“Yah for yes is ok”: Ideological Functions and Meanings of Yah [jɑː] in Two Heritage Language Communities Kathryn Remlinger, Grand Valley State University Elizabeth Peterson, University of Helsinki This presentation explores a ubiquitous yet curiously under-investigated variable feature in North
American English: affirmation markers, or in other words, particles that express the semantic
meaning ‘yes.’ At this point in our study, we compare and contrast two different US speech
communities which both exhibit variation of the forms yah (pronounced [jɑː]), yeah ([jæə]) and yes.
Our main research question concerns the ideological functions and meanings of yah, particularly in
relation to regional identity and processes affecting varying levels of its enregisterment. The communities under investigation are Sanpete County, Utah, and Houghton County, Michigan.
The European/White settlement of Sanpete County comprised a majority of immigrants from
Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, who displaced mostly Ute/Paiute people. About 25,000
Scandinavians migrated to Utah from about 1850 to 1920, with the highest density per capita
settling in Sanpete County. Prior to European and white settlement, the population was mostly
Paiute and Ute peoples. Likewise, the indigenous Ojibwe population of the County was displaced
by Finnish, German, Italian, Cornish, and French Canadian immigrants as well as settlers from the
Midwest and East Coast of the U.S. From the mid-1800s to the 1920s, Houghton County was a
multilingual community with newspapers printed in six different languages. Today, however, the
community is primarily monolingual English. Both regions exhibit use of yah as a means of
expressing agreement, among other discourse functions. The focus of this presentation takes a qualitative approach to our data and data collection, primarily
relying on linguistic landscape, sociocultural linguistics, and sociolinguistics methodologies. The
main theoretical approaches we apply to the study are language ideology (Gal and Irvine 2000) and
enregisterment (Agha 2003). Data has been obtained through sociolinguistic interviews (with 21
individuals in Sanpete County and 75 in the UP), photographic documentation in both locations, as
well as archival and historical written data. So far, our work has indicated varying levels of enregisterment in the two locations. In the UP, yah
has emerged as an important marker of local identity, commodified on bumper stickers and various
tourist items. At the same time, it retains its use as a productive feature of everyday spoken
discourse. In Sanpete County, yah is at earlier stages of enregisterment, for example being a topic of
conversation about local identity, but it is not commodified. By combining and comparing findings in two distinct locations, we aim to add to our understanding
of the ideological functions of enregistered features, in particular, those that mark local and ethnic
identities, identities that often, but not always, overlap. Future research includes an examination of
the different pragmatic and discursive functions of yah and an apparent age-graded change among
the three affirmation markers.
Agha, Asif. 2003. “The Social Life of a Cultural Value.” Language & Communication 23 (3): 231–73. Gal, Susan and Judith T. Irvine. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Regimes of
Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, edited by Paul V. Kroskrity, 35–84. Santa Fe: School of
American Research Press.
| Period | 6 Oct 2021 → 9 Oct 2021 |
|---|
| Event title | Workshop on Immigrant Languages in the Americas 12 |
|---|
| Event type | Conference |
|---|
| Conference number | 12 |
|---|
| Location | Helsinki, FinlandShow on map |
|---|
| Degree of Recognition | International |
|---|