Friday, July 29, 2005


The question which the following paper attempts to answer is concerned with whether or not speakers of Appalachian English are impeded in acquiring literacy skills as a result of the structure of their own nonstandard dialect. In other words, is it more difficult to attain reading skills when the student speaks a dialect that is so structurally different from the standard dialect of the reading materials from which the student is learning? When I originally developed this question, I hypothesized that Appalachian students would indeed have a more difficult time in learning to read Standard American English because of the different structure of their dialect; however, according to the research I found, the problem of literacy also has a grounding in social issues. Thus, the result is a paper which deals largely with sociolinguistics, but it still includes structural issues of the Appalachian dialect as it is related to literacy. -AB

Illiteracy in Appalachia: A result of nonstandard dialect structure or of social factors?

According to the federal government, the area of the United States referred to as the Appalachian Mountain region spreads from southern New York to northern Mississippi and it includes all of West Virginia, along with parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (“The Appalachian Region”). Most of the inhabitants of the region are of Scots-Irish or Anglo-Saxon descent, and the majority of the population is lower working-class (Purcell-Gates 16). The English dialect of the Appalachian people is called Appalachian English, or AE, and consists of structural features that differ from Standard American English (SAE). For instance, a morphological feature of AE is the tendency to add a-prefixing to ing participles; therefore, speakers of AE would say words like a-comin’, a-runnin’, or a-tellin’. A difference in AE syntax is the regularization of irregular past tense verbs such as grew or saw. To an Appalachian speaker, the word grew would be pronounced growed, as in Billy growed a lot this year, and saw would be pronounced seen, as in That’s all I seen of it. Appalachian speakers also use double modals, such as liketa, supposeta, and useta in their speech. In addition to the presence
of nonstandard grammatical application in Appalachian English, the dialect also possesses a nonstandard lexicon, containing words such as yonder, meaning over there; you-uns, simply meaning you; yaller, meaning yellow; and pert ‘near, meaning nearly or almost (Wolfram and Christian 69, 81, 90, 107; Farwell and Nicholas 183, 185). Such grammatical and lexical aspects of Appalachian English differ from Standard American English, not only in oral speech, but also in written speech. This could pose a problem for speakers of AE in respect to literacy, as reading is almost always taught in the standard dialect. Because of structural differences in the Appalachian dialect, as well as sociocultural factors, low literacy is a characteristic of many speakers of Appalachian English, namely those inhabiting areas of isolation; however, with reading teachers who possess structural awareness of the Appalachian dialect, along with a positive attitude towards AE speakers and a talent for creativity, Appalachian speakers can learn literacy as well as any speaker of Standard American English.


The differences between Appalachian English and Standard American English make it somewhat difficult to learn literacy when reading materials are based on Standard American English. The following list, compiled by Claire M. Waldron of Radford University and Elizabeth Dotson of Mountain Region Speech and Hearing Center, is a brief overview of AE dialect characteristics. It demonstrates the many unique qualities in AE, and it provides insight into why learning to read in SAE may prove to be difficult for nonstandard speakers as a result of hindered recognition:
Phonological Variation
· · Plural formations – words ending in –sp, -st, -sk add the –es plural while retaining the cluster intact. Example: deskes, ghostes, waspes
· · Voiced fricatives before nasals – / D , z, v/ become stops before a nasal. Example: isn’t -> idn’t, seven -> sebm
· · Unstressed initial syllable deletion – unstressed syllables of prepositions, adverbs, nouns and verbs may be deleted
Examples: ‘bout/about, ‘cause/because, ‘member/remember, ‘posed to/supposed to.
· · Unstressed initial /w/ deletion – initial unstressed /w/ may be deleted in verbs or auxiliaries. Example: He’uz going for He was going or He’z going. The pronoun “one” may be affected as well (e.g., this ‘un for this one, good’un for good one). Deletion of the proceeding vowel may also occur with it being replaced by a syllabic nasal (e.g., good’n or this’n).
· · Intrinsic /h/ - the pronoun it and auxiliary ain’t may have an initial /h/. Example: hit for it and hain’t for ain’t.
· · Deletion of initial / D / – when preceded by a consonant sound. For example, up ‘ere or like ‘at for up there and like that.
· · Intrusive /t/ – for example, clifft for cliff, twict for twice

Grammatical variations
· · Past forms – some verbs with irregular past forms can have the regular past tense suffix –ed added (e.g., knowed for know, heared for heard, drinked for drank). Some irregular verbs can be preceded by the auxiliary had. For example, “ I had went to the store yesterday” or “He had came to my house on Tuesday”.
· · Perfective constructions – done plus past form, as in I done tried. This form denotes an action started and completed at a specific time in the past.
· · A + verb + ing – an a- can be prefixed to a following verb that has an –ing participial form; such as, He was a-goin’ to town or I’m a-tellin’ you the truth. These forms do not occur when the form functions as a noun or adjective or when a word begins with an unstressed syllable or vowel. For example, It was shocking to see how sick she was or Laughing is good medicine.
· · Double modals – certain modals may co-occur within the same verb phrase, such as might could, might should, used couldn’t. These also may accompany a past form of the verb, such as liketa as in It liketa kilt me (this means the activity in the sentence came close to happening but didn’t).
· · Intensifying adverbs – the intensifier right can be used before adjectives (right large), adverbs (right loud) and in construction with smart (a right smart while). The intensifier plumb (which refers to completeness) occurs with adverbs, verbs and some adjectives. For example, scared plumb to death, plumb foolish.
· · Multiple negation – a negative is attached to the main verb and all indefinites following main verb, such as, She didn’t do nothin’.
· · Demonstratives – demonstrative pronoun them is used in place of demonstrative pronoun those. For example, I want them crayons. Here and there may be added to the demonstratives these and them to form sentences such as I like these here pants better than them there ones.
· · Relative pronouns – speakers will often use what in place of who, whom, which or that; such as, A car what runs is good to have.
· · Articles – article the can be used as an adjective when preceding a formal noun as in I’m going to the K-mart. or My dad works at the Eastman.
· · Reflexive pronouns – the form –self may be added to all third personal pronouns, such as hisself and theirself.
· · Personal dative pronoun – a nonreflexive pronoun may be used when a direct object is also present. For example, I bought me a shirt.
· · Plural forms of you – plural form of you is y’all or you’uns
· · Plural nouns – the plural suffix may be deleted for nouns that refer to weights and measures. For example, five pound, six foot, ten cent.
· · Subject-verb agreement – singular verbs may be used with plural nouns; such as, We was all sick at my house.

Lexical variations (too many to list all)


Aim I been aimin’ to go down and see her.
Bless out I got blessed out for missing school.
Fixin’ It was just fixin’ to bite me and I took off a-runnin’.
Happen in They sometime happen in at the same time.
Reckon I reckon she’s done sold it.
Yonder I’ve got an old horse way back up yonder.
Upside He got hit upside the head.
Suwannee Well, I Suwannee! I never woulda believed it.
Mash It’s dark in here. Mash the light switch.

Naturally, it is easier to learn reading when the structure of written language reflects spoken language, for as Wolfram and Fasold point out in The Study of Social Dialects in American English, “when [an AE speaker’s] speech is not represented on the page, an obstacle is presented for him” (188). It must be remembered, however, that no written language is an exact reflection of spoken language, but the more similar written and spoken language are, the less difficult it is to acquire reading skills. For instance, dialect readers, which will be discussed later in this paper, are written in the reading student’s dialect, thus providing a way in which AE speakers are able to acquire literacy. Several factors are either ignored or simply unknown by literacy educators of AE speakers. For example, contrary to SAE speakers, Appalachian speakers utilize an intrusive /r/, which may confuse their lexical recognition when attempting to learn literacy. Because of their use of an intrusive /r/, AE speakers pronounce SAE wash as warsh. As a result, it may be difficult to recognize the SAE word wash in print when the student already understands the word as containing the intrusive /r/. Reading material can also appear difficult to Appalachian students when they encounter different syntactical features in the SAE reading material. An AE speaker may be confronted with a completely different subject-verb concord, for instance, than what he or she is accustomed to. Rather than finding in print AE phrases, such as We was and He don’t, an AE student would be faced with the unfamiliar We were and He doesn’t (Humphries). When an Appalachian student does attempt the acquisition of literacy, he is encouraged, like speakers of every dialect, to sound a word out; however, many AE speakers feel impaired in this activity because of their dialect. These speakers believe that because their dialect consists of phonological differences from Standard American English that they will not be able to pronounce the word correctly; therefore, these individuals tend to hold back when trying to learn reading (Purcell-Gates 114).
It is also probable that the low rates of literacy can be attributed to a number of social factors. Still, it is important to remember that the negative stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes against Appalachian speakers are largely based on the dialectal structure of Appalachian English. For instance, low literacy may simply be a result of the low minority status held by Appalachians, which is accompanied by negative stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes held by teachers. According to Victoria Purcell-Gates, students from lower-class minority families have a more difficult time attaining reading skills, largely because of lack of availability of educational sources for the less wealthy (183, 187). Appalachian children are able to obtain an education from public school, but in many circumstances the education is substandard. In her study of education in the Appalachian region, Shirley Brice Heath found that the majority of her adult subjects did not have as much as a high school education (36). One reason for this is the lack of patience and understanding of the Appalachian dialect on the part of educators. Juliet Merrifield et al. profiled several speakers of Appalachian English, finding that two of their subjects, both with underdeveloped literacy skills, believed their teachers lacked in patience when it came to teaching them. One of the speakers explained, “They just passed me to get rid of me” (94). Purcell-Gates also found in her case study of an Appalachian boy and his mother that students in Appalachia were simply passed on to the next grade, even when the reading abilities of the students were lacking. The Appalachian mother in Purcell-Gates’ study expressed frustration at the aspect of her son’s falling behind in reading being ignored; she was determined to not allow her child to experience the same misfortune that left her as an illiterate adult (13). With the continuing tradition of low quality education, each generation is hindered when it comes to reading, for most Appalachian children do not have parents who actively model reading in the home (Heath 348).
Rather than finding a way to help speakers of Appalachian English learn to read, teachers who originate from outside of Appalachia often ignore the students, preferring to deal with speakers of Standard American English, who, according to many teachers, are more adept to education. This attitude lies in the teachers’ stereotyping of Appalachian students. It is important to remember that the negative stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes against Appalachian speakers are largely based on the dialectal structure of Appalachian English. For instance, as Steven Pinker points out in his book The Language Instinct, “large parts of the “grammar” curriculum in American schools have been dedicated to stigmatizing [vernacular American language, such as AE] as ungrammatical, sloppy speech. Familiar examples are aks a question, workin’, ain’t, I don’t see no birds, he don’t, them boys, we was,” which are all characteristic of AE. Pinker goes on to explain that magazine ads have appeared in response to this type of language, exhibiting headlines such as “DO YOU MAKE ANY OF THESE EMBARRASSING MISTAKES?” (388). Headlines such as these, as well as the attitude of educators as it is presented by Pinker mirror the exact sentiments of reading teachers who stereotype AE speakers, as well as other nonstandard speakers, according to their dialect structure. Therefore, one must not simply accept the fact that Appalachian speakers are hindered in acquiring literacy merely because they are of low minority status, and are thus the subjects to judgment. One reason Appalachian speakers are low status minorities is that they speak in a nonstandard dialect and are therefore unable to attain the same jobs or even live at the same level as many of those who speak Standard American English. Many teachers non-native to the area adopt the popular view of Appalachians, which is based largely on the Appalachian dialect, believing that Appalachian students are “hillbillies,” “ridgerunners,” and “briarhoppers” who do not desire an education and are “ignorant, lazy, unclean, and immoral” (Purcell-Gates 24, 26, 188). Based on this view, teachers see no importance in taking the time to teach reading to a struggling Appalachian student. This negative attitude towards the Appalachian student and his or her language can leave the child feeling that his dialect is unworthy, which is discouraging when learning to read (Wolfram et al. 4). The Appalachian child in Purcell-Gates’ study struggled with reading, which was seen by his teachers as a normal problem that results from being an Appalachian “hillbilly.” The fact that the Appalachian boy had different ideas about language never occurred to the teachers. This child saw no importance in reading words, for no sources of print were kept in his home. Rather, he understood language as a way to orally convey information (15). Although the boy’s mother was concerned about her child’s reading education, teachers simply wrote her off as an “ignorant river rat” who knew nothing about education. Teachers who entertain such stereotypes about Appalachians and Appalachian English impede Appalachian students in reading education; as Purcell-Gates points out, “The stereotypes, expectations, and assumptions about low-status cultures blind educators to possibilities and solutions to the difficulties experienced by so many children in learning to read and write” (188).
Appalachian students of reading also experience cultural differences in relation to their own dialect and the standard dialect of the reading materials at school. When Appalachian students attend school they find that they are faced with a standard dialect much different from their own (Heath 368, 348). Before Appalachian children even enter school they are conditioned by certain concepts of language, which mold their later educational experiences. For instance, they enter school with the cultural idea that words can be sufficiently conveyed through talk and song, as oral traditions are prominent in the Appalachian region (Heath 349). This concept does not even consider the importance of reading or writing. Students also learn that reading is not always necessary to obtain a job, for Appalachians depend on family connections when seeking employment (Purcell-Gates 26). Another cultural difference between the Appalachian dialect and the standard dialect of the educational system lies in the concept of lexical elements. For instance, Appalachians have one concept of the word story, while the school environment entertains another concept of the same word. Heath found that when teaching reading, teachers in Appalachia would occasionally ask students to “make up a story,” but students were sometimes reluctant to complete the task, which could have been interpreted by teachers as inability to complete to do so. However, the reason for the reluctance was a result of the lexical understanding of the word story in Appalachian English; in AE telling a story means lying, which is punishable in the Appalachian culture (Heath 294, 296).


Literacy acquisition by Appalachian students is very obviously affected by dialect differences, by negative stereotypes and by the low social status held by Appalachians. Although the nonstandard dialect of Appalachian students does somewhat impede reading ability because it structurally different from the standard dialect, it is still quite possible for AE speakers to acquire literacy skills. It is true that more reading problems are found among speakers of nonstandard dialects versus standard dialects, but not all evidence points to the dialect itself as culprit. As Walt Wolfram et al. point out, “speaking a nonstandard variety does not ensure reading failure, just as speaking a standard variety does not ensure reading success” (1). When learning to read, all students, standard and nonstandard speakers alike, are introduced to text that does not exactly mirror their own spoken language. For instance, a child would not say, “Over and over rolled the ball,” or “Up the hill they ran,” but syntax such as this is consistently found in beginning reading materials. Naturally the text is more like the oral language of standard speakers, but research shows that, like standard speakers, speakers of nonstandard dialects such as Appalachian English are able to successfully overcome the “mismatch” of their own spoken language with the written language of reading materials (Wolfram et al. 2, 11). One must also take into account that speakers of Appalachian English are able to understand spoken Standard American English; therefore, they should be able to read the standard dialect. Comprehension of SAE on the part of Appalachian children has been proven through question and answer sessions, during which children were asked to re-state a sentence said to them in the standard dialect. The children were successfully able to convey the meaning of the standard sentence, while converting it to their own dialect (Wolfram et al. 3; Wolfram and Fasold 192). Thus, these students were exerting dialect influence on the sentences, which means that the students’ interpretations of the sentence did not change the meaning, but rather influenced the sentence dialectically. On the other hand, dialect interference, which would completely change the meaning of the sentence through use of dialect, is much less common, therefore providing more evidence supporting the idea that nonstandard speakers can learn to read with little difficulty (Wolfram et al, 8).
It must also be noted that low literacy is not the case with every Appalachian speaker, though it may seem to be according to test results. Reading tests in the Appalachian region are often biased, favoring the SAE speaker. Therefore, an Appalachian student may be a proficient reader, but test results suggest otherwise. According to Wolfram, et al., reading tests ask students to choose between lexical items such as “them” and “those” in a sentence such as “I have read (them/ those) books before” or between “no” and “any” in “I didn’t hear (any/ no) noise.” Because the lexical entry in the AE speaker’s mind is different than that of the SAE speaker, the Appalachian student chooses what is considered to be the “wrong” answer, but in reality, he is simply selecting the word found in his personal lexicon (Wolfram et al. 16).


In order to successfully become literate members of society, Appalachian students require teachers who understand the Appalachian dialect, and who realize that the dialect of Appalachia does not signal an unintelligent class. Appalachians can successfully learn to read despite their dialect. In support of this point, Wolfram and Christian quote Frank Smith as saying, “Study of the manner in which children learn to speak and understand spoken language can provide considerable insight into the manner in which they might approach the task of learning to read” (153). Indeed, the first step toward the learning process should be taken by teachers, who must examine the stereotypes they attribute to Appalachians, as well as the structure of the Appalachian language, which is just as credible as that of Standard American English. Academic programs in Appalachian Studies are available in the United States, and most of them are located in the Appalachian region; therefore, these programs are accessible to educators in the area. The Appalachian College Association is composed of 34 colleges in Appalachia that are all dedicated to the preservation of and education concerning Appalachian culture (“About the ACA”). Both Appalachian State University in North Carolina and East Tennessee State University offer Master of Arts programs with a concentration in Appalachian Studies. Bachelor degrees and minors in Appalachian Studies are also offered in many colleges and universities throughout Appalachia (“U.S. Programs”). Because of these programs, teachers have numerous opportunities to learn more about their Appalachian students. If teachers enter the classroom without the idea that Appalachian students are “ignorant hillbillies,” and instead take with them the idea that their students will succeed despite their dialect, then the students are less likely to fail.
Teachers who become educated about the Appalachian dialect and culture will be better able to serve the needs of their students when teaching reading. Understanding allows reading teachers to better evaluate the reading skills of AE speakers. Whereas a teacher ignorant of the Appalachian dialect may declare a student to be a terrible reader, a teacher knowledgeable of the dialect will understand that the student is simply applying his or her dialect to the reading material (Heath 354; Wolfram et al. 4). For instance, if a reading instructor is teaching phonics to his or her students, and if this teacher understands the structural qualities of Appalachian English, certain pronunciations will not be considered incorrect, resulting in the child being deemed unable to read phonetically. Therefore, if an AE speaker is learning phonics and pronounces yellow as y-e-l-r and fire like f-a-r the words are not being pronounced incorrectly. Likewise, the child is not incorrect when metathesis is applied to his or her words, resulting in the production of aksed for asked or ablum for album. In his or her reading, the child can rightfully use syllable initial stress in the pronunciation of words, as well as utilize the omission of –ly on adverbs, which is a common morphological feature of AE. The child is simply applying his dialect to the words; thus the child has successfully read the words, and this is what matters (Humphries; Wolfram et al. 9). If an Appalachian speaker reads a passage written in Standard American English so that his or her rendition “systematically differs from SAE as his indigenous dialect differs,” then the passage will have been read correctly, and this would be recognized by a reading instructor with knowledge of AE (Wolfram and Fasold 191).


Some teachers have found that when teaching reading to speakers of AE it is useful to use language experience materials, which are stories composed by the students themselves; therefore, these materials contain the syntactical, grammatical, and lexical elements of the students’ personal dialect (Wolfram et al. 13). In order to create language experience materials, teachers have children develop their own stories, which they tell into a tape recorder. The teacher then types the story and the child is able to read his or her own words. After the child is able to read his or her transcribed story, the teacher reviews it with the child, assisting the child in revising it, all the time encouraging the use of a dictionary. The first stories produced by the children quite typically contain elements from their own culture, and naturally, their own dialect. However, some students do seem to use standard formulaic beginnings and endings, which is an element they acquire from classroom reading materials. Over time, these students include additional elements of standard reading materials into their own stories (Heath 299, 305). For example, a student in Heath’s study who underwent such sessions of tape recording first included features of the Appalachian culture and dialect in her creative storytelling, such as “’n then it was a big giant mice in my mamma’s room/ ‘n then I hadda kill ‘im/ I got a big giant mice ‘n then I kilt ‘im/ We chop ‘im ‘til he was bleedin’” (299). This passage from the student’s story exemplifies the exaggeration typically found in the type of Appalachian stories told in the community, as well as phonological variation, i.e. unstressed initial syllable deletion, which can be seen in the deletion of /h/ in the lexeme him (Waldron and Dotson). After two years, the same student began adopting storytelling methods found in classroom reading materials, rather than depending so much on her nonstandard, cultural methods. For instance, she began to introduce characters; she stopped using exaggeration as much; she presented the story in a chronological manner; she began to recognize and explain aspects of the story that may not be easily understood by her audience; and she began adopting some structural features of SAE. Fortunately, at home, students such as this were able to return to their natural ways of communicating, which is quite important (Heath 300). Other teachers have had students write their own stories onto paper, phonetically sounding out the words according to their dialect, prior to their tape recording session. Rather than tell an impromptu story, the students actually read their own words, which seems to be easier than attempting to read a standard dialect when first learning to read. Later, the teacher types the text into Standard American English, having the student read the text once more, learning in the process to adapt to the reading of a standard dialect (Purcell-Gates 102). The method of using language experience materials clearly allows the teacher to focus more on the reading process of the Appalachian speaker, while at the same time eliminating any dialectal confusion for the student (Wolfram and Fasold 192).
Another approach of teaching reading to speakers of Appalachian English is to use dialect readers. Rather than using written speech of the standard dialect, dialect readers are written in the dialect of a certain community, such as Appalachia. The reader first learns to read in his own dialect and eventually the text contains more and more elements of Standard American English; therefore, an Appalachian student will gradually learn to read in the standard dialect (Wolfram et al. 12). For instance, a dialect reader would contain the grammatical variations such as irregular verbs which have been regularized, i.e. knew becomes knowed and grew becomes growed in an Appalachian based dialect reader. A dialect reader might also contain an intrinsic /h/ in words such as it or ain’t; therefore, it would become hit and ain’t would become hain’t (Waldron and Dotson). Such an approach is usually quite successful, for “the youngsters of linguistic minorities learn to read with greater comprehension in the national language when they first learn to read in their mother tongue than when they receive all their reading instruction in the national language” (Wolfram and Fasold 202).


In addition to providing proper reading materials to beginning Appalachian students, it is also important to apply reading to their lives. Successful teachers of Appalachian students are able to bring the culture of the community into their classrooms (Heath 354). One method of doing this is to invite Appalachian people from various professions into the classroom to explain the necessity of reading in their field. In Heath’s study, a teacher in Appalachia encouraged the students to make trips to the country store (the local store containing groceries and other necessities) in order to read labels on boxes and cans. The teacher also encouraged the reading of the church bulletin, recipes, and other print that was already present in their daily lives (Heath 328, 331, 333).
In the midst of teaching Appalachian students to read and write Standard American English, it is imperative that educators encourage the students to maintain their own culture, which includes their native dialect. One teacher in Heath’s study made it a point to provide children with knowledge of dialects and their differences. The children in this teacher’s class were soon able to comprehend that their own dialect is an important part of their culture, and should therefore be maintained. Because of the efforts of this teacher, students were able to understand when and where Standard American English should be used and when and where their native dialect is appropriate (Heath 327-334). All teachers of Appalachian students should follow the example of this educator, for the teaching of bidialectalism is perhaps the most important aspect of teaching literacy to speakers of a nonstandard dialect.


Speakers of Appalachian English are clearly not doomed when it comes to learning to read. The Appalachian dialect is not configured in a way that guarantees reading failure for its speaker. America is a plethora of dialects, and every speaker of every dialect, including Appalachian English, is able to acquire literacy skills. Stereotypes must simply be forgotten and replaced with an appreciation for the Appalachian tongue. Teachers of Appalachian students merely need to develop a positive attitude and knowledgeable understanding of AE and by no means will the dialect of Appalachia hold its speakers back from the acquisition of reading.

Works Cited
“About the ACA.” Appalachian College Association. 2002. (2 November 2003).
Farwell, Harold F. and J. Karl Nicholas, eds. Smoky Mountain Voices: A Lexicon of
Southern Appalachian Speech Based on the Research of Horace Kephart.
The University Press of Kentucky, 1993.
Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge, 1996.
Humphries, Stephanie. “Some Features of Appalachian Dialects.” AppLit. March 4, 2002.
(21 November 2003).
Merrifield, Juliet, Mary Beth Bingaman, David Hemphill, Kathleen P. Bennett de Marrais.
Life at the Margins: Literacy, Language, and Technology in Everyday Life. New
York: Teachers College Press, 1997.
Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. William Morrow and
Company, 1994.
Purcell-Gates, Victoria. Other People’s Words: The Cycle of Low Literacy. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1995.
“The Appalachian Region.” Appalachian State University. June 3, 2003. (2 November 2003).
“U.S. Programs in Appalachian Studies.” Appalachian Studies Association. 2000. (2 November 2003).
Waldron, Claire M. and Elizabeth Dotson. “Characteristics of Appalachian English.” Children of
Appalachia: Deliverance from Stereotypes. 2000. (21 November 2003).
Wolfram, Walt and Donna Christian. Appalachian Speech. Arlington: Center for Applied
Linguistics, 1976.
Wolfram, Walt, Lance Potter, Nancy M. Yanofsky, and Roger W. Shay. Reading and Dialect
Differences. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1979.
Wolfram, Walt and Ralph W. Fasold. The Study of Social Dialects in American English.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974.


Post a Comment

<< Home