doi:10.1017/S0266078410000155 12 English Today 103, Vol. 26, No. 3 (September 2010). Printed in the United Kingdom © 2010 Cambridge University Press

Beyond the 2nd generation:English use among ChineseAmericans in the San FranciscoBay AreaLAUREN HALL-LEW and REBECCA L. STARR

English pronunciations among Chinese Americans in SanFrancisco reveal new local and transnational identities

Introduction

The concept of immigrant generation is com-plex. Americans use the ordinal designationsfirst-, second-, third-, even ‘1.5’-generation torefer to individuals’ varying relationship totheir family’s moment of immigration. Butthese terms are much more fluid in practicethan the rigidity of the numbers implies, andthe nature of that fluidity is changing overtime. Furthermore, different waves of immi-gration mean different experiences of genera-tion identity; a first-generation immigrant inthe 1880s entered an American communitythat was drastically different than the one afirst-generation immigrant enters today.

One example of these shifts in the meaningof immigrant generation is among Asian Amer-icans across the country, particularly those inCalifornia. In this paper, we discuss the rela-tionship between language and immigrantgeneration with respect to Chinese Americansin the San Francisco Bay Area of Northern Cal-ifornia, the region of the United States with thelongest history of Chinese immigration andsettlement. We focus in particular on the pro-nunciation of English, drawing on data col-lected in the Bay Area from 2008–2009 toargue that Chinese cultural and linguistic prac-tices are gaining currency in the wider commu-nity. Our discussion looks at the experiences ofthird and higher immigrant generations, espe-cially as they interact with more recent wavesof immigrants, and the resulting dominance of

Chinese and other Asian identities across theBay Area. The layered and rapidly shifting Chi-nese American experience suggests potentialfuture directions for the study of other immi-grant communities in the United States.

Asian Americans and English in theUnited States

Until recently, Asian Americans’ pronunciationof English had been largely neglected by soci-olinguists researching ethnicity and linguisticvariation. When Asian Americans had beenincluded in studies, they were often assumedand/or shown to share the same patterns ofphonetic production as their White counter-parts (e.g., Hinton, et al., 1987; Hagiwara,1997). In later work on Asian Americans,Wong (2007) found that Chinese Americans inNew York City produced some, but not all, ofthe vowel features attributed to White NewYork City English. Studies on young KoreanAmericans (Chun, 2001; Reyes, 2005) andLaotian Americans (Bucholtz, 2004) haveshown some speakers producing features pre-viously attributed to African American Englishvarieties. Chun’s work (2002; 2009a; 2009b)on Mock Asian styles analyzes the phonetic (aswell as other linguistic) resources employed toform a Mock Asian accent; nearly all of thesefeatures were characteristic of, but not limitedto, non-native English pronunciation. Otherstudies have analyzed phonetic perception,

investigating listeners’ abilities to distinguishAsian American voices from White voices (Pod-beresky, et al., 1990; Hanna, 1997; Newman etal., 2007; Newman & Wu, ms).

This latter strand of research points to theprimary reason for the lack of attention toAsian Americans’ phonetic production – schol-ars and laypeople alike have long consideredAsian Americans to not have an ‘ethnolect,’ ora variety associated with an ethnically markedcommunity that stands in contrast to a main-stream community. In other words, AsianAmericans do not appear to fit the ‘distinctive-ness-centered models of language and ethnic-ity’ (Bucholtz, 2004:130) that have drivenmuch of the work on sociophonetic variationand ethnicity in U.S. English. One reason forthe apparent absence of a unified, distinctivevariety may be that Asian Americans hold

more positive ideologies about mainstreamU.S. English than are typically found amongother non-White ethnic groups. Another rea-son might be exactly the feature that makes‘Asian America’ most interesting for analysesof language and ethnicity: the extreme vari-ability of Asian American identity. The influ-ences of heritage languages on the Englishproduction of Asian Americans are numerous,and are many more than Chicano English, forexample, which is primarily influenced byMexican Spanish. Asian American identitiesare highly diverse, as well as rapidly changing,particularly in areas like the San Francisco BayArea. English pronunciation is just one sym-bolic resource for the negotiation of culturalidentity across these multiple ethnic groupsand immigrant generations.

In part because of the scarcity of research onAsian Americans’ phonetic variation in U.S.English, and also because of the tremendousdiversity of heritage languages, most of thesociolinguistic analyses of Asian Americangroups have focused on one ethnic subgroup inparticular, e.g., Korean Americans, CambodianAmericans, or Japanese Americans. Anothermotivation for limiting the scope of a givenstudy is that many urban communities may bedominated by one subgroup, due to immigra-tion histories and settlement patterns. Moreimportantly, there tends to be a great deal ofdiversity that exists within a given subgroup,which must be explored in its own right. Chi-nese Americans are one of the most heteroge-neous Asian groups within Asian America (asdiscussed below), and this paper considers thatdiversity with respect to the variable pronunci-ation of English in the San Francisco Bay Area.We put fortward an argument for the emer-gence and proliferation of multiple styles thatare increasingly available to monolingual Eng-lish speakers in similarly urban, multiethniccommunities.

Chinese Americans in the SanFrancisco Bay Area

California’s population was multiethnic beforeit even became a state, and Chinese Americanshave been a major part of its population sincethe earliest days of statehood. Coinciding withthe gold rush, the Tai Ping Rebellion of 1850drove many people to escape and begin newlives in California, or Gum Shan (‘GoldenMountain’). During the 1860s and 1870s,

ENGLISH USE AMONG CHINESE AMERICANS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 13

LAUREN HALL-LEW is a5th-generation, multiracialChinese American and iscurrently a MellonPostdoctoral Fellow inSociolinguistics at theUniversity of Oxford. Sheholds a PhD in Linguisticsfrom Stanford University. Herresearch interests are in

language variation and change, particularlyEnglish phonetics. She is currently working on therelationship between speech perception, ethnicity,and local authenticity, with specific focus on thepronunciation of vowels and syllable-final /l/ (e.g.,‘fell’) among Chinese Americans in San Francisco,California. Email: lauren1@gmail.com.

REBECCA STARR is a visitinglecturer at Tulane Universityin Anthropology and AsianStudies, where she teacheslinguistics and MandarinChinese. She is also a PhDcandidate at StanfordUniversity. Her work focuseson variation in Mandarin,Cantonese, Japanese, and

English, as well as the role of different aspects oflanguage in the creation of style. She has previouslystudied Asian Americans in the Bay Area in herresearch on the speech of teachers and students inMandarin-English dual immersion schools. Herresearch on English includes a co-authored paper,‘Indexing Political Persuasion: Variation in the IraqVowels’ (‘American Speech’ 2010).Email: rstarr@gmail.com.

Chinese immigration was actively encouragedby major railroad companies operating in Cali-fornia promising work building the westernportion of the Transcontinental Railroad.These earliest immigrants, particularly thosefrom China’s Guangdong province, paved thepath across the Pacific Ocean linking Asia toCalifornia. Since the mid-1800s, many peoplefrom across Asia have made that journey, set-tling in the United States and contributing tothe multi-faceted pan-ethnic identity: AsianAmerican. The San Francisco Bay Area wascentral to this process of settlement, intermix-ing, and emergence, and continues to betoday.

This relatively long history of Chinese andother Asian waves of migration means thattoday’s Chinese American community, in itsbroadest definition, is stratified according toboth immigration generation and ethnic iden-tity. In contrast to other parts of the UnitedStates, Chinese Americans in the Bay Areainclude those who identify as fourth- or fifth-generation, some of whom may also identify asbiracial, multiethnic, or mixed-race, and manyof whom experience and construct Chineseidentity in ways quite different from their sec-ond-generation counterparts. At the sametime, new Chinese immigrants continue toarrive, often settling directly in the same com-munities, and co-constructing ethnic identityacross the immigrant generation divide. Thishas led to a multi-faceted relationship betweenlanguage use and immigrant generationamong Chinese Americans in the Bay Area,with interesting implications for stylistic varia-tion in the use of English. Even among ChineseAmericans specifically, any simple notion of‘ethnolect’ is untenable in the San FranciscoBay Area. The relationship between Englishpronunciation and Chinese American identityis better understood as a negotiation of locallinguistic resources that index ethnic meaningsin different ways.

The nature of Chinese settlement in the BayArea is highly diverse not only because of itslong history but also as a result of the sociopo-litical circumstances and linguistic geographyof the Chinese population across East andSoutheast Asia. Individuals identifying as ‘Chinese American’ may have ancestors whoemigrated not only from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, but also fromMalaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philip-pines, Vietnam, and other regions and nations.

The first wave of Chinese immigration, primar-ily from Cantonese and Toisanese/Taishanese-speaking regions of Southern China, was cutshort as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act of1882. Despite some immigration in the follow-ing decades, particularly ‘paper son’ immigra-tion following the San Francisco earthquakeand fire of 1906,1 the second major wave ofimmigration did not arrive until the lifting ofimmigration restrictions in 1965. This periodconsisted primarily of immigration from Tai-wan and Hong Kong, and mainly of individualswhose families had fled the Communists invarious parts of Mainland China decades ear-lier, resulting in a very different migrationexperience than those earlier immigrants whohad arrived directly from China, before theCommunist occupation. Already by the late1960s this meant that ‘Chinese American’ wasnot a singular identity, even within communi-ties settled by people who had emigrated fromthe same region.

With recent economic and visa changes inMainland China, a new wave of Mainland Chi-nese immigrants is arriving in the Bay Area.Unlike previous groups, recent immigrantsfrom Mainland China are maintaining strongties with their country of origin, with manymoving back and forth as their educationalneeds and economic situations change. Thisnewest Chinese immigration wave is steadilyaltering the cultural and linguistic makeup ofthe Bay Area. While Cantonese, spoken inHong Kong and Southern China, was once theChinese variety most spoken in the UnitedStates, Mandarin, the standard variety ofMainland China, is now coming to dominate asthe lingua franca of choice in Chinese Ameri-can communities (Semple, 2009). Similarly,traditional characters, used in Hong Kong andTaiwan, are being pushed out in Chineseschools and media in favor of the simplifiedcharacters used in Mainland China. A culturaldivide exists in some Bay Area regions betweenthese new immigrants and older, more assimi-lated immigrant populations, and conflictshave arisen over issues such as educational pri-orities, and political stances toward China andTaiwan (Chien, 2006; Tanner, 2008).

While San Francisco is the city traditionallyassociated with Chinese Americans, this popu-lation has now expanded into the suburbs,with the southern portions of the Bay Areahome to significantly dense concentrations ofChinese Americans. The city of Cupertino, for

14 ENGLISH TODAY 103 September 2010

example, was 23.8% Chinese American as ofthe 2000 U.S. Census, a number which has certainly increased in the past 10 years, recast-ing the city with an increasingly Asian identity(see Gokhale, 2007). Within the city of SanFrancisco, decades of fair housing legislationhave now resulted in the settlement of neigh-borhoods outside of Chinatown, in part by for-mer residents of the downtown Chinatownarea. These more affluent suburban neighbor-hoods, known by some as ‘New Chinatowns’(Laguerre, 2005), may boast populations ofmore than 50% Asian American, the vastmajority being of Chinese descent.

Variation in San Francisco Bay AreaEnglish

The English spoken by native-born residents ofthe San Francisco Bay Area shares many of thefeatures of the English spoken in Southern Cal-ifornia and parts of Arizona, Nevada, and Ore-gon. Although considered by some to be lessdistinct or marked than other areas of theUnited States, there are several sound changesin progress that are characteristic of westernvarieties. Many of these fall under the North-ern California Vowel Shift (Eckert, 2008),

shown in Figure 1, which involves the counter-clockwise rotation of the front lax vowels (bitand bet), a split in the vowel in bat according tophonological environment, the fronting of theback vowels (boot, book, boat, and the centralvowel in but), and the merger of the low backvowels (bottom and bought, found in pairs likecot and caught). Although most thoroughlydocumented among communities in NorthernCalifornia, many of these vowel features havebeen found throughout areas of the WesternU.S. and Canada (Labov, 1991; Di Paolo,1992; Conn, 2000; Ward, 2003; Fridland,2004; Hall-Lew, 2005).

Speaker ethnicity and migration history havelong been central to research on English in Cal-ifornia, in some cases much more so than inresearch on English in other parts of the UnitedStates. In particular, there are a few key stud-ies looking at its realization among speakersidentifying as Mexican American or Chicano,another (broadly construed) ethnic groupwhose presence in California in fact predatesthe existence of the state. In her work amongAnglo-American and Chicano grade schoolkids in the San Francisco Bay Area, Eckert(2008) found that students make use of vari-able pronunciations of the bat vowel in line

ENGLISH USE AMONG CHINESE AMERICANS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 15

Northern California vowel shift

beet

bait

bet

bat bottom ⁄ bought

but

boat

book

boot

bit

iy

i

ey

ε

�

v

υ

ow

uw

o

Figure 1: The Northern California Vowel Shift (Eckert, 2008)

with the norms of their particular school,which are linked to ethnicity. At one school,the Anglo norm of raising the bat vowel beforenasals (such that pan sounds something likepeh-an) is what the popular crowd orients to,while at the other school, the Chicano norm(not raising the vowel) is the pronunciationproduced by members of the popular crowd.Eckert notes that it is not the ethnicity of thespeakers themselves that correlates linguisticvariation with ethnicity, but rather the co-occurrence of linguistic variables with othersocial practices that are linked to both ethnicityand popularity.

Studies of English variation in the San Fran-cisco Bay Area such as Eckert’s have almostalways considered ethnicity as a social factorassociated with linguistic production, but fewhave looked at Chinese Americans in particu-lar, and none of them have considered immi-grant generation as an explicit factor. The firstanalysis of vowel production by this popula-tion, Hall-Lew (2009), considered the produc-tion of back vowel fronting and the low backvowel merger among second- and higher-gen-eration European and Chinese American resi-dents of one of San Francisco’s New Chinatownneighborhoods, the Sunset District. The resultsshowed two patterns of vowel productionacross these groups. For the fronting of thevowel in boot (sounding something like biwt),the rate of fronted pronunciations across astratified sample of 30 speakers did not differsignificantly according to ethnicity or immi-grant generation. Age, on the other hand, wasa conditioning factor in boot fronting (p <0.012 for boot vowels after coronal conso-nants; p < 0.057 for all instances of the bootvowel). It was found that the younger thespeaker, the more fronted the articulation ofthat vowel, and being Chinese or White madeno difference. But a slightly different patternemerged for the fronting of the vowel in boat(sounding something like beh-oat) and for themerger in the cot and caught vowels (such thatthe two words rhyme exactly). For these twovowel changes, there was again no significantdifference between the Chinese Americans andthe European Americans, but there was a dif-ference in the way both groups correlated thevowel changes with age. Overall, as with theboot vowel, both changes correlated with age(p < 0.002 for boat; p < 0.01 for cot andcaught). But this same correlation, althoughfound for the Asian Americans, wasn't found

for the European Americans. (p < 0.002 forboat; p < 0.01 for cot and caught). This pre-sented an unexpected finding. Most researchon language and ethnicity in U.S. Englishwould predict that if one of these two groupswere more likely to show a correlationbetween speaker age and vowel pronunciation,it would be the European American group,because Labov (2001) and others have arguedthat non-White groups lag behind Whites interms of sound change. However, in this NewChinatown community, the correlation was theopposite. The Chinese American speakersshowed a correlation between speaker age andthe pronunciation of the boat, cot, and caughtvowels, the same correlation that was foundfor the community as a whole, while this wasnot the case for the European American sub-sample. Since we can hypothesize that a corre-lation between pronunciation and speaker ageindicates a sound change in progress, thisstudy shows that Chinese Americans’ pronun-ciation of English reflects the community-widepronunciation patterns more closely thanEuropean Americans’ pronunciations do. Thestudy also compared second- and third-genera-tion speakers and found that the immigrantgeneration of the speaker does not seem to cor-relate with that speaker’s vowel production.

Research in progress focusing on these samespeakers is demonstrating further ethnic dis-tinctiveness in English pronunciation, in addi-tion to this pattern of production of regionalvowel patterns. Specifically, the vocalization ofsyllable-final /l/ (pronouncing the /l/ soundcloser to a /w/), known as ‘L-vocalization,’ hasbeen found across a number of the ChineseAmerican participants from this New China-town neighborhood, and even (to a lesserextent) among some of the European Ameri-cans, as well. L-vocalization involves the pro-nunciation of the /l/ such that it resembles aback vowel or a voiced glide (Hardcastle &Barry, 1989), so that words like cold and skillsound like code and skew, and seems likely tohave appeared in the English of Chinese Amer-icans because of the lack of a syllable-final /l/ inall varieties of Chinese. So, unlike the produc-tion of regional vowel changes, the productionof L-vocalization appears, at least initially, tobe correlated with immigrant generation.However, immigrant generation was a socialvariable that was, until recently, conflatedwith other variables such as native languageand age of acquisition. In other words, first

16 ENGLISH TODAY 103 September 2010

generation immigrants generally spoke Englishas a second language, while their second gen-eration children acquired English at the sametime as (or only a couple years after) acquiringproficiency in their parents’ language, andthird generation children acquired only Eng-lish. This oversimplified representation is nolonger adequate to describe the linguistic expe-riences of Chinese (and other Asian) Ameri-cans in the San Francisco Bay Area. Indeed,preliminary analysis suggests that there arethird and higher immigrant-generation Chi-nese Americans who are vocalizing /l/, despitenot being immigrants themselves, or evenbeing raised by immigrant parents. One possi-bility is that because the San Francisco BayArea community is majority Asian American,its residents are more likely to maintain her-itage language features in the local variety ofEnglish. This may indicate a trend toward theproliferation of linguistic styles associated withimmigrant identities. Such a trend would befurther supported by suggestive evidence ofEuropean Americans also producing L-vocal-ization, which points to the argument put for-ward by Eckert (2008) that it is the socialmeaning of the variant, and not the ethnicity ofthe speaker themselves, that is more crucial toan analysis of language and ethnicity.

Beyond the second generation

When auguring the future of Chinese Ameri-cans’ use of English, it is crucial to understandthat the current demographic context of Chi-nese Americans is unlikely to remain stable.While we might assume that it will becomeincreasingly common to find Americans whoidentify as ethnically Chinese but are culturallyAmerican (and are native English speakers), infact it seems possible that this population willshrink, and that the current, relatively largegroup of individuals who fit into this categoryis the result of some unique historical factorswhich are rapidly disappearing.

The first major demographic shift that isoccurring in this population is the result ofinterracial marriage. Studies indicate that ratesof interracial marriage for Chinese Americansare quite high; only 44% of U.S.-raised ChineseAmerican women and 53.1% of men marriedChinese partners (Le, 2010). On the otherhand, recent studies also suggest that interra-cial marriage is beginning to decrease, possiblyas a result of increasing immigrant populations,

and increasing availability of intra-ethnic socialconnections via online dating and residentialpatterns (Gowen, 2009). In the Bay Area, inter-racial marriage among Chinese Americans isprevalent, but current immigration trends mayslow or reverse this phenomenon.

Of course, this interracial marriage issueraises the question of whether individuals withmultiracial backgrounds will continue to iden-tify as Chinese American, or to use linguisticfeatures like L-vocalization. Certainly multira-cial individuals can and do participate in Chi-nese American communities in the Bay Area,but their access to Chinese American identity ismore complicated than for individuals ofwholly Chinese ancestry. Subsequent genera-tions of interracial marriage further extend thiscomplex, and ultimately distanced, associa-tion. At the same time, as pronunciations withethnic associations become available to thewider community, which may be the case for L-vocalization, multiracial individuals will be ina better position than, for example, EuropeanAmericans, to acquire and employ those lin-guistic styles. For those multiracial individualswho identify with more than one Asian ethnic-ity, associations between English pronuncia-tion and ‘Chinese’ meanings and practices willlikely become extended to more general ‘Asian’meanings and practices. For example, becausesyllable-final /l/ is absent from the majority ofthe Asian heritage languages that are relevantacross the Bay Area, it is a readily available linguistic resource for the construction of mul-tiple or multiracial Asian identities. Orienta-tions to pan-ethnic identities are particularlyevident in parts of the Bay Area such as theneighborhood studied by Hall-Lew (2009),where residents of all ethnicities identify andconstruct their neighborhood as a primarily‘Asian’ neighborhood, despite the clear domi-nance within ‘Asian’ of specifically Chinese ethnicities.

The second major demographic issue, as sug-gested above, is the increasing Chinese immi-grant population which has relatively strong‘back-and-forth’ ties to China (and, in somecases, Taiwan). In some respects, these immi-grants are returning to a cultural context moresimilar to that of the first wave of immigrantsfrom China in the 1800s; they are more likely tolive in areas with concentrated Chinese popula-tions, and often intend to return to China for atleast some portion of their lives – in light of the opportunities now available in China, the

ENGLISH USE AMONG CHINESE AMERICANS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 17

assumption that children of immigrants willremain in the United States is no longer a given.This population is learning English, but the con-text of their English acquisition is quite differentfrom that of the second and third generations ofsecond-wavers (whose parents or grandparentscame to the U.S. in the 1970s or 80s).

This change in immigrant population hasprofound cultural and linguistic implicationsfor Chinese Americans. Unlike previous wavesof Chinese American immigrants, 1.5- and sec-ond-generation children in this population areoften culturally oriented toward China andgreater East Asia, wearing Asian fashions andfollowing Asian pop groups. This cultural iden-tity, sometimes referred to as FOB (‘fresh offthe boat’), is quite distinct from the culture ofthe children of the first- and second-waveimmigrants, sometimes referred to as ABC(‘American-born Chinese’), which is orientedprimarily towards mainstream American cul-ture (see Shankar, 2008). Intriguingly,although these terms appear to refer to thelength of time that an individual has lived inthe United States, today they are often used torefer to cultural identities that are independentof immigration history – even fourth-genera-tion Chinese Americans can participate in FOBculture. The FOB identity has a strong appealin such communities because it draws on theincreasing cultural cachet of China, and isbased on a culture in which Chinese is themajority ethnicity. It seems likely that FOBidentity will continue to expand and subsumeABC identity, at least in areas of the countrylike the Bay Area with high concentrations ofChinese Americans and a steady rate of contin-ued immigration. The extent to which L-vocal-ization and other heritage-language featuresfound in Asian styles of English are becomingincreasingly associated with FOB identity maypoint to the future of English pronunciationacross such communities.

Although linguistic studies have yet tospecifically address this question, our prelimi-nary observation is that Chinese Americanswho participate in FOB culture, or who are partof this new immigrant wave, are more likely touse ethnically marked linguistic features thansecond wavers. In other words, they are morelikely to have features like vocalized /l/ in theirspeech. We would argue that this is due both topopulation density of non-native speakers inthese immigrant communities, and to culturalidentity factors. If FOB identity does continue

to gain prestige, then we predict that theseEnglish pronunciations associated with thatidentity will also continue to gain prestige,with profound implications for the linguisticlandscape of Chinese Americans beyond thesecond generation, even for monolingual Eng-lish speakers.

Conclusion

The pan-ethnic Asian American identity arosein the late 1960s, and gained currency in the1980s as a term uniting Americans of variousAsian backgrounds around common interests.At the time, people born in the U.S. with par-ents and grandparents who immigrated fromChina, Japan, or Korea, united around theirshared experience as being second- or third-generation, finding commonalities that theydid not have with their immigrant parents orgrandparents. A generation later, the situationhas shifted considerably in the San FranciscoBay Area and similar communities across Cali-fornia. Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino Ameri-cans in particular are today represented by awide range of immigrant generations, from anew wave of first-generation immigrants to thebirth of some sixth-generation children. Thepopulation of the San Francisco Bay Area islayered with respect to immigrant generation,heritage dialect, country of origin, multina-tional networks, and engagement with Asiancultural practices. The long history and demo-graphic dominance of Asian Americans in com-munities like the Bay Area may have differentimplications for language use and patterns ofphonetic variation than for other Asian Ameri-can communities. For Chinese Americans inparticular, orientations to Chinese culturalpractices are gaining frequency and value, andFOB styles are losing stigma and gaining cur-rency. Today’s communication technologiesmake the negotiation of linguistic and othercultural resources faster, more accessible,more fluid, and more transnational. This has afundamental effect on the experience of agiven immigrant generation, such that today’sChinese Americans are not nearly as isolatedfrom their heritage cultures as in previousdecades. Therefore, although the Bay Areamay seem like a unique site for this culturalshift, it may in fact serve as a microcosm ofbroader, national patterns of change in therelationship between immigration and Englishuse. �

18 ENGLISH TODAY 103 September 2010

ENGLISH USE AMONG CHINESE AMERICANS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 19

Note

1 ‘Paper Sons’ and ‘Paper Daughters’ formed anunofficial class of immigrants who were able toimmigrate into the U.S. under the guise of beingfamily members of U.S. citizens.

References

Bucholtz, M. 2004. ‘Styles and stereotypes: Thelinguistic negotiation of identity among LaotianAmerican youth.’ Pragmatics, 14: 127–47.

Chien, E. 2006. ‘Backlash of Wall Street Journal storyreverberates in Bay Area Chinese community.’ NewAmerican Media, January 10, 2006.

Chun, E. 2001. ‘The construction of white, black, andKorean American identities through AfricanAmerican vernacular English.’ Journal of LinguisticAnthropology, 11, 52–64.

—. 2002. ‘When Asians mock Asians: authenticity,legitimacy, and community membership.’ New Waysof Analyzing Variation 31 (NWAV31).

—. 2009a. ‘Ideologies of legitimate mockery: MargaretCho’s revoicings of mock Asian.’ In Beyond YellowEnglish: Toward a Linguistic Anthropology of AsianPacific America, ed. by Angela Reyes & Adrienne Lo,pp. 261–87. Oxford: University Press.

—. 2009b. ‘Speaking like Asian immigrants:intersections of accommodation and mocking at aU.S. high school.’ Pragmatics, 19. 17–38.

Conn, J. 2000. The Story of /ae/ in Portland. Master’sthesis, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

Di Paolo, M. 1992. ‘Hypercorrection in response to theapparent merger of (oh) and (a) in Utah English.’Language and Communication, 12. 267–92.

Eckert, P. 2008. ‘Where do ethnolects stop?’International Journal of Bilingualism 12: 25–42.

Fridland, V. 2004. ‘The spread of the cot/caughtmerger: A look at region and race.’ In New Ways ofAnalyzing Variation 33 (NWAV33), Ann Arbor, MI.University of Michigan.

Gokhale, K. 2007. ‘Percentages of white high schoolstudents decline in Silicon Valley.’ New AmericanMedia, January 6, 2007.

Gowen, A. 2009. ‘Immigrants’ children look closer forlove.’ Washington Post, March 8, 2009.

Hagiwara, R. 1997. ‘Dialect variation and formantfrequency: The American English vowels revisited.’Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102:655–8.

Hall-Lew, L. 2009. ‘Ethnicity and phonetic variation ina San Francisco neighborhood.’ Unpublished PhDDissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

—. 2005. ‘One shift, two groups: When fronting aloneis not enough.’ Penn Working Papers in Linguistics,10(2), 105–16.

Hanna, D. B. 1997. ‘Do I sound “Asian” to you?’Linguistic Markers of Asian American Identity.University of Pennsylvania Working Papers inLinguistics, 4(2),141–53.

Hardcastle, W. & Barry, W. 1985. ‘Articulatory andperceptual factors in /l/vocalizations in English.’Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 15,3–17

Hinton, L., Bremner, S., Corcoran, H., Learner,J. Luthin, H., Moonwomon, B. & van Clay, M. 1987.‘It’s not just Valley Girls: A study of CaliforniaEnglish.’ Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 117–27.

Labov, W. 1991. ‘The three dialects of English.’ In NewWays of Analyzing Sound Change, ed. by PenelopeEckert. New York, NY: Academic Press.

—. 2001. ‘Principles of linguistic change: Socialfactors.’ Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Laguerre, M. 2005. ‘The globalization of apanethnopolis: Richmond district as the NewChinatown in San Francisco.’ GeoJournal 64: 41–9.

Le, C. N. 2010. ‘Interracial dating & marriage:U.S.-Raised Asian Americans.’ Asian-Nation: TheLandscape of Asian America, May 30, 2010.

Newman, M. Change, M. & Chan, K. 2007. ‘Theinvisibility of Asian American women: Gender anddialect recognition of Asian American New Yorkers.’In New Ways of Analyzing Variation 36 (NWAV36).

—. & Wu, A. Ms. ‘Do you sound Asian when you speakEnglish?’: Racial identification and its acousticcorrelates in Asian Americans’ English. Manuscript,Queens College/CUNY.

Podberesky, R., Deluty, R. H. & Feldstein, S. 1990.‘Evaluation of Spanish- and oriental-accentedEnglish speakers.’ Social Behavior and Personality,18. 53–63.

Reyes, A. 2005. ‘Appropriation of African Americanslang by Asian American youth.’ Journal ofSociolinguistics, 9. 509–32.

Semple, K. 2009, ‘In Chinatown, Sound of the Future isMandarin.’ New York Times, October 21, 2009.

Shankar, S. 2008. ‘Speaking like a model minority:“FOB” styles, gender, and racial meanings amongDesi teens in Silicon Valley.’ Journal of LinguisticAnthropology, 18(2): 268–89.

Tanner, A. 2008. ‘Torch divides San Francisco’sChinese community.’ Thomson Reuters, April 8,2008.

Ward, M, 2003. ‘Portland Dialect Study: The frontingof /ow, U, uw/ in Portland, Oregon.’ Master’s thesis,Portland State University.

Wong, A. 2007. ‘Two vernacular features in the Englishof four American-born Chinese.’ University ofPennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: SelectedPapers from NWAV 35, 13, 217–30.