User:Mbooneroberts/sandbox

Controversies Surrounding Appalachian English
Many of the original ideas about linguistic boundaries in the US were proposed by Hans Kurath in 1949, but many are under discussion in modern day. Appalachian English is perhaps the most heavily debated variety of English spoken in the United States when it comes to determining its specific boundaries. Some linguists believe that the boundaries should be fuzzy lines, giving rough ideas of boundaries, rather than hard lines, because there is a lot of dialectic variety within these small areas that is often difficult to differentiate.

Making this debate even more complex is the perspective held my many linguists that Appalachian English might not really exist at all given the huge range of dialectic variants that are commonplace in this area of the country. Categorizing all of these different variants under one umbrella is thought to actually further complicate the process of studying the variants of English within the current borders of the Appalachian dialect.

In addition to the boundary debates, Appalachian English is surrounded by stereotypical views of the area and the people living in it. Appalachia is often viewed by outsiders as a dialect of uneducated people, due largely in part to the fact that this area is perceived as being low-income and lower class. These stereotypes are often damaging to the people of this area, many of whom choose to hide or modify their accents when they visit or move to areas outside of Appalachia.

Despite all of the debates surrounding this dialect and whether or not its boundaries are legitimate and correct, to the people of Appalachia, their variety of English is central to their identities regardless of how it is seen by linguists, as well as outsiders.

Plan for Article- Appalachian English
There seems to be a decent amount of controversy about what falls into the boundaries of Appalachian English. The area of the most argument seems to be western Pennsylvania, and this discussion is featured heavily in the talk section of the article. This is something that I believe should be reflected in the article. The biggest challenge will likely be finding sources that will discuss this controversy heavily.

Many of the original ideas about linguistic boundaries in the US were proposed by Hans Kurath in 1949, but many are under discussion in modern day. Some linguists believe that the boundaries should be fuzzy lines rather than hard lines, because there is a lot of dialectic variety in very small areas that is often difficult to suss out.

There is even a perspective that Appalachian English might not really exist at all given the huge range of dialectic variants that are commonplace in this area of the country.

This is a discussion that I believe deserves to be more heavily featured in the article on Appalachian English, so that is what I plan to do over the course of this project.

Article Evaluation
For this assignment, I read the page about basic pidgin languages. While it seems to have good sources, it does seem to have a slight bias. Most people in developed countries look down on pidgin languages, and this article appears to do the same. It refers to them as primitive and unsophisticated without discussing how they often contain completely unique linguistic and syntactic patterns. They do provide a list of examples, which is helpful to then go and see how each of these languages developed through prolonged contact between two languages in a colonial type setting. The article does have citations to reputable sources, I just dislike that they seem to have a prejudice against pidgin languages and those who speak them.

Peer Review by Nicole Sowers
This is a really strong start, I think, and your resources look really solid. A few areas to think about might be adding clarity and relevance to the first sentence (Did Hans Kurath propose the boundaries for this variant or just a lot variants in general? If not this variant, what's the connection?), the phrase 'suss out' feels a little informal (maybe something along the lines of 'differentiate' or 'categorize'?), and your closing sentence comes across as a little biased in the opposite direction, but I think you can get the same idea across in a more neutral tone. Something like, 'Although there is a lot of stigma associated with Appalachian English, many Appalachians consider this dialect to be a central part of their identity', maybe? Overall, really good work and I think that with a few tweaks and expansion on the points you've made, it'll be a really solid contribution.

Peer Review by Bailey L. (Sparks9714)
Hi Mbooneroberts! I am one of the ANTH 383 students that peer-reviewed your article on Appalachian English. You can find my edits on the Talk Page of this article. Let me know if you have any questions!