What sparked my interest about Chapter 5 actually happened quite early in the chapter. In section 5.2 on page 128 while talking about mapping regional variants it mentioned how some of the earlier computerized cartographic maps, including DARE maps, displayed states based on population density rather than geographical area. Because of this, a state like Texas which is geographically large, appeared smaller than New York. Personally, I would have never thought that this could happen. I've always assumed that every state had a fairly even amount of regional variants, and if anything, I thought that bigger states had more than smaller states. In retrospect however, it does make sense, as areas with higher population density act as melting pots where people are exposed to so many other cultures that they eventually lose their linguistic purity. So, while it does make sense, I am still hung up on the fact that it's Texas we're talking about. As Texas is on the Mexican border I would have thought there would have been a similar amount of regional variants compared to somewhere like New York. So, as a question to the rest of the class, do you think this is because Texas is only dealing with two main cultural groups while New York has multiple cultural groups within it (Even though each group individually within New York likely isn't as big as the Hispanic/Mexican culture in Texas)?[P.S. it should be noted that everything I stated is pure speculation, I am not educated on Texas demographics or New York demographics...]
This is definitely interesting! Honestly, I would have thought the same as you. At surface level, it would make more sense for bigger states to have more regional variation. With this, I thought of what I learned from my linguistic biography. I interviewed my friend Marija, who is originally from Latvia. When I asked her if there was much in the way of dialects in the Latvian language, she said that there really weren't any, except for something called Lapgaliski, over which there is debate on whether it is its own minor language or simply a dialect. The reason that she gave for the lack of regional variation was the incredibly small size of the country. She explained that Latvia is so tiny that there is not much opportunity for regional variation. When we apply this to Texas and New York, this should mean that Texas has more regional diversity, but as you pointed out, this is not the case. Perhaps this is because Latvia does not have much ethnic diversity (really only Latvian and Russian), and it is the combination of small size and little diversity that prevents regional variation. By contrast, Texas receives diversity in the way of Hispanic immigrants, and New York receives diversity in the way of a wide variety of immigrants to NYC. This wide variety for NYC likely accounts for the greater regional diversity. Think about Chinatown, for example. The Chinese community in New York City has created such a distinct culture, one that is neither distinctly American nor distinctly Chinese, but rather a fusion of the two. Hence, a particular dialect is sure to exist here. I am thinking also of the role Ellis Island could play here. Obviously, this brought immigrants from all around Europe to NYC, and there are still traces of its consequences, for example with the establishment of Little Italy. Hence, highly particular and diversified dialects exist in New York because of its history and the way it informs its present and its future.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this and think I agree with you and the point that New York just has more cultures within it resulting in more mixing (like you mentioned with neighborhoods like China Town and Little Italy). I appreciate you mentioning your friend Marija as well, her story is a really interesting parallel to this.
DeleteI did a little googling to figure out some of the variants and got very confused very quickly. To help the rest of you avoid this confusion the population of Texas has gone up since the 1960's (the time the the first computerized maps were created). The population of New York state has stayed much the same, only raising slightly. There are a lot of reasons for this, some that I can think of would be a lot of oil companies like BP have major offices down there. There is also a lot of immigration from the Mexican border. Texas also has more land area than New York.
ReplyDeleteThank you for doing the research I probably should have done. If I'm being honest, I tried to look stuff up and got very confused very fast just as you did so I applaud you for sticking with it.
DeleteWow--yeah--this is interesting. Everything you assumed, I did, too. I think that what you hypothesized, though, makes complete sense. New York has many more ethic groups/cultures (though it is smaller), and Texas, though bigger, is more concentrated, thus resulting in less regional variants.
ReplyDeleteThink of this.
ReplyDeleteNew York has everyone who is coming in and the families of everyone who has come in through New York Harbor, one of the busiest ports in the world. That's going to create a lot of variation. In Texas, there are two main groups; latin american, mostly Mexican, and American, meaning U.S. natives with mostly U.S. ancestry. These two groups definitely do mix to an extent, but there is a fair amount of animosity between them, which hampers that mixture. In New York much of the former animosity and stigma has faded over time.
Really interesting to bring up. I have been in the same boat and it just seems like Texas would consist of a bigger population and regional variation. Yet, when you think of the pure amount of people who are attracted to New York, it doesn’t surprise me. New York brings in people from absolutely everywhere in the world and is a major hub culturally. No wonder the living expense in New York is so darn high, they pack them in like sardines. On the other hand, Texas is still growing and prospering just not at the same rate. I guess everything isn’t bigger in Texas.
ReplyDeleteGood job, Eli. You brought up the DARE maps, which are pretty weird-looking, but oh-so fascinating. Good comments and good moderating, too.
ReplyDelete