Discussion Details
| Title: | Isoglosses and the Midland |
| Submitter: | Tom Kun |
| Description: | I have two questions, pertaining to an article I just read which was
apparently written by Charles-James Bailey (http://www.orlapubs.com/AL/L31.html). My first question would be, why is the concept of isoglosses still used if it's so inaccurate? And second, is there any kind of consensus of the concept of a Midland in the US? Kurath defined a ''North Midland'' (north of the Ohio River) and a ''South Midland'' (Appalachians). Carver labeled those regions ''Lower North'' and ''Upper South.'' The forthcoming Atlas of North American English (Labov, Boberg, Ash) limits the Midland to the North Midland and makes the South Midland part of the South (I think that's the best definition, considering the Northern and Southern vowel shifts). Bailey calls the Midland ''mythology'' and ''one of the worst flights of fancy in linguistics.'' |
| Date Posted: | 05-Mar-2005 |
| Linguistic Field(s): | Sociolinguistics |
| LL Issue: | 16.655 |
| Posted: | 05-Mar-2005 |
