Slang Use and Variation in Dakota English and Ojibwe English

Jess Piek
Heather Flute
Mercedes Lee
Matthew Vaughn
Hyoji Jin

North Dakota State University
Department of English
English 453/653: Social and Regional Varieties of English
Advisor: Dr. Bruce Maylath
May 6
th
, 2013


II
Abstract:
The use of slang in speech communities for the purpose of affirming identification within
an individuals culture has been long documented in numerous linguistic studies. However, little
research has been conducted concerning the use of slang and its variations in Dakota English and
Ojibwe English speakers in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota. This absence
of research is particularly troubling in light of the marked social tensions between these two
groups and the status quo population of the area. Accordingly, learning more about the use and
varieties of slang by these two particular groups is essential for educators and other individuals
who work with these two Native American populations. Our research focuses on the social use,
instances, and varieties of slang that these two populations use in order to affirm their identity in
two different speech communitiesthe speech used in their cultural communities, and the
speech used in other communities.
Purpose:
This study explores and identifies the use, instances and varieties of slang by Dakota
English and Ojibwe English speakers in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota. In
particular, we were interested in the relationship between the cultural identity and slang of these
speakers in various social situations. We also wanted to determine if speakers exhibited the
linguistic phenomenon related to maintaining a social connection to certain audiences, such as
code-switching or style-switching. We hypothesized that speakers from both populations would
exhibit different slang varieties due to the influence of tribal languages, but maintain what is
commonly referred to by speakers as rez talka dialect used by Native American speakers
when conversing with each other.



III
Slang itself is an important area of sociolinguistics, as its use by individuals reinforces
the construction of an individual or group identity that differs from the established standard
dialect. Although the usage and varieties of slang by other minorities and youth has been the
subject of numerous studies, little has been done within Native American populations, including
Dakota English and Ojibwe English speakers. This is especially problematic in regards to
education, as it highlights that we still have very little understanding regarding how these
speakers use language in various contexts. As Wolfram and Schilling-Estes note in their
discussion regarding educational testing, dialects are ultimately embedded in sociocultural
differences (308), thus underscoring how knowing and using different dialects can affect
student success. This particular point is even more evident and important when examining the
socially constructed relationship between language prestige and power. In the Red River Valley,
Dakota and Ojibwe tribe members are often subjected to discrimination and classism by the
privileged majority. This stigmatization and minoritization based on ethnicity could explain the
lack of concern regarding research with this particular population. Our study strives to break
away from these stereotypes in order to gather a collection of data that could be extremely
beneficial for both educators who work with these two Native American populations, as well as
the Native Americans who utilize the various slang that we hope to identify and analyze.
The following information presented in this article describes the limited literature that we
were able to find concerning this topic. We will then discuss our methodology and results.
Finally, we will end with a discussion section that examines opportunities for extensions of the
methods we used to conduct this study, as well as consider the prospects for further research on
this topic.



IV
Literature Review:
The study of slang has a rich and controversial history in the field of linguistics. As
Wolfram and Schilling-Estes describe, the term slang is often controversial for those who
study dialects, as the term is often criticized for being too broad and vague (70-71). Dumas and
Lighter observe the same conundrum, noting the term slang has rarely been defined in a way
that is useful to linguists (5). In popular culture, slang is commonly depicted as a deviant or
improper use of languagea purposeful way of inverting the standardized dialect in order to
rebel or divert from social norms. Indeed, Wolfram and Schilling-Estes remind us that slangs
importance lies in its sociopsychological role (71). Although slang is not easily defined, it is
easily identifiable due to the fact that it is fundamentally vocabulary as Connie Eble notes
(289). This serves to further explain the tension behind the term itself; slang is vocabulary, but
more significantly, vocabulary used by speakers with particular social meaning depending on the
context and audience. Dumas and Lighter also draw several conclusions, which are still relevant
and present in todays field. One of their more insightful remarks is that we must identify who
uses slang in order to define and understand what slang actually is (13). In this regard, Wolfram
and Schilling-Estes inform us that slang is often used in the context of close-knit peer groups,
meaning that its use may even make it more appealing a symbol of in-group membership (72).
Previous research into the topic of slang usage and creation has determined that this
particular type of language is usually created as a form of oppositional linguistics. Danesi
discusses how slang has developed a somewhat negative connotation in our society because of its
association with deviance, even though some linguists point out the poetic nature of slang, as
well as its ability to be adopted by members of mainstream society outside of the in-group who
originally established the slang. He states, Overall, slang coinages provide a snapshot, so to


V
speak, of how the linguistic brain thinks. This in no way implies that slang constrains or stifles
cognitive processes, as some would claim. It actually shows the opposite (508). People often
think that by utilizing slang, a group is trying to make something that is linguistically complex
into something simpler. This, Danesi argues, is not the case at all, and he points out the
difficulty in devising new words and having them adopted as acceptable slang. Danesi also
mentions that an in-depth analysis of the social functions of slang [reveals] how we use it to
define identity or, more accurately, to design it (512). This is related to the idea that is
discussed above regarding how in-groups utilize slang to construct a particular social identity
and group norms; however, once their slang is compromised and appropriated by mainstream, it
then loses some dynamic aspect that was essential to the group who created it.
Another scholar, Dodsworth, examines how a speakers commitment to a particular
social identity relates to the way they speak. For instance, Dodsworth states that Linguistic
practices are explored with respect to speakers varying degrees of orientation or commitment to
particular personae and their associated lifestyles, and in many analyses, these in turn are taken
ultimately to derive from and constitute social structures such as class and gender
(36). Identities are complex constructions that define who we are; however, we are more than
just one characteristic, and our identities are intersectional. Race, gender, class, and a plethora of
other social characteristics merge to form identity, and it is rather difficult, if not impossible, to
try and segregate each of these characteristics from one another when analyzing language
creation and usage. Dodsworth argues that:
Such an approach would represent the intersectional nature of race, gender, class, and
other social structures. Sociological consciousness cannot simply be about one aspect of
an individuals or communitys experiences: as this analysis has suggested, multiple


VI
intersecting beliefs, prejudices, and self-images constitute an individuals sociological
consciousness, resulting in multiple kinds of implications for practice. (42)
Woolard analyzes how the US regulates language through the labor market. She points out that
individuals who go through the educational system supply the labor market, and, because of this,
cultural institutions, such as the educational institution, play a large role in determining and
enforcing a single superior language and dialect in our society (741). As a result, Standard
English comes to be seen as the language of hegemony, and the only way for individuals who
speak minority dialects to succeed is for them to develop a method of moving between their
dialect and the hegemonic Standard English dialect, a practice that linguists deem code-
switching. It is evident that language plays a significant role in determining and reinforcing an
individuals identity.
In order to fully examine the importance and results of our research, it is essential to
discuss the history and linguistic heritage of these two populations. We stated previously that
there is a lack of research regarding the Dakota English and Ojibwe English dialects. However,
another significant problem is that much of the written narrative detailing the history of the
Dakota and Ojibwe in the Red River Valley is incomplete, or demonstrates a bias towards the
dominant white population. Even in history classes, many students lack the proper instruction,
and, as a result, knowledge of the historical struggles that these two Native populations faced, as
well as a lack of understanding regarding contemporary issues. This is especially important
when considering how language is a form of powerthe lack of public discourse about these
two populations is then even more troubling.
The recent work conducted by translators Clifford Canku and Michael Simon however,
expands the historical narrative. In The Dakota Prisoner of War Letters, Canku and Simon


VII
present translations of letters written by the Dakota prisoners of the Dakota-U.S. War in 1862.
The war resulted in 265 Dakota men being imprisoned at Camp Kearney in Davenport, Iowa . As
prisoners, these men learned to read and write both Dakota and English, thereby enabling them
to write letters detailing their experiences (xix). Canku and Simons detailed translations of each
letter in Dakota English and Standard English offer a revealing perspective of the linguistic
complexities seen in Dakota English in addition to the horror and suffering resulting from the
war. The connection between language and identity is clearly demonstrated by the prisoners
choice to write in Dakota.
There are several notable characteristics of Dakota English, as John Peacock informs
readers. He calls the dialect a stable, well-documented, rule governed, predictable dialect that
has been spoken and written across the reservations of North and South Dakota for more than a
century (xxii). The first two characteristics that Peacock describes include multiple negation
and possessive constructions by word order rather than case ending (xxiii). He then describes
what are known as topic/comment constructions in which The topic of a sentenceis stated
first (xxiii). Additionally, he remarks on what previous researchers identified as backing and
filling repetitions (xxiv). These distinctive linguistic features also contain markers of cultural
identity, as Peacock describes in his own experiences translating Dakota English to Standard
English (xxvi-xxvii).
Ojibwe English has always been an oral language. Putting the language into English
words has proved a challenge for both sides to this day, as Brenda Austin remarks. Ojibwe is
one of the hardest languages in the world to acquire not because it is hard to pronounce but
because it is so descriptive. Ojibwe is about 80% verbs as compared to English, which is about
80% nouns (par. 17). The online Ojibwe Peoples Dictionary, which is funded by the


VIII
University of Minnesota and Minnesota Historical Society, describes the Ojibwe language itself
as a chain of linked local varieties, grouped into nearly a dozen dialects (Why par. 2). These
dialects are diverse, with much morphological and phonological variation (Why par. 2). This
particular study has a participant from the Ojibwe Turtle Mountain reservation.
Research Questions:
Now that we have discussed the research that preceded our study regarding the use and
variation of slang among Dakota and Ojibwe speakers in the Red River Valley, we will discuss
the various research questions that we aimed to answer by conducting our study. It is important
to point out that we conducted our study in an attempt to fill the various holes that previous
research had left open due to a lack of linguistic research on this particular population.
Since none of this previous literature focused primarily on the use of Dakota and Ojibwe
slang utilizing a guided conversation approach for collecting data, we decided that this would be
a rich area of study that could provide insight into a population that is underrepresented in
sociolinguistics studies. As mentioned before, sociolinguists such as Wolfram and Schilling-
Estes have pointed out the importance of language in identity construction. The lack of
appropriate diversified representation in studies focused on slang use and variation hinders the
understanding and appreciation of various populations and their associated cultural differences.
The research questions that we hope to answer with this study include:
I. What slang terms are commonly used among speakers of Dakota and Ojibwe English in
the Red River Valley?
II. Is there variation in the slang used among Dakota and Ojibwe English speakers based on
the various demographic characteristics of the speaker?
III. Is the particular slang utilized by these populations different from what we are used to
hearing among Standard English speakers?




IX
Methods:
Participants
We recruited volunteers for this research project by reaching out to the Native American
populations present on the North Dakota State University campus and in the Red River Valley
region. Our goal was to recruit approximately 20 male and female participants ages 18 or older;
however, because of the difficulties in connecting with this particular minority community
(which we will elaborate on further in our discussion), we were only able to recruit 10
individuals, four Dakota men, five Dakota women, and one Ojibwe woman ranging in age from
22 to 70 years of age.
Research Design
Due to the limited amount of time available for conducting this study, and the limited
amount of available participants, we determined that collecting our data primarily through
individual interviews and one large focus group would not only elicit the desired responses, but
also provide us with the best opportunity for maximizing our time and resources. The guided
conversations and interviews were audio recorded with identifiers removed and transcribed.
Procedure
The interviews and focus group were conducted on the North Dakota State University
campus and on the Sisseton-Wahpeton reservation in South Dakota during April and May of
2013. Individuals were asked to participate in interviews and the focus group for around 20-30
minutes. Before conducting the research, all individuals were given a disclosure form, and then
were asked to fill out a questionnaire aimed at gathering demographic information such as age,
marital status, gender, occupation, and tribal affiliation. We hypothesized that these social


X
characteristics could influence the variety of slang that they used in conversations, thus
impacting the results of our study.
After giving participants both of these documents, we then asked for permission to record
them. Each participant was led through a series of questions aimed at establishing a relationship
between the researcher and participant so that they would feel comfortable sharing information
that would elicit the use of slang terms. These questions sought information about participants
personal interests, family traditions, culture, and Native American culture in general. We
quickly realized that it was important to have a member of the Native American community
present when we were collecting data in order to establish repertoire with participants, and not be
a drive-by researcher. A drive-by researcher (as we were informed by one of our
participants), is someone who collects data from a minoritized population and then never shares
the results of their study with the individuals who participated. This leads to animosity and
distrust among populations that are often studied, as the majority of our participants confirmed
after we disclosed the nature of the study.
Slight deception was used regarding the intent of the study in order to avoid the
phenomenon known as the Observer's Paradox, which would have inhibited our ability to collect
data that achieved both reliability and validity. After each interview and the focus group,
participants were debriefed and informed of the deception involved, as well as affirming their
role in our data collection process.
Results:
While conducting this study, we did not anticipate to find so much specific data related to
the power of prestige and oppositional linguistics in Ojibwe and Dakota English. However, this
matter proved especially insightful regarding the relationship between identity and language, and


XI
also the social tension between whites and the Native American populations of the Red River
Valley.
In one interview, a participant explained in great detail her experiences with Standard
English versus Ojibwe English. She noted that she purposefully utilizes code-switching in order
to fit in with the various speech communities she is a member of, including fellow tribe members
and her academic colleagues. She later explained how using Ojibwe English in a context where
she should be using Standard English (such as the academic institution where she is
employed), would result in people thinking she was uneducated and simple, as per her previous
experiences. She also expressed her awareness of Standard English being considered a prestige
dialect compared to minority dialects in the U.S. These thoughts were consistently identified and
discussed by all participants after debriefing.
Data
True to our expectations, when participants were talking to the researchers on our team,
they consistently used Standard English, rather than Ojibwe or Dakota English. However, after
we had debriefed them of the purpose and nature of the study, all participants told us they use the
rez talk dialect commonly used by Native Americans with only other Native Americans. They
also informed us of the slang words and phrases that they use with fellow tribal members. This
indicated that they were familiar with slang items, but purposefully chose not to use it in our
presence, as we were members of the Standard English speech community in the context of the
study. Notably, when two white members of our research team interviewed one participant, she
recommended that the team members should have had a Native person conduct the interview,
because she would have more likely utilized slang if there was another Native American present.
However, even when Heather, our team member who is a member of the Sisseton-Whapeton


XII
tribe accompanied other non-native team members during data collection, participants still
demonstrated some hesitancy using features of the rez talk dialect, and any Dakota
English/Ojibwe English slang.
Findings of Instances and Varieties of Slang
Before we debriefed participants, much of the slang used in conversations consisted of
slang commonly used in Standard English, such as OMG for Oh my God, flubbing, and
holy buckets. Several participants, after debriefing mentioned that some of the Standard
English slang expressions that they used were commonly used by their children and other young
relatives. In particular, our focus group consisting of six Dakota tribal members mentioned the
influence of their children in affecting their own Standard English slang use.
Below, we chart the slang words identified by participants after debriefing, and their meaning
according to participants.
Dakota Slang Word Meaning
Ahosh Expression of disbelief or displeasure
*Lip gesticulating Referring to a location
Oh next Used for narration
Ho-lay Expression of shock
Really Equivalent to bs-ing in English
Daheesh Expression of disbelief
Watca Take-out

Ojibwe Slang Word Meaning
*Lip gesticulating Referring to a location
Oh you think youre cute today? Expression of mockery
Mechanawa Means again or then what

(*Lip gesticulating as defined by participants is a type of physical slang used to indicate
location. Speakers subtly twitch their lips and head to point, rather than using their index finger.)



XIII
It is important to note that even after speakers identified slang words that they use, they
still did not use them in their context with us when discussing them, which reveals how these
speakers purposefully use language in different speech communities.
Additionally, the clear contrast between Dakota and Ojibwe English slang words reveal
the influence of the ancestral language of each tribe. While Dakota English slang uses Dakota
language words and phrases, Ojibwe English slang is influenced by both Cree and French as the
Ojibwe participant noted after debriefing, demonstrating the Founders Effect as a result of
invasion and colonization by Europeans and white Americans. Notably, our Ojibwe speaker
seemed very aware of her tie to the academic community, and the prestige associated with it.
After the debriefing, she still seemed hesitant to share more features of Ojibwe slang with our
research team members. The setting of the interview might have also contributed to this matter,
as the interview was held at her place of employment, thereby constraining her speech.
Additional Findings
Although our study focused on slang use and variations by Dakota English and Ojibwe
English speakers, we found several other interesting phonological and morphological traits of
both dialects as well.
Speakers from both dialects often replaced the th sound in English with d in the
words them and those. The Dakota English speakers frequently used oh yeah as a filler, as
well as just like. Occasionally, the Dakota English speakers didnt use articles or pronouns at
times, which seems to be in accordance with the Dakota language. Participants in interviews and
our focus group tended to use as if in its Standard English context to express disbelief, but the
words are often linked together to form assif.


XIV
The Ojibwe English speaker noted that Dakota English speakers frequently mock the
slang and phrases of Ojibwe English. She also used the expression yous guys, extending the
plurality of the pronoun. She also mentioned Ojibwe English slang on Facebook, describing that
the Internet meme Grumpy Cat is frequently paired with the expression Indians be like with
additional descriptors.
Discussion:
The results above indicate that Dakota English and Ojibwe English speakers are
conscious and aware of the need for using specific language and dialects in specific speech
communities, which reasserts that language does indeed not only shape identity, but also is in
flux constantly. It also evident that there is a significant difference between Dakota English and
Ojibwe English slang use and varieties stemming from the varying influence of both ancestral
languages and English and French.
The prestige associated with Standard English is quite clear, as shown in our participants
deliberate use of Standard English, especially when speaking to non-native researchers. Again,
this also demonstrates the tension between these two groups and the dominant white population
of the Red River Valley. More importantly, it also reiterates the stigmatization of minority
culture through language.
The most challenging part of this study consisted of recruiting participants. We believe
that this is related to the negative treatment of Native Americans historically and contemporarily,
including by the U.S. in general, and even academics. As discussed previously, one participant
mentioned the term drive-by researcher, researchers who study minorities, but never share
their findings with the minority populations. This, as our participants mentioned, has made
Native Americans understandably wary and reluctant to participate in research. Even though we


XV
attempted to reach out to several organizations, we reached a wall with setting things up with
them. However, this could be due to the time constraints of our project. As we noted earlier,
some of our participants remained cognizant to the fact that our team are members of the
academic community, therefore having a position of power in relation to them, especially as
academics themselves are considered to have a more prestigious standing. Our Native American
team member, Heather, experienced this phenomenon even after she revealed her tribal
affiliation.
Although we were not able collect as much data on slang use and variations in both
dialects as we hoped to, we did collect some interesting results on the morphological and
phonological features of each dialect. Additionally, learning about Native Americans awareness
of the prestige of Standard English made us reflect on our own usage of Standard English in
specific speech communities.
Potential for Future Research
While this study did provide insight into the use and variations of Dakota English slang
and Ojibwe English slang, there is still a lot of potential for future research on this topic. If
researchers were to do a long-term study on this topic, there are several items that could be
adjusted in order to get a richer collection of data from this particular population. For instance,
once of the constraints in conducting a study such as this is that the academic institution
sometimes unintentionally perpetuates stereotypes and the stigmatization of minorities, which
makes it difficult to collect data from this population. In order to best address this issue in future
research, researchers could use ethnography and large focus groups instead of guided
conversations to avoid instances where speakers only use Standard English when talking to the
researchers. As noted above, participants were aware of slang vocabulary and the differences


XVI
between Dakota or Ojibwe English and Standard English; however, they were not comfortable
talking to non-Native researchers using a dialect that varied from Standard English. Another
item that could be addressed by future researchers is to make sure that they have a Native
American researcher to facilitate the focus groups in order to make the participants more
comfortable and likely to use non-Standard English.




















XVII
Works Cited

Austin, Brenda. "Language Of The People Forever." Tribal College Journal 19.3 (2008): 28-31.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 May 2013.
Danesi, Marcel. "The Forms And Functions Of Slang." Semiotica 182.1-4 (2010): 507-517.
Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.
Dodsworth, Robin. "Sociological Consciousness As A Component Of Linguistic Variation."
Journal Of Sociolinguistics 12.1 (2008): 34-57. Communication & Mass Media
Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.
Dumas, Bethany K., and Jonathon Lighter. Is Slang a Word for Linguistics? American Speech.
53.1 (1978): 5-17. JSTOR. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.
Eble, Connie. American College Slang. Focus on the USA. Ed. Edgar W. Schneider.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996. 289-296. Print.
Peacock, John. Introduction. The Dakota Prisoner of War Letters. By Clifford Canku and
Michael Simon. 2013. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society P., 2013. xix-xxviii.
Print.
Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. American English. 2
nd
Ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2006. Print.
Woolard, Kathryn A. "Language Variation And Cultural Hegemony: Toward An Integration Of
Sociolinguistic And Social Theory."American Ethnologist 12.4 (1985): 738-748.
PsycINFO. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.


XVIII
U. of MN Dept. of American Indian Studies and MN University Libraries. Why We Need the
Ojibwes Peoples Dictionary. The Ojibwe Peoples Dictionary. 2013. Web. 5 May
2013.