On the nature of isolated and post‐isolated dialects: Innovation, variation and differentiation
The investigation of two historically isolated communities in the United States, Smith Island, Maryland, and the Lumbee Native American community in Robeson County, North Carolina, demonstrates that, contrary to assumption, isolated communities may be linguistically innovative and heterogeneous. Exp...
| Published in: | Journal of Sociolinguistics |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2002
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00177 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2F1467-9481.00177 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9481.00177 |
| Summary: | The investigation of two historically isolated communities in the United States, Smith Island, Maryland, and the Lumbee Native American community in Robeson County, North Carolina, demonstrates that, contrary to assumption, isolated communities may be linguistically innovative and heterogeneous. Explanations are both cognitive and social. Speakers in isolated communities are not subject to the leveling pressure that comes with exposure to heterogeneous usage norms and so are free to retain intra‐dialectal variation and carry through internal innovations. In addition, the close‐knit networks that characterize isolated communities allow for the transmission of intricate patterns of intra‐community variation, while the inward focus of such communities heightens the social semiotic importance of this variation. The present study also shows that as communities emerge from historic isolation, they do not necessarily succumb to leveling pressure. Instead, speakers’ desire to retain cultural distinctiveness may enable them to retain and even enhance their linguistic distinctiveness. |
|---|