Development of the Pittsburgh Dialect in the Postmodern Period from the Perspective of the Influence of Sociolinguistic Factors


  • Kateryna Vukolova National Academy of Science of Ukraine Research and Educational Center Of Foreign Languages
  • Vira Zirka National Academy of Science of Ukraine Research and Educational Center of Foreign Languages
  • Nataliia Styrnik Oles Honchar Dnipro National University
  • Tetiana Smoliana V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
  • Lyudmyla Kulakevych Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology



Ecolinguistic approach, ethnic origin, social status, social factors, speech functioning, the United States of America, sociophonetic differentiation, sociolinguistics, variability, postmodernism


The relevance of the work is determined, first of all, by a new perspective on the speech variability analysis depending on the influence of selected extralingual factors: gender, ethnicity, social status and age, which, of course, corresponds to the current state of the linguistic development and growing interest in disclosure of the influence of social factors on the functioning of language  in different territories, as well as the application of an ecolinguistic approach to the analysis of Pittsburgh dialect sociolinguistic differentiation. Second, our study is quite interesting in response about the sociocultural role importance of the Pittsburgh dialect (object of study) in the overall linguistic picture of the United States of America. The aim of the work is to determine the main parameters of the concept of “language behaviour of Pittsburgh residents” and to establish patterns of language unit’s variation of the Pittsburgh dialect in accordance with the impact on their functioning of extralingual factors: gender, ethnicity, social status and age. The language behaviour of Pittsburgh residents is due to the influence of non-linguistic factors (gender, ethnicity, social status of speakers and age). The functioning of speech in this area, the implementation of phonetic processes and lexical units in communication directly depends on the social impact on speech. The novelty of the study is that for the first time on the material of the modern Pittsburgh dialect the regularities of variation of language mean of phonetic and lexical levels from the point of view of ecolinguistic approach to studying sociolinguistic differentiation of speech of Pittsburgh dialects speakers are determined. An analytical study was conducted and the variation of certain language tools used by Pittsburgh speakers according to their social affiliation was established.


Bell, R. (1980). Sotsiolingvistika. Tseli, metodyi, problemyi [Sociolinguistics. Goals, methods, problems]. Mezhdunarodnyie otnosheniya.

Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. McMillan Press Ltd.

Crowley, T. (1989). The politics of discourse: the standard language question in british cultural debates. Macmillan Education.

Davis, L., & Houck, C. (1992). Is There a Midland Dialect Area?—Again. Аmerican Speech, 67(1), 61-70.

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.

Filin, F.P. (1982). Ocherki po teorii yazyikoznaniya [Essays on the theory of linguistics]. Nauka.

Fishman, P.M. (1997). Interaction: the work women do. Social Problems, 25(4), 397–406,

Gerasymova, I., Maksymchuk, B., Bilozerova, M., Chernetska, Yu., Matviichuk, T., Solovyov, V., & Maksymchuk, I. (2019). Forming professional mobility in future agricultural specialists: the sociohistorical context. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 11(4), 345-361.

Hassan, I. (1987). Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture. Ohio State University Press.

Holubovska, I.O., Zhalai, V.Y., Lynnyk, T.H., Bykhovets, N.M., Parkhomenko, A.F., Rubashova, L.M., & Boboshko, T.M. (2016). Terminolohichna vari-atyvnist: pidkhody do vyvchennia [Terminological variability: approaches to study]. Linguistics of the XXI century, 3-22.

Jeszenszky, P., & Weibel, R. (2015). Measuring boundaries in the dialect continuum. The 18th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science.

Johnson, E. (1994). Yet Again: The Midland Dialect. American Speech, 69(4), 419-430.

Kurath, H., & Arbor, A. (1949). A word geography of the eastern United States. University of Michigan Studies in American English.

Labov, U. (1976). The unity of sociolinguistics. Linguistic Agency University of Trier.


Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and women’s Place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45–79.

Larin, B. (1928). K lingvisticheskoy harakteristike goroda [On the linguistic characteristics of the city]. Bulletin of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen, 1, 175–184.

Lejchik, V.M. (2009). Termynovedenye: predmet, metodyi, struktura [Terminology: subject, methods, structure]. Lybrokom.

Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.


Nerubasska, A., & Maksymchuk, B. (2020). The Demarkation of Creativity, Talent and Genius in Humans: a Systemic Aspect. Postmodern Openings, 11(2), 240-255.

Nerubasska, A., Palshkov, K., & Maksymchuk, B. (2020). A Systemic Philosophical Analysis of the Contemporary Society and the Human: New Potential. Postmodern Openings, 11(4), 275-292.

Semenets, O. (1986). Sotsiolinhvistychna typolohiia variantiv polietnichnoi movy [Sociolinguistic typology of variants of polyethnic language]. Movoznavstvo, 5(1), 8–14.


Smart, B. (1993). Postmodernity. Routledge.

Tollefson, J.W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. Longman.

Trudgill, P. (1992). Introducing language and society. Penguin English.

Vinogradov, V. (1967). Problemyi literaturnyih yazyikov i zakonomernostey ih obrazovaniya i razvitiya [Problems of literary languages and patterns of their formation and development]. Nauka.

Yermolenko, S. (2004). Norma movna [Language norm]. Ukrainska mova. Entsyklopediia, 420–421. Ukrajinsjka encyklopedija.

Yermolenko, S.Y., Bybyk, S.P., & Todor, O.H. (2001). Ukrainska mova: Korotkyi tlumachnyi slovnyk linhvistychnykh terminiv [Ukrainian language: Short explanatory dictionary of linguistic terms]. Kyiv: Lybid,




How to Cite

Vukolova, K., Zirka, V., Styrnik, N., Smoliana, T., & Kulakevych, L. (2022). Development of the Pittsburgh Dialect in the Postmodern Period from the Perspective of the Influence of Sociolinguistic Factors. Postmodern Openings, 13(1), 420-435.



Theoretical articles

Publish your work at the Scientific Publishing House LUMEN

It easy with us: publish now your work, novel, research, proceeding at Lumen Scientific Publishing House

Send your manuscript right now