburgh monophthongal /aw/ in perception and production. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 33, Ann Arbor, MI.
30.
Johnstone, Barbara, and Dan Baumgardt. 2004. “Pittsburghese” online: Vernacular norming in conversation. American Speech79:115-145.
31.
Johnstone, Barbara, Neeta Bhasin, and Denise Wittkofski. 2002. “Dahntahn Pittsburgh”: Monophthongal /aw/ and representations of localness in southwestern Pennsylvania. American Speech77:148-166.
32.
Johnstone, Barbara, and Andrew Danielson. 2001. “Pittsburghese” in the daily papers, 1910-2001: Historical sources of ideology about variation. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 30, Raleigh, NC.
33.
Kiesling, Scott F., and Marc Wisnosky. 2003. Competing norms, heritage prestige, and the decline of /aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Poster presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 32, Philadelphia.
34.
Kurath, Hans. 1949. A word geography of the eastern United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35.
Kurath, Hans, and Raven I. McDavid. 1961. The pronunciation of English in the Atlantic states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36.
Labov, William. 1972a. Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In Sociolinguistic patterns, 122-142. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
37.
Labov, William. 1972b. On the mechanism of linguistic change. In Sociolinguistic patterns, 160-182. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
38.
Labov, William. 1991. The three dialects of English. In New ways of analyzing sound change, ed. P. Eckert, 1-44. New York: Academic Press.
39.
Labov, William, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg. 2005. Atlas of North American English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
40.
Lubove, R.1969. Twentieth century Pittsburgh. Vol. 1,Government, business and environmental change. New York: John Wiley.
41.
McCool, Sam. 1982. Sam McCool's new Pittsburghese: How to speak like a Pittsburgher. Pittsburgh, PA: Hayford.
42.
McDavid, Raven I., et al. 1980. Linguistic atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic states. 2-2Fascicles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
McElhinny, Bonnie. 1999. More on the third dialect of English: Linguistic constraints on the use of three phonological variables in Pittsburgh. Language Variation and Change11:171-195.
44.
McGough, Michael. 1973. Pitsburghers have a dialect all their own. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 15, p. 1-1.
45.
Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and social networks. 2nd ed.Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
46.
Milroy, Lesley. ed. 2002. Investigating change and variation through dialect contact. Theme issue,Journal of sociolinguistics6 (1): 3-130
47.
Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1985. Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
48.
Modell, Judith. 1999. A town without steel: Envisioning Homestead. With photographs by Charlee Brodsky. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
49.
Oestreicher, Richard. 1989. Working-class formation, development, and consciousness in Pittsburgh, 1790-1960. In City at the point: Essays on the social history of Pittsburgh, ed. S. P. Hayes, 111-150. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
50.
Pitz, Marilynne. 2001. Patter, patois, or pidgin, it's the talk of the town. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 11.
51.
Preston, Dennis R.1989. Perceptual dialectology. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
52.
Preston, Dennis R., and Nancy Niedzielski. 1999. Folk linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53.
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 1998. Investigating “self-conscious” speech: The performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in Society27:53-83.
54.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976/1995. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Language, culture, and society: A book of readings, ed. B. G. Blount, 187-221. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
55.
Silverstein, Michael. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology27:401-426.
56.
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication23:193-229.
57.
Silverstein, Michael. 2004. “Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current Anthropology45:621-652.
58.
Swetnam, George. 1959. Pittsburgh patois. Pittsburgh Press, September 6, p. 4-4.
59.
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex and covert prestige: Linguistic change in the urban dialect of Norwich. Language in Society1:179-195.
60.
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
61.
Wolfram, Walt. 2003. On the construction of vernacular dialect norms. In Sociolinguistics: The essential readings, ed. Christina Bratt Paulston and G. Richard Tucker, 251-271. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
