DATA COLLECTION AND STUDIES OF BLACK ENGLISH

The data for this study comes from the 2008 State of the Black Union (SBU).Footnote ³ The SBU is a yearly symposium initiated and moderated by Tavis Smiley since the year 2000 and televised each year on C-SPAN. The SBU was conceived of by Smiley as a public platform for black intellectuals, religious figures, entertainers, and politicians to discuss and debate issues relevant to the black community. The symposium, aiming to develop solutions to these key issues, has also initiated The Covenant Movement that includes the publication of a series of texts (including The Covenant with Black America, The Covenant in action, and Accountable: Making America as good as its promise) that outline the steps that individuals and politicians can take to address these issues (Smiley Reference Smiley2006, Reference Smiley2007, Smiley & Robinson Reference Smiley and Robinson2009).

The 2008 SBU was held on February 23, 2008 at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. The 2008 SBU involved discussions of: the role of the African American vote in 2008 elections; Barack Obama's possible election; the effects of the election on the economic, social, and political future of the black community; the mortgage crisis and its effects on the economy; and post-Hurricane Katrina rebuilding. The 2008 forum involved a morning session that lasted 3 hours 26 minutes, an afternoon session that lasted 3 hours 53 minutes, and a speech and question and answer session with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton lasting 46 minutes. The morning and afternoon sessions were structured to include: sponsor introductions and announcements by the moderator; questions from the moderator directed at the panelists; five to twenty minute speeches by panelists in response to moderator questions; questions and commentaries on panelist speeches from the moderator; and questions from members of the audience. The 2008 symposium included twenty-four panelists.

While demographic information about the live audience members for the 2008 symposium was unavailable at the time of this article, Smiley explicitly describes the symposium as a space for blacks to discuss issues in their community. In other words, the symposium seems to be geared towards a mainly black live audience. This is confirmed through visual inspection of the video that reveals a predominantly black, yet multicultural, audience.

The speakers selected for this study include Cleo Fields, lawyer and former member of Congress; Sheila Jackson Lee, lawyer and current member of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Eddie Glaude Jr., professor of African American studies and religion at Princeton.Footnote ⁴ Segments of speech from these participants were included in this study since (i) their speech represents a departure from typical interaction frameworks established during conferences and symposia; (ii) their speech elicits responses such as “amen” from the audience (as opposed to the laughter and applause elicited in other segments of the symposium); and (iii) the speakers use a speaking style (in this case black preaching style) that differs from their stated professional domain (i.e. no speaker in this study is present at the symposium in the capacity of a minister). This last criterion is critical since it indicates that, rather than appearing out of professional habit, these features are being actively recruited for the purposes of the present interaction.

As a point of departure from quantitative approaches to AAL that have explored code switches in vernacular syntactic, morphological, and phonetic features (Labov Reference Labov1972, Rickford & McNair-Knox Reference Rickford, McNair-Knox, Biber and Finegan1994, Alim Reference Alim2004, among others), this study utilizes a conversation-analysis (CA) transcription method in order to highlight the suprasegmental features of AAL that are utilized in style shifting in public contexts.Footnote ⁵ The CA transcription method utilized for this study is useful for sociolinguistic researchers in that it allows for the annotation of a great deal of linguistic variation including pausing, rises in intonation, added stress, aspiration, vowel lengthening, and volume increases—critical elements of AAL that are often overlooked in traditional variationist approaches to black speech. Furthermore, while hallmark vernacular AAL features—such as consonant-cluster simplification and final-consonant deletion, diphthong monophthongization, postvocalic [r] vocalization and deletion, and the realization of voiced th as [d]—occur in this data set, they appear relatively infrequently in the speeches of the speakers for this study. The limited use of vernacular AAL segmental features begs the question of what other linguistic resources, including suprasegmental and rhetorical features, black public speakers use while communicating with black audience members.

With this data and transcription method in mind, the empirical and methodological contributions of this study are twofold. First, while scholarship on AAL to date has helped to redefine what was once seen as a broken, illogical way of speaking, most studies have focused on the speech of the vernacular speaking, urban black youth, often privileging their speech as the most “authentic” and true representation of black speech (Kendall & Wolfram Reference Kendall and Wolfram2009). Yet, as scholars such as Baugh (Reference Baugh1983), Spears (Reference Spears and Cole1988) and McWhorter (Reference McWhorter1998) have pointed out, AAL includes a wide array of features (ranging from the vernacular to more standard speaking styles) based on the speaker's educational background and the context of use. Scholars such as Linnes (Reference Linnes1998), Ervin-Tripp (Reference Ervin-Tripp, Eckert and Rickford2001), Weldon (Reference Weldon2004) and Kendall & Wolfram (Reference Kendall and Wolfram2009) have led the way in expanding the empirical pool from which AAL data is drawn by exploring middle-class black speech and black speech in public, formal contexts. Yet more work needs to be done. I believe that by exploring black public speech, scholars can gain a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic nature of black language use, including the ways that black public speakers index their ethnic affiliation before multicultural audiences, negotiate relationships with interlocutors, and use black language to structure public speaking events.

Secondly, while a number of studies of AAL have utilized the sociolinguistic interview as a primary tool for data collection, this study utilizes a data-collection methodology that is similar to Ervin-Tripp (Reference Ervin-Tripp, Eckert and Rickford2001), who examined recordings speeches of black civil rights leaders, Weldon (Reference Weldon2004), who examined public speeches given at the 2004 State of the Black Union, and Rahman (Reference Rahman2007), who examined televised performances of black comedians. On the one hand, data from sociolinguistic interviews is favorable in that it allows for the close examination of speaker beliefs about their linguistic choices while eliciting authentic, vernacular language use in naturalistic settings. However, the educational backgrounds, socio-economic status, and the highly visible leadership roles of upwardly mobile, public or professional black figures often place these members of the community in public contexts where they must straddle two worlds – one black and one white – with potentially complicated linguistic results. The exploration of AAL in public contexts provides an added layer of information about context and audience-speaker interaction that cannot be gained in the private, conversational contexts favored by sociolinguistic interviews.

AUDIENCE DESIGN AND RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

As seen in the extensive literature on code switching and style shifting, individuals can draw from (sometimes iconic) associations of linguistic forms with certain types of speakers to construct identities within a speech community (Myers-Scotton Reference Myers-Scotton, Street and Cappella1985, Coupland Reference Coupland1985, Eckert Reference Eckert1989, Reference Eckert, Eckert and Rickford2001, Irvine Reference Irvine, Eckert and Rickford2001, Bucholtz & Hall Reference Bucholtz and Hall2005), they can cross linguistic borders in order to challenge and redefine the social relationships between native speakers of each code (Rampton Reference Rampton1995, Reference Rampton2000; Cutler Reference Cutler1999), or they can use the speech styles of others to display their (sometimes stereotyped) identity to individuals outside the boundaries of their speech community (Bell Reference Bell1999). Overall studies of code and style shifting reveal a fundamental quality of language—that code choices are informed by language ideologies about who speaks what, where, and when. The social ramifications of code choice explicated in these studies suggests that speakers can and do make rational choices when selecting the appropriate code for their particular circumstance.

Bell (Reference Bell1984) proposes a connection between the social stratification in a community, the set of stylistic variants available, and the individual's utilization of those variants for communicative purposes. The resultant model, the Audience Design framework, “assumes that persons respond mainly to other persons, that speakers take most account of hearers in designing their talk” (Bell Reference Bell1984:159). With this in mind, Bell assigns the categories of speaker (the primary participant), addressee (the known, ratified and directly addressed), auditors (known and ratified, but not directly addressed), overhearers (known but not ratified participants), and eavesdroppers (unknown participants) (Bell Reference Bell1984:159). Under this model, the speaker “designs” or chooses linguistic variants according to the kinds of audience members present. In addition, Bell points out that nonaudience factors such as topic and setting may also have an impact on the speaker's choice of variants.

Within this model, style shifts may be either responsive, where the speaker's linguistic choices occur in response to situational factors (such as topic and setting), or initiative, where the speaker changes the situation such that they are “infusing the flavour of one setting into a different context” (Bell Reference Bell1999:524). Critically, Bell argues that the “initiative shift is essentially a redefinition, by the speaker, of the relationship between the speaker and addressee” (Bell Reference Bell1984:185). Like metaphorical style shifts (Blom & Gumperz Reference Blom, Gumperz, Gumperz and Hymes1972) and marked choices (Myers-Scotton Reference Myers-Scotton, Street and Cappella1985, Reference Myers-Scotton and Heller1988, Reference Myers-Scotton and Myers-Scotton1998), the effectiveness of initiative shifts arises from the predetermined community norms about styles and their normal contexts of use.

Critically, Myers-Scotton's (1985, 1988, 1998) notions of rights and obligations and rights and obligations sets (RO sets) complement Bell's concept of initiative style shifts, since she provides a detailed framework that explains why codes have the potential to redefine speaker/addressee relationships. In the case of code and style choice, rights and obligations reflect the speaker and interlocutor's expectations about which codes occur in what situations and the interactional frameworks that are derived from these conventional expectations. For example, the use of standard English may be expected for public, formal lectures while the use of a nonstandard dialect may be expected for private, informal discussions. In terms of style, the use of preaching style, comedic style, and DJ style may be expected in church sermons, comedic routines, or radio broadcasts respectively. As a result, code choices that vary from the community's normative expectations about which codes occur where and when can

When matched against the speaker's expectations for a certain interaction, the use of a particular code can create a conversational implicature that highlights or makes salient certain elements of the speakers' interpersonal relationship, or rights and obligations sets (RO sets). Thus, the use of standard English in an informal family setting may signal that the speaker wants to shift to a formal, distant relationship between speakers, while nonstandard English in a formal, business setting may signal that the speaker wants to shift to a more intimate relationship. Each of these involves a shift from one, expected RO set to another, unexpected RO set for that particular context.

In fact, as the data in this paper reveals, shifts towards preaching style indicate a shift in RO set regarding the type of event that is being performed (i.e. a shift from “doing symposium” or “doing conversation” to “doing church”) and the speaker and interlocutor's relationships (i.e. from symposium-goers or conversation partners to congregation members). In addition, speakers create the potential for gaining benefits when they take on the “rights” that accompany being a preacher (i.e. elevated status and respect, audience agreement, and ethnic affiliation) while at the same time fulfilling the “obligations” of giving truth and clear guidance on social matters.

BLACK PREACHING STYLE AND THE BLACK ORAL TRADITION

Black preaching style, widely recognized in the iconic speaking style of black leaders such as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, is particularly useful as a tool for doing interpersonal work since it draws from the sacred-secular continuum of black language. In this sacred-secular continuum “those closest to the spiritual realm assume priority in social relationships” and “only those blacks who can perform stunning feats of oral gymnastics become culture heroes and leaders in the community” (Smitherman Reference Smitherman1977:76). This sacred-secular continuum, with its emphasis on verbal performance and its foundation in a spiritual world-view, is the thread that unifies the speech styles of a wide array of black speakers from poets, disc-jockeys, and rappers to politicians, academicians, and preachers. I argue that the speakers in this study appeal to the sacred end of this continuum as they articulate their public stances on secular and social issues.

While the features of a black preacher's speaking style are variable depending on their moment-by-moment interaction with the audience (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1970), black preaching style has been described as including the following features: sustained intonation (usually at climax of the sermon) and melody; rhythm; manipulation of voice quality to produce a gravelly tone; initial slow rate of delivery; stammer and hesitations; call and response; and repetition of phrases, themes, and sounds (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1970, Holt Reference Holt and Kochman1972, Smitherman Reference Smitherman1977, Reference Smitherman2000, Gumperz Reference Gumperz1982, Spencer Reference Spencer1987, Pitts Reference Pitts1993, Rickford & Rickford Reference Rickford and Rickford2000, Green Reference Green2002). According to Spencer (Reference Spencer1987) the rhythmicity of black preaching can be observed in the treatment of words and phrases as motives that are delivered with identical rhythm, expanding or contracting words in order to fit them into metrical units, “hitting a lick”, or the percussiveness and punctuation of strong consonants, alliteration, and superimposing rhythm over syllables.

Furthermore, while also variable, some recognizable features of the preacher's spiritual message, or sermon, include: jokes and the use of intimate themes in order to engage the audience and create a relaxed mood; folk story-telling techniques; illustrative narratives; biblical metaphors and themes; “probing the depths”, or a point-to-point progression where the preacher “guides his seekers rather than arguing with his opponents” (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1970:179); and an engaging climax. The climax is a critical and widely recognizable moment in the sermon since it involves a shift “from objective fact to subjective testimony” (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1970:188–89). Here “preachers … lay bare their souls in symbolic and contagiously free affirmation” (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1970:189) and become first-hand witnesses to the ideas that they are presenting. Finally, the climax marks the moment in which the preacher makes his or her message memorable and complete. In other words, through creative variations in pitch, tone, and rhetorical structuring, “the idea … is embraced and celebrated. It is, as it were, burned into the consciousness of the hearer” (Mitchell Reference Mitchell1970:194).

The skillful employment of elements such as these during the sermon and the overall act of preaching is critical since the preaching must be engaging enough to hold the congregants' attention. In other words,

Rickford and Rickford argue that “the preacher's fundamental role is to explicate the Bible, while the congregation's fundamental role is to back up and build up the preacher” (Rickford & Rickford Reference Rickford and Rickford2000:50). Spencer (Reference Spencer1987) notes that call-and-response interactional modes are particularly suited to the establishment of role expectations between the preacher and the audience:

Along similar lines, Holt (Reference Holt and Kochman1972:192) has argued that “the intensity and volume of audience response signals the preacher that he is getting across, that he's telling the truth, that the audience is enjoying what he says and appreciates how he says it.”

Importantly, black preaching style is part of the AAL tradition whereby the “man of words” and his verbal dexterity is highly valued in the black community. The importance of this dexterity is evidenced in the work of Abrahams (Reference Abrahams1970) who classifies two important types of “men of words” in black communities. First, broad talkers are “those who rely on wit and other verbally economical devices, and who commonly use the informal, creole-based code as their medium” (Abrahams Reference Abrahams1970:505–6). Secondly, good talkers are “those who rely on ornamental diction and elaborated grammar and syntax, and who gravitate toward an approximation of Standard English as their primary medium of expression” (Abrahams Reference Abrahams1970:506). Overall, when considering how speech is valued in the black community, Abrahams argues that

Thus, well-versed public speakers in the black community are always aware that their speech has the potential to create a dynamic shift in their relationship with the audience. In fact, as shown in the analysis below, widely recognizable stylistic features of black preaching become highly favorable tools for evoking agreement, most noticeably in the form of “amen” and applause from the audience. Overall, the speakers in this study draw from a domain where the black preacher energetically explicates (biblical) truth while encouraging audience engagement and agreement (Rickford & Rickford Reference Rickford and Rickford2000). By drawing from this style, and the rights and obligations that accompany it, speakers temporarily cloak themselves with the status and respect associated with the black preacher, providing a favorable context for the reception of their message.

ANALYSIS

Overall, the explicit and implicit framing of the event by the host invokes three potential sets of rights and obligations, or interactional frameworks, for the moderator, the speakers on the panel, and the audience members. Through the lexical items used to describe the event and the activities that the participants engage in, the moderator (both explicitly and implicitly) frames the event as a symposium, as a conversation, and as a religious gathering.

“Doing symposium”

First, the gathering is explicitly described as a symposium by Smiley in his website describing the event.Footnote ⁶ One can argue that interactions in conferences and symposia involve limited audience participation/interruption during the course of the moderator or panelist's initial speech and presentation (Schegloff Reference Schegloff, Alexander, Giesen, Münch and Smelser1987). Thus, one would expect a presentation of information by the moderator or panelist followed by questions from the audience members.

This norm seems to be adhered to in moments like (1) below, a stretch of speech uttered by the moderator following the break between the morning and afternoon session. Here, Smiley (TS) engages in what I call “doing symposium” mode where he introduces the panelists of the symposium and sponsors or provides details about the day's events.Footnote ⁷

(1)

In terms of rights and obligations, the relatively straightforward speaking style (which features frequent stretches of rapid speech, stress on main content words, and brief pauses throughout and at the ends of sentences) seems to highlight Smiley's role as event moderator. Within this role, Smiley has the obligation of giving the audience pertinent, clearly articulated information about the structure of the event while having the right not to be interrupted by the audience. In fact, the long stretches of rapid speech seem to discourage audience interruption and interaction while important information is conveyed. Smiley, who also doesn't engage in preaching style, uses AAL phonology (including consonant cluster deletion for the word just in lines 9 and 11, monophthongization of vowels in the words aisles, write, and try in lines 2 and 4, and [j] deletion in the word particular line 12) throughout his talk. This is consistent with Weldon (Reference Weldon2004), who found that at the 2004 symposium, Smiley utilized more AAL features than other guests (in conjunction with standard features) in an effort to strike a balance between speaking before an ethnically mixed group of hearers and overhearers and facilitating his duty as host to maintain the formality of the event.

“Doing conversation”

Smiley also explicitly labels the event as a “conversation”, “dialogue”, and “discussion” between panelists and audience members. For example, in the first lines of an open letterFootnote ⁸ to 2008 conference participants, Smiley says “Thank you for joining us in New Orleans for this year's conversation”. Conversations are informal speaking arrangements that typically involve extensive turn-taking, potential overlap of speakers, and back-channeling on the part of the listener to signal active engagement (Sacks et al. Reference Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson1974, Nofsinger Reference Nofsinger1991). Audience members seem to demonstrate engagement in this more informal, interactive framework when their turns (in the form of laughter and applause) intersect with the speech of the moderator or presenter. For example, in (2) below, lawyer and politician Cleo Fields' speech (CF) is broken into three turns separated by audience laughter and applause (lines 4, 8, and 10).

(2)

With this speaking style, Fields seems to “allocate turns” to the audience members by providing brief pauses at the end of each phrase (line 3, 7, and 9). During these allocations, audience members laugh or backchannel (“umph”) in response to the speaker's comments. In terms of rights and obligations, the speaker signals, through breaks in his speech, that the audience is welcome to actively participate in the dialogue, at which point audience responds. Notably, Fields also makes greater use of vernacular features (signaled by monophthongization of vowels in the words I, my, and united in lines 1, 2, 5, and 6, postvocalic [r] vocalization in the words bigger and teacher in lines 2 and 9, and consonant-cluster reduction in the words hand and and in line 1) throughout this excerpt than in later excerpts from his speech. This may signal his encouragement of an informal, relaxed type of interaction between himself and the audience members at this point in his speech, especially as he relates a personal experience from his childhood.

“Doing church”

In addition to symposium and conversational frameworks, the event is (both explicitly and implicitly) framed as a church or religious gathering, a domain where preaching style and sermonizing are common. Evidence of this framework occurs first in the morning session, which began with an invocation and prayer from Reverend Dr. C. S. Gordon, the Pastor of New Zion Baptist Church. Smiley also engages in call and response with the audience and explicitly refers to the audience as a “church.” This is demonstrated in (3) below where he requests confirmation by asking “can the church say amen” (line 4).

(3)

As I will argue in the next three sections, shifts between these interactional frames are signaled by style shifts, including preaching style and sermonizing, on the part of the panelists. Based on the description of preaching and sermonizing described above (Black preaching style and the Black oral tradition), the interactional norms for church gatherings provide that there will be a presentation of (usually biblical) “truth” on the part of the authoritative preacher figure, audience response/ratification of that “truth” in the form of “amen,” and overall active engagement on the part of the audience at each point of the preacher's presentation.

Cleo Fields

First, Cleo Fields utilizes elements of preaching style as a momentary rhetorical device near the climax of his speech that creates a shift in the interactional frameworks that have been established earlier in his own speech ((2) above) and by the moderator of the event ((1) above). Excerpt (4) occurs in response to the moderator's question about how the black community can engage in constructive conversations about the best political candidate without vilifying individuals who either support Hillary Clinton or criticize Barack Obama for their proposed policies. Prior to (4), Fields engages in a lengthy discussion of his advice for the Congressional Black Caucus and a discussion of his life experiences (as seen in (2)). Yet, with the onset of (4), Fields marks his transition to the climax of his talk (and the use of preaching style) with pausing, alliteration, vowel repetition, syntactic parallelism, increased volume, and elevated tone. While AAL vernacular features appear in this segment of his talk (including vowel monphthongization, consonant-cluster deletion, and postvocalic [r] vocalization in lines 1, 2, 11, and 13 of (4)), these features are sparingly used and give way to the more salient features of black preaching style.

The first cue to the use of preaching begins in lines 2 and 3 with the elevated tone (beginning with “you know”), followed by the repetition of the vowel /i/ in “teach” and “seat” in lines 3 and 4 and pausing throughout. Next, syntactic parallelism appears in the use of the verbs “seat,” “stand,” and “run” (which are repeated in lines 4 and 6, 8, and 10, and 13 and 16 respectively) followed by the alliteration of the consonant /m/ in lines 10, 11, and 13.

(4)

Notably, the use of syntactic parallelism, vowel repetition, alliteration, and increased tone and volume evoke audience engagement in the form of “amen” in lines 5, 7, and 9 and even “GON Cleo Fields” by the moderator in line 14. What is interesting is that Fields moves line by line, presenting one new piece of information at a time allowing it to be ratified (in the form of “amen”) before “stacking” on the next utterance. Thus, through the slow presentation of chunks of speech (such as “Rosa parks took her seat” followed by “so we could all take a stand” in lines 6 and 8), Fields stacks, then ratifies, each new utterance until he reaches his surprising conclusion (in line 17) that Obama will be the winner of the election. This conclusion is surprising since Smiley has continually requested that panelists talk objectively about the issues and candidates rather than serving as a surrogate for their candidate of choice. Fields, who until this point in the speech has been quite neutral about his candidate choice (and who has encouraged the fair treatment of those who support Clinton), breaks with the tone set by Smiley and in his own speech by promoting his candidate of choice, allowing this to be the one of the last, most memorable words of his speech. As seen in line 18, the audience responds to this unexpected move with overwhelming applause and laughter.

As with the typical climax of a sermon, Fields' use of preaching style throughout this segment cues audience response and engagement during this critical moment of his talk. This climax reinforces his overall message and allows him to assert his subjective testimony and beliefs about the outcome of the election.

Sheila Jackson Lee

Next, Jackson Lee utilizes iconic features of black preaching style in response to the moderator's question about the possible divide in the Congressional Black Caucus and the black community as a whole regarding whether to support Obama or Clinton as candidates in the 2008 election. As the excerpts below demonstrate, elongated consonants and vowels, stress, pausing, and church themes are used by Jackson Lee to explicate her version of the “truth” (that she loves her community) despite her eventual admission that she is a supporter of Clinton (a controversial position for black politicians). She also utilizes AAL phonology sparingly (limited to postvocalic [r] vocalization, consonant cluster reduction, and vowel monophthongization in the excerpts below) allowing preaching style to become the most prominent element of AAL in her speech.

Jackson Lee (SJL) begins her speech in (5), by giving a preface to her talk, in this case, an apology for her strained voice.

(5)

However, after a one second pause, Jackson Lee immediately transitions into presenting her message, but with a noticeable shift in style. Thus, in (6) below, Jackson Lee employs elongation of vowels and consonants (lines 1, 5, and 8), lexical items (like brother and sister), themes associated with the church (lines 2, 8, and 9), and slow pace indicated by frequent and lengthy pauses (lines 5–10).

(6)

The preaching style in (6) seems to be a strategic resource for encouraging agreement (in the form of “amens” and applause) from audience members. As seen earlier in Cleo Fields' climax, Jackson Lee also stacks the information that she is presenting in small, ratifiable chunks. In this case, she is constructing a positive self characterization, which includes the fact that (i) she is full of emotion for her community, (ii) this emotion is linked to the spiritual connection that she has with her “brothers” and “sisters” of the church (and the audience), and (iii) that this connection is one of love between herself and the black community.

As is often found in black sermons, Jackson Lee also engages in a narrative retelling of the post-hurricane events in (7) below. This segment fulfills the key role of sermonic narratives of connecting the speaker's and the audience's experiences and providing first-hand testimony. These details also lend credence to her constructed identity of a loving church member who expresses solidarity with the pain and suffering of the community (lines 5–9).

Next, the evocation of sacred themes and the modified rights and obligations of the sermon continues throughout Jackson Lee's speech. In (7), Jackson Lee instructs the audience to consider the convention site, which is hosted in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans, as “sacred ground” (lines 2–4). Here Jackson Lee reinforces her elevated hierarchical position (demonstrated by the power to declare events or places sacred) similar to the authoritative role of the black preacher whose elevated status is guaranteed by his or her God-given spiritual authority.

(7)

Here, Lee instructs the audience to “get a moment of silence” (lines 3–4). Audience members are then given further evidence of Jackson Lee's support for the community (lines 5–9)

Finally, Lee's “sermon” reaches a quasi-climax in (8) below (“quasi” in the sense that this utterance does not complete her talk, but completes her overall self characterization) signaled by the elevated tone and increased volume in lines 1, 2, 4, and 6 below. Syntactic parallelism also occurs in the repetition of “I am ____” in lines 1 and 4 and “I love ___” in lines 8 and 10. As seen above, Lee's preaching style evokes audience reaction (in the form of “um” and “that's right”) which ratifies her stance as a loving member of the church and black community (lines 6 and 8 below). However, it is important to also note that this occurs alongside her controversial admission in line 1 that she is a supporter of the Clinton campaign. In other words, the preaching style and sermonizing used until this point seem to help mitigate the dangers of publicly supporting a white candidate.

(8)

As these examples indicate, Lee engages in a step-by-step presentation of her position and positive construction of her character. Through the preaching style, audience members are cued to ratify her position at each step, signaled by responses such as “amen,” “love you,” and “that's right” in the excerpts above.

Eddie Glaude, Jr.

Finally, Eddie Glaude, Jr. (EG) utilizes elongation, pausing, increased pitch and volume, changes in vocal quality, call and response, and probing the depths to signal his shift to preaching style in the excerpts below. Like Fields and Jackson Lee, AAL phonological features (such as vowel monophthongization, postvocalic [r] vocalization, and consonant-cluster reduction) surface sparingly in Glaude's speech, giving way to the more prevalent preaching style and sermon structure.

First, elongation of vowels occurs in lines 4, 5, and 9 in (9) below. In addition, Glaude initiates “calls” in lines 9, 11, and 15 to evoke the “responses” in lines 12 and 16.

(9)

Call and response also occurs in lines 7 and 8 of (10) below where Glaude explicitly asks the audience “did yall hear me” followed by “umm” and “yeah” from the audience in line 8. This is accompanied by elevated tone in line 1, the change in glottal quality in the word “uh” of line 4, increased volume, tone and emphasis on the word “easy” line 9, and aspiration of the /h/ in “hook” in line 11.

(10)

The call and response patterns demonstrated in (9) and (10) above fit the larger patterns described by Mitchell of probing the depths where the preacher leads the audience step by step through the points of their message. This rhetorical strategy is signaled in lines 7 and 8 of (9) where Glaude suggests that both he and the audience members need to come to a collective understanding (i.e. “we need to wrap our minds around this”). This strategy continues in line 2 of (10) where Glaude offers an aside or commentary on how the information that he presents is to be received (i.e. “I hope we dialogue about it”), the use of lexical items like “right” and “see” in lines 2 and 7 that elicit audience alignment, and explicit statements like “the point is to say” in line 9 that signal the presentation of the gist of his position.

Finally, in (11) below, Glaude transitions into a quasi climax (signaled by elevated tone in line 1, a series of upward pitch movements that accentuate words like “see” and “moment” in lines 2–6, and the use of imagery, that is, the serpent in line 5) to reinforce his message about the significance of race in modern politics.

(11)

In this excerpt, the preaching style and the variations in pitch and emphasis make the message memorable and complete. This excerpt also allows Glaude to emphasize his awareness of the personal struggles of blacks in America, which includes the ironic effects of racial politics in a democratic society (lines 3–6 above).

As was the case with Jackson Lee, Glaude uses preaching style to structure his entire message in a way that directly engages the audience. Notably, the type of engagement elicited overwhelmingly involves active ratification of each point of his message (in the form of “amen” or “that's right”) by the audience members leading up to one of the main conclusions of his talk.