Which states are Upper Midwest?

[jimrtex]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

There are companies and media outlets that describe themselves as serving the Upper Midwest, and though I've heard that label most often in the region of the Upper Mississippi, I've never heard the description Upper Mississippi applied that way. I've only heard Upper Mississippi applied in the geological sense or to describe pre-Columbian cultures.

Have you ever heard the term Lower Midwest? Would someone from Kansas or
Indiana say they were from the Lower Midwest?

The North American Baptist Conference has a Upper Mississippi region (MN, IA, WI, IL).

I'm not saying that the area of the Upper Mississippi became the Upper Midwest, but the concept of "upper-ness" may have come from the river divisions, and of course there is clear distinction between Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi, except perhaps for the bit between St. Louis and Cairo.

538 ran a survey that agreed with my definition. Most Midwesterners agreed that the Midwest included their State and its neighbors.

Only about 10% of respondents in that 538 poll agreed that Colorado was Midwestern, as you have argued.  Yet a majority of respondents put Michigan and Ohio in the Midwest, the latter of which, at least, you've argued shouldn't be considered Midwestern. The greatest percentage of respondents agreed Illinois should be included, which to me is a no-brainer, as Chicago is the largest Midwestern city.

As the article notes, those numbers are skewed by the higher population density. If someone in Cleveland thinks they are in the Midwest, they are going to include Indiana and Michigan and Illinois, and may not consider anything west of the river. People in Indiana will respond the same way, with some willing to include Iowa and Missouri.

Illinoisans would probably include Wisconsin (Milwaukee is not that different from Chicago, other than size), and Madison is close to Rockford. If they include Wisconsin, they will also include Minnesota. Muon2 may be willing to extend the definition further west, because he actually grew up west of the river.

Someone from Iowa may include Illinois (perhaps excluding Chicago), and might not include Ohio, because they were surely going to include Nebraska.

The author said that his boss from NYC thought that Wilke-Barre was in the West. I was only using a small tidbit of hyperbole to suggest that Hoboken was in the West from a Manhattanite (who probably classifies the "Boroughs" as a USA region, different than Long Island. They might concede that Yonkers was not really Upstate, at least in the sense of White Plains.

[jimrtex]

Is there actually an Upper Midwest, or is a transmorgrification of the Upper Mississippi?

There are companies and media outlets that describe themselves as serving the Upper Midwest, and though I've heard that label most often in the region of the Upper Mississippi, I've never heard the description Upper Mississippi applied that way. I've only heard Upper Mississippi applied in the geological sense or to describe pre-Columbian cultures.

Have you ever heard the term Lower Midwest? Would someone from Kansas or
Indiana say they were from the Lower Midwest?

The North American Baptist Conference has a Upper Mississippi region (MN, IA, WI, IL).

I'm not saying that the area of the Upper Mississippi became the Upper Midwest, but the concept of "upper-ness" may have come from the river divisions, and of course there is clear distinction between Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi, except perhaps for the bit between St. Louis and Cairo.

538 ran a survey that agreed with my definition. Most Midwesterners agreed that the Midwest included their State and its neighbors.

Perhaps the Upper Midwest label evolved to give more breadth than what the NABC or the geologists would use. With the Upper Midwest label the Dakotas and UP can be included without referencing the river basin of including IL. As a native, I don't associate Chicagoland with the Upper Midwest, it's just the Midwest.

Perhaps it also came from people reacting to the dialects of the area. I see that my conception of the Upper Midwest closely matches the region of the North Central dialect from the UPenn Linguistics study 20 years ago.

Midlands corresponds more with my concept of Midwest. The separation between North Midlands and South Midlands is along the National Road. Note that 2 of 3 Denver speakers show the characteristic of the South Midlands. Denver is the only city in the intermountain west until quite recent times. I thought about including Oklahoma, but I thought that would be too radical for those who believe that the Midwest extends east of the Mississippi River.

The Inland North was peopled by those migrating via the Erie Canal from New York and New England, dominating Michigan, and eastern Wisconsin, before running into a larger influx of Germans and Scandinavian. At least stereotypically a Minnesotan accent is a Swedish accent.

Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were all developed from south to north from the Ohio River. The location of their capital cities reflects a desire to have a central city, and resist placing the capital where the population resided at the time of statehood. Some of the people would come down the Valley of Virginia and through the Cumberland Gap, while others would go west from Philadelphia in their Conestoga Wagons. Some would continue west along the National Road.

Cleveland is really an upstart 20th Century city, and Detroit to a lesser extent since it was the easiest place to get to from the east. Chicago didn't really start to develop until the mid 19th Century.

The Big 8 was a midwestern conference. The Big 10 increasingly sees itself as part of the east with Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland being added.

Perhaps Upper Midwest is not really a subsection of the Midwest?

[AN63093]

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

[jimrtex]

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

Based on the linguistic map, the northern portion (Cleveland, Toledo) should be part of Northlands that extends into New York, includes all of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, Chicago, northwestern Indiana, and then extending into the areas of heavy German and Scandinavian settlement through Wisconsin, Minnesota and into the Dakotas and Montana.

The area to the south would be Midlands.

[Dr. Arch]

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

Based on the linguistic map, the northern portion (Cleveland, Toledo) should be part of Northlands that extends into New York, includes all of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, Chicago, northwestern Indiana, and then extending into the areas of heavy German and Scandinavian settlement through Wisconsin, Minnesota and into the Dakotas and Montana.

The area to the south would be Midlands.

As a linguist who's worked closely with students of Labov, who developed this map, I must point out that dialect regions don't necessarily indicate cultural regions. They are not mutually exclusive, but shared dialectal features are indeed historically indicative of others shared experiences such as: migration, geographical breaks, economic ecology,  etc.

In short, speakers from places like PA and WI can share the aforementioned features in their speech patterns while still being from two very distinct cultural/geographic regions.

[muon2]

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

Based on the linguistic map, the northern portion (Cleveland, Toledo) should be part of Northlands that extends into New York, includes all of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, Chicago, northwestern Indiana, and then extending into the areas of heavy German and Scandinavian settlement through Wisconsin, Minnesota and into the Dakotas and Montana.

The area to the south would be Midlands.

As a linguist who's worked closely with students of Labov, who developed this map, I must point out that dialect regions don't necessarily indicate cultural regions. They are not mutually exclusive, but shared dialectal features are indeed historically indicative of others shared experiences such as: migration, geographical breaks, economic ecology,  etc.

In short, speakers from places like PA and WI can share the aforementioned features in their speech patterns while still being from two very distinct cultural/geographic regions.

I would agree that dialects don't tell the whole story. They represent the the patterns of settlement that populated are greater Midwest. Since that settlement was generally east to west, the dialect bands separate the area into a northern and central region.

One could also look at the division in terms of the economic and cultural differences, and that's what Garreau did in his 1981 Nine Nations of North America. He held there was no Midwest but a Breadbasket to the west of Chicago and a Foundry to the east with Chicago acting as the key trade center between the two. In Garreau's sense, the area I think of as the Upper Midwest is the Northern Breadbasket.

[AN63093]

I've always liked Garreau's map, but just think it's a little too imprecise.  For example, I believe pretty strongly in a "Plains" buffer-region between Mid-West and Mountain West, and a division between Upper South and Deep South.  Also, I think his "Foundry" was a bit of a product of the times.  At that time, NYC and Philly (and many large Northern cities) were in a period of decline, and I get the impression he just sorta lumped them all together, conflating them.

However, the Mid-Atlantic has always been distinct from the Great Lakes historically, and this became evident once again, when these cities turned around and the I-95 corridor from DC to NY developed into a megalopolis.  Since these cities hit their nadir, probably sometime in the 80s, the two regions have gone off on their own paths.. much like they always have throughout US history.

Muon, have you read Woodward's American Nations?  

He has a map and draws his regions based heavily on original settlement patterns.  I think its a good read, but my main criticism of his regions is that he considered the original ethnic settlement too much, and did not consider cultural changes and migration patterns post 1800s enough.

My regional map was an attempt to improve on both Woodward and Garreau.  I'm not so vain as to think it's "better," but at least I'm more satisfied with it.

[jimrtex]

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

Based on the linguistic map, the northern portion (Cleveland, Toledo) should be part of Northlands that extends into New York, includes all of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, Chicago, northwestern Indiana, and then extending into the areas of heavy German and Scandinavian settlement through Wisconsin, Minnesota and into the Dakotas and Montana.

The area to the south would be Midlands.

As a linguist who's worked closely with students of Labov, who developed this map, I must point out that dialect regions don't necessarily indicate cultural regions. They are not mutually exclusive, but shared dialectal features are indeed historically indicative of others shared experiences such as: migration, geographical breaks, economic ecology,  etc.

In short, speakers from places like PA and WI can share the aforementioned features in their speech patterns while still being from two very distinct cultural/geographic regions.

What is a "region" of the United States? (don't limit yourself to linguistic or cultural regions). I assume the original poster considered the "Upper Midwest" to be a "region"?

Could you translate the text on the map into common English?

Why were urban area dialect areas identified. Are they distinct from rural dialects? I assume before say 1920, most persons learned to speak from their family and neighbors, and the effect of school would be somewhat limited, since the teacher would often be a neighbor with somewhat limited normal school education.

What is acoustic analysis. What other ways are there of analyzing "speech patterns"? (quotes to indicate I don't know what term you would use)

What is a "vowel system", and what is a Telsur informant?

[jimrtex]

I've always liked Garreau's map, but just think it's a little too imprecise.  For example, I believe pretty strongly in a "Plains" buffer-region between Mid-West and Mountain West, and a division between Upper South and Deep South.  Also, I think his "Foundry" was a bit of a product of the times.  At that time, NYC and Philly (and many large Northern cities) were in a period of decline, and I get the impression he just sorta lumped them all together, conflating them.

However, the Mid-Atlantic has always been distinct from the Great Lakes historically, and this became evident once again, when these cities turned around and the I-95 corridor from DC to NY developed into a megalopolis.  Since these cities hit their nadir, probably sometime in the 80s, the two regions have gone off on their own paths.. much like they always have throughout US history.

Muon, have you read Woodward's American Nations?  

He has a map and draws his regions based heavily on original settlement patterns.  I think its a good read, but my main criticism of his regions is that he considered the original ethnic settlement too much, and did not consider cultural changes and migration patterns post 1800s enough.

My regional map was an attempt to improve on both Woodward and Garreau.  I'm not so vain as to think it's "better," but at least I'm more satisfied with it.

Why do call areas "plains" and "mountain" and "pacific", but also use "mid"?

If there is a Plains region, then Denver is in it.

[muon2]

I've always liked Garreau's map, but just think it's a little too imprecise.  For example, I believe pretty strongly in a "Plains" buffer-region between Mid-West and Mountain West, and a division between Upper South and Deep South.  Also, I think his "Foundry" was a bit of a product of the times.  At that time, NYC and Philly (and many large Northern cities) were in a period of decline, and I get the impression he just sorta lumped them all together, conflating them.

However, the Mid-Atlantic has always been distinct from the Great Lakes historically, and this became evident once again, when these cities turned around and the I-95 corridor from DC to NY developed into a megalopolis.  Since these cities hit their nadir, probably sometime in the 80s, the two regions have gone off on their own paths.. much like they always have throughout US history.

Muon, have you read Woodward's American Nations?  

He has a map and draws his regions based heavily on original settlement patterns.  I think its a good read, but my main criticism of his regions is that he considered the original ethnic settlement too much, and did not consider cultural changes and migration patterns post 1800s enough.

My regional map was an attempt to improve on both Woodward and Garreau.  I'm not so vain as to think it's "better," but at least I'm more satisfied with it.

I have both books. I agree that Nine Nations has some dated elements. The rise of fracking has moved the boundary between the Empty Quarter and Breadbasket to the east. I was in Williston ND 2 years ago and it was clearly an Empty Quarter town.

I also agree that American Nations is too fixated on the original settlement patterns and it fails to see east-west splits in many of the original nations as they settled west and developed their own cultures.  Minneapolis is not like Detroit and Toledo is not like Des Moines though both are paired together in AN. The pairing them like NN does is much more accurate IMO.

[Dr. Arch]

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

Based on the linguistic map, the northern portion (Cleveland, Toledo) should be part of Northlands that extends into New York, includes all of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, Chicago, northwestern Indiana, and then extending into the areas of heavy German and Scandinavian settlement through Wisconsin, Minnesota and into the Dakotas and Montana.

The area to the south would be Midlands.

As a linguist who's worked closely with students of Labov, who developed this map, I must point out that dialect regions don't necessarily indicate cultural regions. They are not mutually exclusive, but shared dialectal features are indeed historically indicative of others shared experiences such as: migration, geographical breaks, economic ecology,  etc.

In short, speakers from places like PA and WI can share the aforementioned features in their speech patterns while still being from two very distinct cultural/geographic regions.

What is a "region" of the United States? (don't limit yourself to linguistic or cultural regions). I assume the original poster considered the "Upper Midwest" to be a "region"?

Could you translate the text on the map into common English?

Why were urban area dialect areas identified. Are they distinct from rural dialects? I assume before say 1920, most persons learned to speak from their family and neighbors, and the effect of school would be somewhat limited, since the teacher would often be a neighbor with somewhat limited normal school education.

What is acoustic analysis. What other ways are there of analyzing "speech patterns"? (quotes to indicate I don't know what term you would use)

What is a "vowel system", and what is a Telsur informant?

"What is a "region" of the United States? (don't limit yourself to linguistic or cultural regions). I assume the original poster considered the "Upper Midwest" to be a "region"?"

"Region" is used here colloquially. It can be any continuous area that is constrained by predefined factors--linguistic regions, cultural regions, subcultural regions, geographic regions, etc.

'Could you translate the text on the map into common English?"

I could help you more if you would tell me what specifically you don't understand.

"Why were urban area dialect areas identified. Are they distinct from rural dialects? I assume before say 1920, most persons learned to speak from their family and neighbors, and the effect of school would be somewhat limited, since the teacher would often be a neighbor with somewhat limited normal school education."

Urban areas are indeed distinct from rural dialects, especially in modern-day America. Your assumption is correct, for the most part. The basic idea is that urban speakers tend to be more innovative; that is, the language changes that take place in certain areas usually happen first in densely populated zones. The less populated and more rural areas may exhibit a significant delay in those changes or not exhibit them at all (i.e., rural areas are more linguistically conservative).

"What is acoustic analysis. What other ways are there of analyzing "speech patterns"? (quotes to indicate I don't know what term you would use)"

Acoustic analysis is the analysis of the distinct physical sounds that speakers made, known as "phones" (see below). Acoustic analysis can imply any kind of analysis of features identified under acoustic physics, ranging from tone to pitch to sound formants.

Speech patterns can be analyzed for their content in context (Pragmatics) or for other purposes, such as identifying an individual (Forensic Linguistics). The kinds of analyses vary depending on the subfield.

'What is a "vowel system", and what is a Telsur informant?"

Telsur was the name of the project; the rest of that phrase explains itself. Regarding vowel systems, our language inventories are composed on a certain set of physical sounds (to which we refer as phones). Unique phone tokens are practically infinite, as they can vary in contour, pitch, tone, quality, etc.

The way we, as speakers and listeners, process phones is by grouping tokens of a kind into a type or category, such that 1,000 different productions of the "i" vowel phone from 1,000 different speakers are perceived as "i." That abstract category is what we call a phoneme. Phonemes exist as distinct categories that share a same space in your mouth. This relationship across vowel phonemes is referred to as a vowel system. See an example of a standard English vowel system below:

[jimrtex]

I just remembered that the Census Bureau has not always referred to the Midwest region as the "Midwest" Region, but rather as the "North Central" Region. This name is continued in the name of the two divisions: West North Central and East North Central divisions. I guess they couldn't figure out which was the Real Midwest and the Not-So Real Midwest. The change was made in June of 1984. I could not find the reason for the change, but I seem to recall it was in response to political pressure. It might have even been due to a law passed by Congress.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are signed in geographical order north to south, and this order was used for early censuses in presenting the information. It was also used for political conventions and some proceedings in Congress. Some variations would order the later states by entry into the US, and others by some variation of geographical order:

1790: VT, NH, (ME, MA), RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, (VA, KY), NC, SC, GA

The placement of VT may have been to permit Maine and Massachusetts to be placed together.

1800: NH, (MA, ME), CT, VT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA, KY, Terr: NW(OH), IN, MS, (TN)

Tennessee was late returning and placed last. The (Old) Northwest territory had been divided with the area west of the modern IN-OH border becoming Indiana Territory (the split extended through the Lower Pensinsula of modern Michigan, and the tip of the Upper Peninsula. There was never an Ohio Territory.

1830: ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, VT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA, KY, TN, OH, LA, IN, MS, IL, AL, MO,
Terr: MI, AR, FL, DC

This was a common order for New England, with ME being placed at the head of the list. and VT stuck in at the end. The other new states, KY through MO were placed in order of accession. I'm not sure of the order of the territories. It matches the population order, but could also match the order or acquisition (Northwest Territory, Louisiana Purchase, Florida Cession), or the order of creation of the territories.

1840: ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, VT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TN, KY, OH, IN, IL, MO, AR, MI, Terr: FL, WI, IA, DC

The ordering of states down the Atlantic is continue in a snake-like fashion south to north through the inland states. AR and MI, the last two states are at the end of the list. WI is spelled Wiskonsin. Don't cheeseheads still put a strong stress/elongation on the 2nd syllable.

1850: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, AR, TN, KY, MO, IL, IN, OH, MI, WI, IA, CA, Terr: MN, OR, UT, NM

The states are now in an order that permits a snake of adjacency, down the entire Atlantic coastline from ME to TX, and then back to the north, with only the jump from IA to CA. If you go from OH to MO, you can't get back to MI, so instead they go KY, then MO to OH.

1860: Alphabetical.

1870: Alphabetical.

1880: Alphabetical, with intermixed territories.

1890: Divisions are introduced. North Atlantic division is same as the modern Northeast region. South Atlantic division is same as modern South Atlantic division. North Central division is same as modern Midwest region. Western division is same as modern West region.

1920: Alaska, Hawaii, Porto Rico (sic), Guam, American Samoa, and Panama Canal Zone are presented at the end of the tables (after Wyoming). The Virgin Islands are not included (there was a special census in 1917 at the time of acquisition of from Denmark).

1930: Modern 9 divisions are defined (except Pacific does not include AK and HI). States within divisions are geographically ordered, but usually multiple strokes are used rather than a snake (e.g. OH, IN, IL, MI, WI; AR, LA, OK, TX; MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS). An exception is the Mountain Division: MT, ID, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, NV). Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Panama Canal Zone, Porto Rico (sic), and Virgin Islands are at end of tables.

1940: Three regions are reported, The North, The South, and The West, including the definite article in the name. The 9 divisions are continued, 4 in The North, 3 in The South, and 2 in The West. Alaska (1939), American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico (modern spelling introduced, and text is bilingual), and Virgin Islands of the United States (sic) are at the end of the tables.

1950: Modern regions introduced, as The North is divided into Northeast and North Central regions, and definite articles are dropped from the South and the West regions. Alaska and Hawaii are differentiated as Territories; with Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Canton Island and Enderbury Island, Johnston Island and Sand Island, Swan Islands denoted as possessions, listed in population area. Canal Zone, and Corn Islands are separated but not classified other than in the footnotes. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands is similarly separated. Alaska and Hawaii follow Wyoming, while Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Canal Zone, Guam, and Virgin Islands of the United States are in a separate volume.

1960: Alaska and Hawaii are added to Pacific Division and West Region. Puerto Rico is treated somewhat as if it were a State. Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, and Canal Zone in a volume of their own.

1970: Population presented as that of United States, Puerto Rico, and Outlying Areas of Sovereignty or Jurisdiction. The latter consists of territories: Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Canton Island and Enderbury Island, Johnston Island and Sand Island, Swan Islands, and Other: Navassa, Baker, Howland, Jarvis, and Palmyra (all uninhabited); Canal Zone; and Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The census included the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands for the first time, though there had been earlier special censuses.

1980: Much of the data is presented by region. In previous censuses, regions and divisions were used as a a way of grouping state data. Canal Zone no longer reported (returned to Panama in 1979), and Northern Marianas were reported separately from the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Each state had its own volume, and the volumes for the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Marianas, Pacific Islands (Trust Territory of), Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands of the United States were alphabetized among the State volumes.

1990: Reporting is presented by regions and divisions. Census coverage for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was discontinued other than Palau, which would be discontinued in 2000. Since 1990 was the closest to the switch, I had hoped to find an explanation of how and why the switch to "Midwest" was made, but so far have found nothing.

2000: As most publication is shifted to the Internet, there may be less interest in regions, since it is just  as easy to get data by state. Since 2000, Census coverage has included the United States (including the District of Columbia), Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa. The Census Bureau conducts the census in Puerto Rico, and also administers the Puerto Rico Community Survey (equivalent to the American Community Survey). In the other outlying territories the Census Bureau acts in conjunction with the governments.

I did not find an explanation why or how the name of the North Central region was switched to Midwest region in June 1984. The only contemporaneous material was the Statistical Abstract. The 1984 Abstract (published in December 1983) showed the North Central name. The 1985 Abstract published a year later had switched to Midwest.

[jimrtex]

Geographic Area Reference Manual, Chapter Six (PDF)

This contain a description of the history of census regions/groupings.

Particularly interesting was a study conducted in the 1950s to arrange regions and divisions based on objective criteria:

• Socioeconomic homogeneity is the principal criterion for grouping States into regions.

• Each combination should consist of two or more adjacent States.

• Objective statistical analysis is the primary basis for the classification.

• The number of eventual combinations should range from 6 to 12.

34 of the then 48 States clearly belonged in the core of a region, with the remaining 14 somewhat ambiguous.

As now, there were four regions and nine divisions.

The West region added Texas and Oklahoma. TX, OK, NM, and AZ formed a new Southwest Division, while NV was moved into the Pacific Division. This reduced the Mountain Division to five states: MT, ID, WY, CO, and UT.

DE, MD, and DC were moved to the Middle Atlantic Division of the Northeast Region. This change appears to be the most commonly proposed change by denizens of the Atlas.

With the omission of OK and TX, the South Region was divided north and south. Presumably the "Upper South" Division was VA, NC, WV, KY, and TN (and maybe AR), while the "Lower South" was SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, and LA (and maybe AR). The text above does not specify the proposed names or members of the two divisions.

The East North Central Division was renamed the Great Lakes Division, and the West Central Division was renamed the Plains Division. These two divisions along with the New England, were the only three divisions whose membership was unchanged.


In 1900, some county data was grouped using topographic divisions based on physiography. This would be valid today, with perhaps adjustments to include all of metropolitan areas in a single division, along with additional counties.

[muon2]

I wasn't aware of the 1950's study. In many ways The groupings make more sense to me, especially the Middle Atlantic shift and the creation of a Southwest region. Even the current census suggests that it would have made sense to change, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I could have guessed, the data users were more concerned about longitudinal consistency in time, than adapting to recognize broad changes in economy and demographics. It certainly suggests to me that one shouldn't give too much credence to some of the official Census regions as measures of regions today. If the Census thought it useful, I'd like to see them redo the 1950's study to see how states would be grouped today by that metric. For example would VA shift to the Middle Atlantic given the changes over the last half century? Better still, I'd like to see the Census take up this exercise in a formal way every 50 years.

[jimrtex]

I wasn't aware of the 1950's study. In many ways The groupings make more sense to me, especially the Middle Atlantic shift and the creation of a Southwest region. Even the current census suggests that it would have made sense to change, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I could have guessed, the data users were more concerned about longitudinal consistency in time, than adapting to recognize broad changes in economy and demographics. It certainly suggests to me that one shouldn't give too much credence to some of the official Census regions as measures of regions today. If the Census thought it useful, I'd like to see them redo the 1950's study to see how states would be grouped today by that metric. For example would VA shift to the Middle Atlantic given the changes over the last half century? Better still, I'd like to see the Census take up this exercise in a formal way every 50 years.

It would have been interesting to see the 14 States that were not considered to be definitely in one division or another.

CT, DE, MD, KY, AR, TX, OK, NV, WV, MN?  What are other 4?

[ilikeverin]

I've always considered Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa the Upper Midwest.  Michigan is definitely culturally distinct.  If we're willing to subdivide states, then, sure, the eastern part of the Dakotas and the UP are "Upper Midwestern", but if we have to define them as a whole I would not consider ND or SD a part of the Upper Midwest.  They're part of the Great Plains.

Jimrtex, if places like Ohio are not in the Mid-West, then what region do you think OH is in?

Based on the linguistic map, the northern portion (Cleveland, Toledo) should be part of Northlands that extends into New York, includes all of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, Chicago, northwestern Indiana, and then extending into the areas of heavy German and Scandinavian settlement through Wisconsin, Minnesota and into the Dakotas and Montana.

The area to the south would be Midlands.

As a linguist who's worked closely with students of Labov, who developed this map, I must point out that dialect regions don't necessarily indicate cultural regions. They are not mutually exclusive, but shared dialectal features are indeed historically indicative of others shared experiences such as: migration, geographical breaks, economic ecology,  etc.

In short, speakers from places like PA and WI can share the aforementioned features in their speech patterns while still being from two very distinct cultural/geographic regions.

What is a "region" of the United States? (don't limit yourself to linguistic or cultural regions). I assume the original poster considered the "Upper Midwest" to be a "region"?

Could you translate the text on the map into common English?

Why were urban area dialect areas identified. Are they distinct from rural dialects? I assume before say 1920, most persons learned to speak from their family and neighbors, and the effect of school would be somewhat limited, since the teacher would often be a neighbor with somewhat limited normal school education.

What is acoustic analysis. What other ways are there of analyzing "speech patterns"? (quotes to indicate I don't know what term you would use)

What is a "vowel system", and what is a Telsur informant?

"What is a "region" of the United States? (don't limit yourself to linguistic or cultural regions). I assume the original poster considered the "Upper Midwest" to be a "region"?"

"Region" is used here colloquially. It can be any continuous area that is constrained by predefined factors--linguistic regions, cultural regions, subcultural regions, geographic regions, etc.

'Could you translate the text on the map into common English?"

I could help you more if you would tell me what specifically you don't understand.

"Why were urban area dialect areas identified. Are they distinct from rural dialects? I assume before say 1920, most persons learned to speak from their family and neighbors, and the effect of school would be somewhat limited, since the teacher would often be a neighbor with somewhat limited normal school education."

Urban areas are indeed distinct from rural dialects, especially in modern-day America. Your assumption is correct, for the most part. The basic idea is that urban speakers tend to be more innovative; that is, the language changes that take place in certain areas usually happen first in densely populated zones. The less populated and more rural areas may exhibit a significant delay in those changes or not exhibit them at all (i.e., rural areas are more linguistically conservative).

"What is acoustic analysis. What other ways are there of analyzing "speech patterns"? (quotes to indicate I don't know what term you would use)"

Acoustic analysis is the analysis of the distinct physical sounds that speakers made, known as "phones" (see below). Acoustic analysis can imply any kind of analysis of features identified under acoustic physics, ranging from tone to pitch to sound formants.

Speech patterns can be analyzed for their content in context (Pragmatics) or for other purposes, such as identifying an individual (Forensic Linguistics). The kinds of analyses vary depending on the subfield.

'What is a "vowel system", and what is a Telsur informant?"

Telsur was the name of the project; the rest of that phrase explains itself. Regarding vowel systems, our language inventories are composed on a certain set of physical sounds (to which we refer as phones). Unique phone tokens are practically infinite, as they can vary in contour, pitch, tone, quality, etc.

The way we, as speakers and listeners, process phones is by grouping tokens of a kind into a type or category, such that 1,000 different productions of the "i" vowel phone from 1,000 different speakers are perceived as "i." That abstract category is what we call a phoneme. Phonemes exist as distinct categories that share a same space in your mouth. This relationship across vowel phonemes is referred to as a vowel system. See an example of a standard English vowel system below:

*hughughug*

[jimrtex]

I've always considered Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa the Upper Midwest.  Michigan is definitely culturally distinct.  If we're willing to subdivide states, then, sure, the eastern part of the Dakotas and the UP are "Upper Midwestern", but if we have to define them as a whole I would not consider ND or SD a part of the Upper Midwest.  They're part of the Great Plains.

Is the Upper Midwest part of the Midwest? (i.e. upper Midwest)

What characteristics are you using to distinguish your regions?

[ilikeverin]

I've always considered Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa the Upper Midwest.  Michigan is definitely culturally distinct.  If we're willing to subdivide states, then, sure, the eastern part of the Dakotas and the UP are "Upper Midwestern", but if we have to define them as a whole I would not consider ND or SD a part of the Upper Midwest.  They're part of the Great Plains.

Is the Upper Midwest part of the Midwest? (i.e. upper Midwest)

Yes, the Upper Midwest is a component of the Midwest, along with the Great Lakes (IL/IN/MI/OH).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not attempting to make a formal definition; my proposals are just based on my intuitions as a local.

[TDAS04]

Why isn't Nebraska a poll option?

[Dr. MB]

In my opinion there are 3 "Midwests".

Plains – ND, SD, NE, KS
Upper Midwest/Great Lakes – MN, MI, WI, Chicago metro
Lower/Inner Midwest – IA, MO, downstate IL, downstate IN, OH

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I like to use North-Central instead of Mid-West.

[Lechasseur]

I voted AOTA, except for Illinois.