Talk:Ozark English

Merger discussion (continued)

The following is a copied-and-pasted discussion originating on the talk page of Southern American English (and entitled 'Merger from "Ozark English"?') up until the date of 24 December 2016. I performed the copy-and-paste here in the hopes of continuing the discussion on the actual talk page for Ozark English itself, since the merger proposal seems to have been abandoned and yet I think the conversation is important to continue. Please contact me here or directly if you feel I have made a mistake, not properly followed Wikipedia policy, etc. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

At least two of the major articles on the stub Ozark English more or less equate "Ozark English" with "Appalachian English":

• Christian, Wolfram, & Dube (1988). "Variation and Change in Geographically Isolated Communities: Appalachian English and Ozark English"
• Dumas (1999). "Southern Mountain English: The Language of the Ozarks and Southern Appalachia"

I would just go ahead and boldy merge it myself, but I'm a bit stumped by the three merging options: to Southern American English, to Older Southern American English, or to Appalachian English. Any thoughts? Thanks Wolfdog (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ozark English is not the same as (though it's closely related to) Appalachian English. With sufficient work, Ozark English could be expanded to be as extensive as Appalachian English, as sources definitely exist to support such an expansion. I don't see how you conclude that the Christian, et al., book "more or less equate[s]" the two, since even the subtitle clearly speaks of them as different things. Have you read the book? (By the way, I was planning to remove the merge tag from the article in a day or two, since you slapped it on there without actually starting a merge discussion [until now, more than three days later].) Deor (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I was working on other projects. Why do you seem offended? I was reading up on the topic and I've read elsewhere of the similarities too (there seem to be many more similarities than differences), so I was wondering if they were not better placed together. I just quickly mentioned two articles that seemed obviously to point out their commonalities. The Christian et al. discuses the migration of Appalachian natives to the Ozarks, implying that one English may even be a sub-variety of the other. You obviously disagree. But remember: I also gave other merger options. If the page is going to remain so skimpy, maybe it would be more convenient for readers that we merge it into one of the Southern American English pages. Wolfdog (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's OK to revert my edits, but I'd like a little more discussion. Why do none of my merger options seem appropriate to you? Right now, the article is continuing to stand as a stub, which seems inappropriate until it is ready to stand on its own (which I agree it could if someone was willing to do the expansion work). But right now, it seems more convenient to place it elsewhere; for example, it certainly could neatly fall under Southern American English with I feel little controversy, since it demonstrates some of SAE's most advanced characteristics. I'd given you plenty of time to respond to me and you've either preferred to ignore me or not yet responded or what have you, which is fine, except that now you revert my edits almost immediately. Well then: let's continue the discussion please.... Wolfdog (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it's not OK for the article to "stand as a stub". Wikipedia has many articles that are stubs, and these are not routinely merged or deleted. You proposed above that the article be merged, and the only response was my "oppose"; that hardly constitutes any consensus for you to go ahead with the merge. (I reiterate that OE and AE are similar but not identical, so your merger of the former to the latter seems unwarranted.) If you disagree with my reversion of your merger and redirection, I recommend the dispute resolution noticeboard be your next step. Deor (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree with your arguments; just feel a merge would make it less pitiful at this point, and was hoping for some fuller discussion. Wolfdog (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the Ozark English article is a valid stub with potential for expansion. Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the topic is valid, but the question is: does it make more sense to merge it elsewhere? The point of this is not just to "vote," but to discuss. Wolfdog (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Articles describing "Ozark English" seem to be published largely in the 1940s and before, suggesting we are speaking of an older Southern American English. The 2006 Atlas of North American English identifies the Ozark region squarely on the boundary between the Southern and Midland dialects, without highlighting any features unique to only that region. In the first half of the 1900s, however, Ozark English is clearly aligned with Appalachian English of the time, according to any and all sources I can find. All that the more recent ANAE has to say about the modern-day Ozarks is "a recessive merger of /ahr/ and /ohr/: while the general merger has disappeared in most of the Appalachian–Ozarkian region, the function words or and for often remain lower and fronter (closer to /ahr/) than the rest of the /ohr/ class, which has merged with /ohr/" (p. 277; the merger referred to here is what Wikipedia calls the card-cord merger); once more, the ANAE provides evidence that we mean to align the information on this page with (older) Appalachian English. Furthermore, in the index of John C. Wells' seminal 1982 Accents of English, for "Ozarks," we are directed to "see also 'southern mountain'," which Wells clearly centers on Appalachia (p. 527), agreeing with the ANAE that it "form[s] a transition zone between the south and midland dialect areas" (p. 527). World Englishes (2013) says "The Ozark Mountains can be seen as an extension of the Appalachian English dialect" (p. 48), while the much older article "Southern Mountain Dialect" (1948) refers to an Appalachian-Ozark variety as a single dialect with as much slight internal variation as any dialect ("Though fairly consistent in the isolated districts (with which we are mainly concerned), the dialect may vary slightly with the locality, and even from family to family. The four main divisions are the Blue Ridge of Virginia and West Virginia, the Great Smokies of Tennessee and North Carolina, the Cumberlands of Kentucky and Tennessee, and the Ozarks of Arkansas and southern Missouri" [p. 46]). Wolfdog (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Wolfdog, your arguments are sound. You may want to include part of your rationale for merger in the new section as a way to reinforce the reasons why this section should be placed under Appalachian English. They seem valid to me.

Continued merger discussion after 24 December 2016

Having reread my above comment months later (now with strike-through formatting), I realize I'd like to get across the same message but in a cleaner, and more organized form. Here's my attempted rephrasing:

• It is interesting and telling, I believe, that most articles describing "Ozark English" were published in the 1940s and before. Based on this and other evidence, I'd like to argue that "Ozark English" is an extinct or dying dialect. The claim that the unique variety we're calling Ozark English is actually extinct or nearly-extinct is what I'll label as "Claim #1". Furthermore, every single one of these older articles highlights the similarities between Ozark English and Appalachian English (yet none highlights their differences), suggesting the possibility that these two constitute a single dialect. The idea that these two are actually a single dialect is what I'll call "Claim #2". I've also argued that modern (and even perhaps older) Ozark English is a type of Southern American English, which I'll call "Claim #3".
  • The 1948 article "Southern Mountain Dialect", for example, refers to an Appalachian-Ozark variety as a single dialect with as much slight internal variation as any dialect: "Though fairly consistent in the isolated districts (with which we are mainly concerned), the dialect may vary slightly with the locality, and even from family to family. The four main divisions are the Blue Ridge of Virginia and West Virginia, the Great Smokies of Tennessee and North Carolina, the Cumberlands of Kentucky and Tennessee, and the Ozarks of Arkansas and southern Missouri" [p. 46]). This supports Claim #2.
• Here is what the more recent research that I could find has to say on Ozark English:
  • ANAE mentions the term "Ozark(s)" only twice:
    • Referring to the card-cord merger, "while the general merger has disappeared in most of the Appalachian–Ozarkian region, the function words or and for often remain lower and fronter (closer to /ahr/) than the rest of the /ohr/ class, which has merged with /ohr/" (277). This sentence supports both Claims #1 ("disappearance" suggests "extinction") and #2.
    • "The area of the South in which the Southern Shift is most developed is defined as the Inland South[...] an Appalachian region extending across eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and Northern Alabama. [...T]his region was populated by a settlement stream [...] most often identified by cultural geographers as the Upland South. [...] Secondary concentrations of Upland South settlement are the product of further migration to the Ozarks and to east Texas. Map 18.9 indicated that the strongest development of Southern States phonology is found somewhat to the west of this area" (261-2). This supports both Claims #2 and #3.
    • Although the ANAE never again mentions the Ozarks, it shows that region on dialect maps to be located on the borderline between the Southern and Midland dialects, with Springfield, Missouri, for instance, firmly documented as Southern. No findings of the ANAE show the Ozarks to be a glaring sub-regional exception to the Southern (or, possibly, Midland) dialect region. If Springfield really is the "Queen City of the Ozarks", then this supports Claim #3.
  • John C. Wells' 1982 Accents of English list "Ozarks" in the index with a "see also 'southern mountain'". Wells clearly centers "southern mountain" speech on Appalachian and "upland states", which "form a transition zone between the south and midland dialect areas; their southern mountain speech is classified as south midland by Kurath, but popularly regarded as a variety of southern accent" (527). This supports both Claim #2 and #3. (Note, also, that Kurath only took into account dialect lexicology/vocabulary, not dialect phonology.)
  • World Englishes (2013) plainly says "The Ozark Mountains can be seen as an extension of the Appalachian English dialect" (48). This supports Claim #2.

Thanks for reading my points. Wolfdog (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)