Collaborative Primary Research

Hotdish/Casserole 1

Hotdish or Casserole: What is your Preference?

Vickie Conner, English Studies Graduate Student

Bailey Brazier, English Studies Undergraduate Student

Abby Hammes, English/Political Science Undergraduate Student

Jenae Valvoda, English Studies Undergraduate Student

Advised

By

Dr. Bruce Maylath, English Dept.

North Dakota State University

History of the English Language

10 May 2012

Hotdish/Casserole 2

Abstract

The researchers of this study aimed to find identifiable isoglosses in the Upper Midwest

region based on the term provided by the participants: hotdish or casserole. Furthermore, the

research team also set out to find definitive denotations that encompass the complexity of food

naming in the Upper Midwest. A mixed methods research design was utilized, and these data

were collected from 85 participants through guided conversations, participant interviews, and

surveys of demographic data. Responses from guided conversations revealed the term hotdish or

casserole, and sometimes exhibited the term goulash. Interview questions then were utilized to

elicit specific ingredients and possible different methods of cooking a hotdish or a casserole.

However, whether a person used the term hotdish or casserole was based mostly on demographic

factors, such as childhood residence and familial lower, middle class, and high class

socioeconomic status. This demographic information was collected through a demographic

survey after the completion of the guided questions and the interview questions. interviews

revealed that some participants had used a word that they normally would not use in daily

language, conforming to prestige. The results suggest that usage of the term hotdish to be most

common along the eastern North Dakota border and cutting off north of Minneapolis/St.Paul but

inclusive of Duluth. Furthermore, the results of the interview questions suggest that the term

hotdish fails to have a definitive denotation; rather, the term hotdish connotes the specific ways

each cultural community defines the way they prepare the dish pertaining to ingredients as well

as cooking method.

Hotdish/Casserole 3

I. Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify whether residents of the Upper Midwest prefer

the term hotdish (See Appendix A) or casserole and finding whether ethnicity/heritage, age,

socioeconomic status, place of upbringing, and gender have an influence on those preferences.

Furthermore, the research investigators looked for any correlations between ingredients used and

labeling of a hotdish or casserole.

Hotdish has been labeled as a regional term particular to the upper Midwest, especially

northern Minnesota, and recent linguistic research has provided supported evidence for the trend.

This study was intended to either confirm existing research that hotdish remains the standard

term, or provide evidence that casserole has gained currency in the upper Midwest. Researchers

also aimed to determine if any specific isoglosses are evident in the naming of specific main

dishes specifically containing pasta, tomato-based sauces, canned soups, vegetables, and ground

beef or main dishes containing tuna, cheese, or rice in the Upper Midwest region of the Unites

States.

Literature Review

It might be a universal agreement that leaving a dialect at home, so to speak, is an

arduous task. Language is developed as we converse with family members, teachers, community

leaders, peers, and media. Malmstrom and Ashley present informative insight as to what might

be a reason for dialect differences: people tend to model the language spoken in their homes and

what parents tend to speak; however, Malmstrom and Ashley say that even children will not

speak entirely like their parents. This is why we do not speak in language similar to

Shakespeare’s –over time we tend to develop new dialects to contribute to society (5). Much

evidence of language assimilation is found in the school systems. For example, those students

who are native English speakers, yet speak a vernacular in the home, will struggle in school

because the dialects are different (Boghossian).

Dialect differences are also prevalent when analyzing specific regions of an area. Allen

claims that the size of a community culture could be an independent variable that perhaps affects

the boundary of usage of specific words and is postulated by many. Group size is powerful

because these members are likely to intertwine with other groups and spread the usage of

specific language (77). In changing geographical location, such as in immigration, it is expected

that a dialect would disappear if no longer spoken. However, Malmstrom and Ashley have found

that even though a culture shares a language, it is not guaranteed that all members will speak the

exact dialect (1).

Hotdish/Casserole 4

Reed reports that dialects are formed by additional means aside from geographical areas.

Socio-economic status or specific ethnic groups create a personal line of communication that is

understood by the culture community (3). According to Crystal, simply assuming the idea that

language is immobile because of lack of linguistic changes is dangerous. On the contrary,

regional dialects are continuously changing over time (425). Furthermore, proponents of

language development such as Crystal are right to argue that “the relationship between sameness

and difference is at the heart of historical linguistics” (425).

These regional differences are especially noticeable in the area of the Upper Midwest

United States. In the Upper Midwest, food-related terms are different from other areas of the

country. For example, a barbeque sandwich is not understood to those individuals living outside

the western North Dakota region. Instead, these individuals may understand the hot sandwich to

be a sloppy Joe. Perhaps one of the most interesting food word choices is between the use of the

terms “hotdish” and “casserole.” The term hotdish likely originated in and is primarily used in

the Upper Midwest region of the United States with the denotation of a specific dish,

synonymous with what is known as a casserole throughout the rest of the English speaking

world. The term casserole is defined as a ceramic baking dish itself or any baked dish that is

prepared in a specific dish. Currently, it seems that Upper Midwest residents know and

understand the terms casserole and hotdish in more regional-specific ways in which these words

are used interchangeably. Residents of the Upper Midwest connote a hotdish mainly as a food

that likely contains pasta, a type of meat, soup, and vegetables, and this is understood among

community members. However, the regional dialects in this Upper Midwest region continue to

change in this area as well, especially with those individuals currently under the age of 25, due to

changing diets, cooking preparation, and increased restaurant dining in many families. In

addition, it is important to note the chief linguistic reasons for this change—in migration by

people who use the term casserole, travel outside the region by those who use the word hotdish

but become acquainted with the term casserole, and also the media (print, film, etc) in which the

term casserole is more common.

The origination of the word casserole derives from the Italian root casserola, from the

Spanish cacerola, and from the French casse, which means an open-mouthed pot fit to boil

things in, but its actual history is obscure. Another denotation of the word casserole is a kind of

stew pan; today, a casserole is referred to “a dish that is cooked and served in a casserole”

(“Casserole”). According to the Dictionary of American Regional English word hotdish,

however, is referred to as “a casserole or main dish.” In Wisconsin, this word is an extremely

common local word covering main dish, usually with a macaroni paste foundation (1125). The

word casserole originates in 1706, from Fr. casserole "sauce pan" (16c.), dim. of M.Fr. casse

"pan" (14c.), from Prov. cassa "melting pan," from M.L. cattia "pan, vessel," possibly from Gk.

kyathion, dim. of kyathos "cup for the wine bowl." Originally referring to the pan, but as of

Hotdish/Casserole 5

1958, casserole has taken on the meaning of the food cooked in the pan as well. Interestingly,

Campbell Soup suggests this secondary meaning may have been developing much earlier; in the

first edition of “Joy of Cooking” in 1931, the “original” casserole recipe was listed, and by 1958,

58 different recipes for casseroles made their way into the cookbook (York 2).

The January 22, 2012 Sunday issue of the Fargo Forum reports that most Upper Midwest

residents have eaten the concoctions of various foods that create one main food creation, in what

York refers to as “the one-dish wonder”(York 1). Unlike the theory of the hotdish being a dish of

four foods thrown together, a casserole is much fancier. For example, if the food contains cheese

or is considered one of the famous Paula Deen’s dishes, it is considered a casserole (D1).

Furthermore, as stated in the Fargo Forum, the farther east, south, or extreme west one travels,

residents are more likely to call the dish a casserole. Contrary to this observation, one Fargo

resident writes about her making of tator tot casserole for many friends and community

gatherings, and she describes the bakeware to be “a casserole” as well (Moltan). With some, the

usage of the word casserole makes one sound fancier or more important; therefore, the

connection between word choice and prestige is evident, at least to some extent, in the Upper

Midwest (Fargo Forum D1). However, according to a 2009 article in Advertising Age, not all

people identify casserole as an esteemed name, but rather another term for menus of the “cash-

strapped and often culinarily challenged” (York 1).

So what about the word hotdish? It’s origin is much less clear; in fact, there are no

dictionaries that recognize hotdish as an official term. The Oxford English Dictionary does not

recognize the term hotdish; therefore, since the term hotdish is a compound word, it may be wise

to start with its morphemes. Crystal reports in his book The Stories of English that compound

words were initially exposed through namely biblical allusions; however, he also states that

vocabulary was “extremely conservative” and did not include coined or learned terms (274),

which most likely did not include the compound word hotdish. Therefore, the word must be

scrutinized in parts.

The Oxford English Dictionary states that the term hot originates back to 1450 found in a

cookery book, characterized by a high temperature. The etymology of the word hot derives from

Old Frisian hēt (West Frisian hjit , also hyt ), Old Dutch heit (only in the compound heitmuodi

anger, lit. ‘hot mood’; Middle Dutchheet , Dutch heet), Old Saxon hēt (Middle Low German hēt,

German regional (Low German) heet, heit, hitt (“Hot”).

The term dish originates back to the Old English era in 700, meaning “a broad shallow

vessel, with flat bottom, concave sides, and nearly level rim, made of earthenware, glass, metal,

or wood, and used chiefly to hold food at meals... and on the other extended to all open vessels

used to contain food at table, as tureens, vegetable dishes, etc.” (“Dish”). The etymology of the

word derives from Old English disc plate, bowl, platter, = Old High German tisc plate (Middle

Hotdish/Casserole 6

High German and German tisch table), Old Saxon disk table, Middle Dutch and Dutch disch

table, Old Norse diskr plate (? from Old English). The Oxford English Dictionary also defines a

dish as the food ready for eating served on or contained in a dish; a distinct article or variety of

food. transf. andfig.: spec., an attractive person, esp. a woman (now only in informal use).

Therefore, it is evident that the word dish has changed connotations from being the bowl itself

for which to place the contents to also be understood as part of the title of the food.

However, the earliest evidence of the two terms used together, as cited in the Oxford

English Dictionary as an adjective, was in 1687: “Three hot dishes, which he fed upon” (“Hot”).

With that, it has been difficult to find the derivation of the term hotdish as a compound word.

Aside from the compound word components themselves, the deciphering of compound words

can be tricky. What exactly determines the denotation of these words and how they are fostered

can vary. For example, in the 1966 television series Batman, words such as batmobile and

batcave evolved into the English language (Dunton-Downer ix-x). These words can easily be

deciphered based on the context of the television series. In addition, a word such as bedroom is

also easily deciphered: a room with a bed. However, the word mushroom can be a bit more

arduous to synthesize. Does it perhaps mean a room full of mush? Does it mean mean to make

room for more mush? When scrutinizing the origination, the word derives from the French root

meaning “mousseron” with no other explanations to follow, possibly then having to do with the

word “mousse” (Dunton-Downer x).

Likewise, the compound word hotdish may be another term that is impossible to pinpoint

to exact origination as a compound word. According to Fennell, nouns were often combined with

adjectives to formulate either another noun or another adjective, depending on the order (77-8).

For example, with the compound (hyphenated) word heart-throbbing. When used together, they

formulate a new adjective implicating a denotation of something that incites rapid heart rate,

namely in the context of emotions. Unlike the words heart-throbbing, and bedroom, hotdish

could carry a myriad of denotations and connotations.

According to Harron, the food term derives from a time when “budget-minded farm

wives needed to feed their own families, as well as congregations in the basements of the first

Minnesota churches.” Harron defines a hotdish as such: “a baked casserole that typically

contains a starch, a meat, or other protein, and a canned and/ or frozen vegetable mixed together

with canned soup.” Mohr, author of How to Talk Minnesotan, further adds to the definition: "A

traditional main course, hotdish is cooked and served hot in a single baking dish and commonly

appears at family reunions and church suppers" (13). Mohr further claims that hotdish as

“Minnesota’s most popular native food” (13).

The Institute for Regional Studies & University Archives house many cookbooks from

groups that hold regional, historical significance, many of which being churches and

Hotdish/Casserole 7

organizations. Focusing on books from the early twentieth century, the first found mention of

any of the terms, containing the specific ingredients defined by Harron and Mohr, could be

traced goulash in 1923 (Plymouth Congregational Church). Others before 1923 did use casserole

but its denotation was simply the cookware, not a food. Instead, casserole as a food was found

alongside hotdish in 1934 with the recipes, “Tuna Fish and Noodle Casserole” and “Hamburger

Hot Dish” (First Presbyterian Church). An abundance of later cookbooks had chapters and even

entire books dedicated to recipe varieties specifically for hotdish.

Archival research also found evidence that the Do It Yourself Homemakers Club in Cass

County, originated in 1949, used the term hotdish when preparing funeral dinners in 1981(See

Appendix B). Furthermore, it was found that the term vegetable casserole was also used in this

group in 1981(See Appendix B). The Fargo Forum has found in recent research that most Upper

Midwest residents refer to hotdish as “something you might whip up from four ingredients for a

quick family dinner …” (D1). Thorkelson defines hotdish as “a hot meal baked in a 9- by 13-

inch dish, often including ground beef, vegetables, noodles, and cream of mushroom soup” (30).

Thonkelson goes on to explain that many residents of Northern Minnesota also make recipes

including wild rice, a crop common in the Northern woods of the state.

In addition to the vocabulary associated with dishes referred to as hotdishes and/or

casseroles, consideration must be taken for the meaning such dishes may have to consumers in

terms of identity and heritage. According to Shortridge, “The interplay of food, place, and

culture provides a powerful vehicle for monitoring the resurgent interest in regional-based

identity within our postmodern society” (Shortridge 71). As certain populations may be

identified by outgroups according to food traditions, such populations take pride in their food

choices so as to reflect pride in their identities as group. This interest in representing of identities

through food choices may manifest itself in such a population’s language.

Because of the strong, community morale of a myriad of towns in the area, many potluck

brunch/dinners, funeral potlucks, and school lunches offer a variety of specific hotdishes and

casseroles (See Appendix B). Not only are the dishes easy to prepare in a short period of time,

but these dishes reflect the culture. Most Upper Midwest hot lunch programs support the

preparation of hot dishes and casseroles due to commodity distribution; furthermore, these dishes

can be made in large quantities to accommodate a large, student body that are likely made with

North Dakota pasta and dairy products (North Dakota Dept. of Agriculture).

Looking at the patterns in various school district lunch lists, (See Appendix C) it is clear

that tator tot hotdish is the most prevalent hotdish in North Dakota hot lunch programs. Some

other listed types of dishes were chicken noodle hotdish and hamburger macaroni hotdish. A

majority of the hot lunch programs in North Dakota use the term hotdish over the term casserole.

In contrast, those hot lunch program sites on the North Dakota/South Dakota border and into

South Dakota are much more likely to use the term casserole on the lunch menu. Furthermore,

Hotdish/Casserole 8

several Montana school hot lunch programs were analyzed; however, many of these lunch menus

from this region did not list hotdish, casserole, or goulash.

The linguistic terms incorporated in the 1976 volume of The Linguistic Atlas of the Upper

Midwest, failed to include the terms hotdish and casserole; therefore, this may suggest that

perhaps these specific food terms do not have a specific denotation, as is found in the Upper

Midwest, and are understood as a general term in daily conversation. Yet, when delving into the

archives at the Institute for Regional Studies & University Archives, the research provided

evidence of the term hotdish having a specific denotation for a specific main dish that was

mainly served at funeral gatherings or potlucks at personal residences; thus, this elicits a desire to

study this region of study is unique in the ways the communities utilize the terms hotdish and

casserole and if a preference is found in specific areas in the region.

II. Methods

Participants

Participants in this research study consisted of 85 volunteers, 18 years of age or older,

approximately 25% of whom were unacquainted with the researchers. One limitation that may

have skewed the data collection is familiarity with approximately 75% of the participants

because participants were not approached as they would have been in a true random sample.

These participants currently reside in regional areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota,

and along the North Dakota/Canadian border. Most participants were raised in the Upper

Midwest region. Those participants who were not raised in the Upper Midwest region were

treated as outliers and therefore removed when analyzing quantitative data; however, their

responses were still analyzed qualitatively to cross-check regional differences. No particular

gender, ethnicity, race, or age was specifically targeted.

Research Design

A sequential mixed methods research design was utilized whereby the researchers sought

to collect quantitative data through a survey, followed by qualitative data through guided

conversation and interview questions. In the quantitative data collection, the researchers used a

methodological instrument of guided conversations developed originally developed by William

Labov in order to control for the observers paradox (Cukor-Avila 253-54). These conversations

led the participants to respond with the terms hotdish or casserole as they would in natural

speech, using questions such as: “What kinds of food might someone expect at a church

potluck?” (See Appendix D). Immediately following the guided conversation, researchers

administered a second methodological instrument consisting of interview questions that aimed to

solicit information concerning hotdish/casserole preparation and ingredients used. Sample

Hotdish/Casserole 9

questions such as, “Why do you think you said (participant’s preferred term here) instead of

(participant’s non-verbalized term here)?”These interviews were ethnographically and audibly

recorded to later be coded for any emerging themes or patterns of how the participants interpret

and understand the denotations and connotations of the terms hotdish and casserole in the Upper

Midwest region of the U.S. (See Appendix E)

A third methodological instrument used in the study was a survey of demographics,

asking the participant to provide current age, gender, ethnicity, current residence, childhood

residence and duration, and parents’ occupations during participant’s childhood years (See

Appendix F).

Procedure

The selected 85 participants were recruited in various residential locations, businesses,

community-based activity centers, and educational centers, including one high school and two

major universities on opposite locales within the parameters of the region being studied.

All participants were informed that we were conducting a study on food habits and

traditions in the Upper Midwest region and were asked if they were willing to participate, which

included an agreement to be audibly recorded during the interview. Participants were then asked

to sign an informed consent form prior to data collection. To ensure that the purpose of this study

was not revealed to the participants, prior to the completion of the guided conversation, any

information that was suggestive of the focus on hotdish or casserole on the informed consent

form was covered with a sticky note. No personal names were recorded (except signatures on

the informed consent forms themselves), but demographics such as gender, age, socioeconomic

status, ethnicity, and hometown were collected in the conversation. It was assumed that all

participants have heard of and/or used the terms hotdish and casserole. Furthermore, it was also

assumed that participants have some knowledge of the ingredients used in a hotdish or a

casserole and that these ingredients formulate a dish that most people in the Upper Midwest

would refer to as a hotdish or casserole.

The first method of data collection was the guided conversations, chosen in order to

avoid the “observer’s paradox,” using a pre-determined set of questions that led into a natural

conversation (Tamas). Beginning a conversation about the weather, as well as how long the

person has lived in the area were used to develop a relaxed environment and to guide participant

into the question of what types of foods are commonly found or created in the Upper Midwest

region. The purpose with this question was to evoke the term of hotdish or casserole without

stating a blatant question such as “What would you say is found in a hotdish?” or “What types of

ingredients would be found in a casserole?” These types of questions would constitute leading

the participant into a desired response, which could skew the validity of the study. The goal was

to transition from one question to another through relaxed conversation in order to allow

participant to naturally elicit the term hotdish or casserole. If the participant did not mention the

Hotdish/Casserole 10

terms hotdish or casserole when asked about foods initially listed in the Upper Midwest, then the

following questions was asked: Do you remember some of the traditions people have in North

Dakota, such as funeral potlucks or Sunday picnics? Then, the researchers further questioned the

participants to list some of these foods they would bring or that they would expect to find at

these potlucks. In most cases, this was the question that naturally elicited either the term hotdish

or casserole, or, in some instances, both terms.

Following the guided conversations, a second research method, interviewing, was used.

The participants were asked what they would consider a hotdish of a casserole, as well as

specific ingredients, cooking preparation, and reasons for using each term. Finally, a third

method of data collection was employed, in which researchers gathered demographic

information such as gender, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and hometown were all

collected from the participants. Participants were thanked for their time and given a copy of the

signed consent form upon request.

Methods for Data Analysis

Data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively for themes or perspectives and put into

specific categories (selective coding) through ground theory. Information collected through

voice recordings were coded using discourse analysis to find recurring themes or interpretations

that would constitute a trend pertaining to the terms hotdish and casserole. Data was also

analyzed utilizing the SPSS database to find relevant correlations. One -way and two-way Chi-

Square Statistical Analyses, Pearson R Correlation (two-tailed), and a Two-Way ANOVA were

utilized to find specific significant patterns or correlations between childhood residence and

participants stated initial term hotdish or casserole; gender and participant’s stated term hotdish

or casserole; ethnicity and participants stated term hotdish or casserole; age and participant’s

stated term hotdish or casserole; and differences among groups; such as low, average, and high

socioeconomic status and initial stated term hotdish or casserole. Each grouping variable, such

as gender, ethnicity, age, current residence, hometown, and word choice was assigned a variable

number in the SPSS database. Content validity was determined by expert judgment of instructor

to ensure data collection was measuring what it was intended to measure, as stated in the purpose

of the study. Reliability was affirmed through the similar responses given during the guided

conversations with the 85 participants.

III. Results

1. The null hypothesis states there is no significant difference in the number of times the

participants initially said hotdish, casserole, or goulash in the study. There were a total of 85

responses, and we would expect the number for each response to be 28.3; however, the Chi-

Square = 43.51, p < .05 (See Table 1). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. This


statistical one-way Chi-square analysis revealed a significantly higher response with the term

hotdish over the terms casserole and goulash in the Upper Midwest region of the U.S.

Table 1

Analysis of Significant Difference Between Expected Frequencies and Corresponding Observed

Frequencies

Response of Food Item

Observed N Expected N Residual

hotdish 56 28.3 27.7

casserole 21 28.3 -7.3

goulash 8 28.3 -20.3

Total 85

Test Statistics

what they called

it

Chi-Square 43.506a

df 2

Asymp. Sig. .000

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected

frequencies less than 5. The

minimum expected cell

frequency is 28.3.

2. The null hypothesis states there is no significant difference in the participants’ age and

the food item response given. Chi-Square = 3.63, p > .05 (See Table 2). Therefore, the null

hypothesis was accepted. This statistical two-way Chi-square analysis revealed no significant

difference in the participants’ age and the response given with the term hotdish over the terms

casserole and goulash.


Table 2

Analysis of Significant Difference in the number of Males and Females Who Stated Hotdish,

Casserole, and Goulash

gender * what they called it Crosstabulation

Count

what they called it

Total hotdish casserole goulash

gender female 38 11 3 52

male 18 10 5 33

Total 56 21 8 85

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 3.625a 2 .163

Likelihood Ratio 3.573 2 .168

Linear-by-Linear Association 3.581 1 .058

N of Valid Cases 85

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 3.11.

3. The null hypothesis states there is no significant difference between the participants’

childhood socioeconomic status and the food item response given. Chi-Square = 12.06, p < .05

See Table 3). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. This statistical two-way Chi-square

analysis revealed a significant difference between the participants’ childhood socioeconomic

status and the response given with the term hotdish over the terms casserole and goulash.


Table 3

Analysis of Significant Difference in the number of Participants who Stated Hotdish, Casserole,

or Goulash and Socioeconomic Status.

economic status * what they called it Crosstabulation

Count

what they called it


economic status low 10 5 0 15

average 37 6 5 48

high 9 10 3 22

Total 56 21 8 85

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association 3.954 1 .047

N of Valid Cases 85


expected count is 1.41.


childhood residence and the food item response given. Chi-Square = 23.29, p < .05 (See Table

4). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. This statistical two-way Chi-square analysis

revealed a significant difference between the participants’ childhood residence and the response

given with the term hotdish over the terms casserole and goulash.


Table 4

Analysis of Significant Difference in the number of Males and Females Who Stated Hotdish,

Casserole, or Goulash

grew up where * what they called it Crosstabulation

Count

what they called it


grew up where Western ND 12 6 1 19

Northern South Dakota 5 2 0 7

Western Minnesota 30 10 4 44

Canada 0 0 2 2

Central ND 7 1 1 9

Eastern ND 2 2 0 4

Total 56 21 8 85

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association .089 1 .765

N of Valid Cases 85


expected count is .19.


heritage/ethnicity and the food item response given. Chi-Square = 16.27, p > .05 (See Table 5).

Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. This statistical two-way Chi-square analysis

revealed no significant difference between the participants’ ethnicity/heritage and the response

given with the term hotdish over the terms casserole and goulash.


Table 5

Analysis Using Two-Way ANOVA of Differences among Food Item Responses and

Heritage/Ethnic Backgrounds

ethnic background * what they called it Crosstabulation

Count

what they called it


ethnic background German Hungarian 14 9 3 26

German Swedish 4 0 2 6

Scottish Irish Polish 3 2 0 5

German Russian 1 1 1 3

Scandanavian Swedish

Norwegian

10 1 2 13

Ukraine Czech 0 1 0 1

French Canadian 0 1 0 1

Asian Philipino 0 1 0 1

Total 32 16 8 56

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association .005 1 .947

N of Valid Cases 56


expected count is .14.

6. The null hypothesis states there is no significant difference among the participants’

food item responses in the low, average, and high socioeconomic status category in the Upper

Midwest region being studied. Three food choice responses—hotdish, casserole, and goulash--

were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA Post Hoc Test, having three levels of socioeconomic

status (low, average, and high). This Post Hoc statistical analysis indicated that there was a

significant difference between the average socioeconomic status participants and the high

socioeconomic status participants in what food response was given F (3, 84) = .42, p = .05 (See

Table 6). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.


Table 6

ANOVA Post Hoc test to Determine Differences among of Low, Average, and High

Socioeconomic Status Categories

Multiple Comparisons

ANOVA

Food Item Response

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.530 2 1.265 3.019 .054

Within Groups 34.364 82 .419

Total 36.894 84

Food Item Response

Tukey HSD

(I) economic status (J) economic status

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

low average .00000 .19149 1.000 -.4571 .4571

high -.39394 .21676 .170 -.9114 .1235

average low .00000 .19149 1.000 -.4571 .4571

high -.39394 .16667 .053 -.7918 .0039

high low .39394 .21676 .170 -.1235 .9114

average .39394 .16667 .053 -.0039 .7918


7. The null hypothesis states there is no significant difference among the participants’ food

item responses in the areas of participants’ childhood residences in the Upper Midwest region being

studied. Three food choice responses—hotdish, casserole, and goulash-- were analyzed using a two-

way ANOVA Post Hoc Test, having seven regions of childhood hometowns. This Post Hoc statistical

analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between the western North Dakota and

western Minnesota, as well as a significant difference between central North Dakota and northern

South Dakota p < .05 in both sets (See Table 7). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Table 7

ANOVA Post Hoc test to Determine Differences among of Low, Average, and High Socioeconomic

Status Categories

Multiple Comparisons

what they called it

Tukey HSD

(I) grew up where (J) grew up where

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Western ND Northern South Dakota .13534 .28006 .997 -.6827 .9534

Western Minnesota .01196 .17388 1.000 -.4959 .5198

Canada -1.57895* .47088 .015 -2.9543 -.2036

Central ND .08772 .25631 .999 -.6609 .8364

Eastern ND -.07895 .34846 1.000 -1.0967 .9388

Northern South Dakota Western ND -.13534 .28006 .997 -.9534 .6827

Western Minnesota -.12338 .25775 .997 -.8762 .6295

Canada -1.71429* .50787 .014 -3.1977 -.2309

Central ND -.04762 .31921 1.000 -.9800 .8848

Eastern ND -.21429 .39702 .994 -1.3739 .9453

Western Minnesota Western ND -.01196 .17388 1.000 -.5198 .4959

Northern South Dakota .12338 .25775 .997 -.6295 .8762

Canada -1.59091* .45796 .010 -2.9285 -.2533

Central ND .07576 .23173 .999 -.6011 .7526

Eastern ND -.09091 .33079 1.000 -1.0571 .8753

Canada Western ND 1.57895* .47088 .015 .2036 2.9543

Northern South Dakota 1.71429* .50787 .014 .2309 3.1977

Western Minnesota 1.59091* .45796 .010 .2533 2.9285

Central ND 1.66667* .49517 .014 .2204 3.1130

Eastern ND 1.50000 .54856 .080 -.1022 3.1022

Central ND Western ND -.08772 .25631 .999 -.8364 .6609

Northern South Dakota .04762 .31921 1.000 -.8848 .9800

Western Minnesota -.07576 .23173 .999 -.7526 .6011

Canada -1.66667* .49517 .014 -3.1130 -.2204

Eastern ND -.16667 .38064 .998 -1.2784 .9451

Eastern ND Western ND .07895 .34846 1.000 -.9388 1.0967

Northern South Dakota .21429 .39702 .994 -.9453 1.3739

Western Minnesota .09091 .33079 1.000 -.8753 1.0571


6. The null hypothesis states there is no significant correlation between the hot lunch location and the

term used for the food in the hot lunch menu. Using a Spearman Rho correlational statistical analysis, the

results indicate no correlation between the location of the hot lunch and the term used for the food on the

lunch menu with r = 0.01, p>.05 (See Table 7). Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis and indicate no

correlation between the location of the hot lunch and what these particular schools call these food dishes

studied in this research.

Table 7

Spearman’s Rho Correlational Statistical Analysis to Determine Significant Correlation between Food

Choice Item on Menu and Hot Lunch Region

food choice

given

region of hot

lunch

food choice given Pearson Correlation 1 .006

Sig. (2-tailed) .973

N 33 33

region of hot lunch Pearson Correlation .006 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .973

N 33 33

Correlations

food choice

given

region of hot

lunch

Spearman's rho food choice given Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .000

Sig. (2-tailed) . .999

N 33 33

region of hot lunch Correlation Coefficient .000 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .999 .

N 33 33


Figure 1

This map indicates first responses of food items given by participants in guided conversations

Table 1 reveals the first words that each participant used; however, many participants

used more than one word to describe the food dishes. Of the total participants, 65 percent

responded with hotdish, 28 percent responded with casserole, and .9 percent responded with

goulash. In addition, some participants further responded with a combination of either

goulash/hotdish, goulash/casserole, or all three terms.

To further support the above results, figure 1 shows the distribution of the initial usage of

the terms hotdish or casserole throughout the Upper Midwest region. This figure reveals regional

isoglosses running at a largely north/south orientation just west of the North Dakota/Minnesota

border and also just northwest of the St. Paul/Minneapolis area in Minnesota. Between these two

isoglosses, the term hotdish was most common; outside of these isoglosses, it was much more

common to hear other terms. It is important to note that this map shows only the first word that

participants used and does not take into account any other terms they may have mentioned. The

participants labeled “Casserole/Hotdish” spoke the two terms almost simultaneously, as if they

made a compound word.


In the first research methodological instrument, the guided conversation , it was reported

that a hotdish is easier to make than a casserole, with mixed feeling of being prepared on the

stovetop and in the oven. The majority of the participants also reported that a hotdish was food

thrown together, consisting mainly of hamburger, tomatoes, vegetables/beans, noodles, and

creamed soups. Casserole was reported as being served in a different dish and cooked in the

oven, with the main ingredients consisting of chicken, vegetables, tuna, topping such as potato

chips or cheese, and soup. In what appears to be pure idiolect, one participant even stated that a

casserole is eaten only on Sunday.

Furthermore, the research methodological instrument interview found that tuna casserole

may be labeled mainly as a result of familiolect. This same interview found goulash to be

reported several times as being synonymous to hotdishes and casseroles but was defined as

containing more soup-like consistency and usually included the ingredients tomatoes, noodles,

and ground beef.

Two participants used words in the guided conversations and later contradicted

themselves in the following interviews, saying that the prior word that they had used was not the

regular word they use in regular daily conversation. The response given for this term that is not

normally used was the fact that he or she (the participant) felt that a more prestigious term such

as casserole would be more appropriate because the researcher was a graduate student.

With a few participant responses of hotdish or casserole, casserole was given; however,

the participants both stated that they would normally use the term hotdish. Several participants in

the northern South Dakota and southern North Dakota area responded with the term casserole

initially and explained that a hot dish is any dish that is hot in temperature, such as soups, baked

beans, and scalloped potatoes.

The majority of participants in the western and eastern North Dakota and into Minnesota

areas significantly chose the desired term hotdish when speaking of noodle/ground beef-based

main dishes. These areas of the Upper Midwest region were the most likely to define hotdish and

casserole as being two different types of dishes, depending on the ingredients and how the dishes

are prepared. An interesting finding in these areas found that for many of these participants of

these ethnic backgrounds considered a compilation of tuna, cheese, and egg noodles to also be

classified as a hotdish; therefore, the data support that these areas do not use the term casserole in

their communities.

In viewing the quantitative data in the third method consisting of a demographic survey,

our findings state there is an overall significant difference in what people call these particular

types of food. It was the normal expectation that 28.3 participants would have given the response


for hotdish, yet the data was much higher at 56 hotdish responses overall. Since most of the

participants grew up in western North Dakota and in Minnesota, it is a strong indicator that these

areas use the term hotdish over the term casserole. In researching age, no difference was found

in what term they used; however, childhood socioeconomic status was found to be a huge factor

in choice of terms used. As the results indicate, the average socioeconomic participants use the

term hotdish, whereas the high socioeconomic group prefers to use the term casserole. Ethnicity

played no factor in the terms used by the participants.

Finally, location played no factor in what most hot lunch programs placed on their lunch

menus; however, it is clear that most North Dakota school lunch programs serve tator tot hotdish

at a higher rate than any other type of hotdish or casserole. Results of the interviews found that

the term hotdish carries many denotations and connotations. A hotdish, to some of these

residents, is a dish made from ground beef, noodles, tomato or soup base, and vegetables mixed

together and served hot. Another group of residents consider a hotdish to be anything cooked that

is hot; therefore, a three-bean dish with no meat would be considered a hotdish. Still others

would consider any single food served warm a hotdish. Therefore, a universal definition does not

exist.

One participant reported her choice of term is informed by perceptions others may

formulate due to community peer pressure. Some participants also reported that they would

conform to what others may know and understand in the community. It was also reported the

awareness of what the cultural term is mostly used in specific areas of the Upper Midwest;

likewise, the participants are well aware that most of the remaining geographical locations in the

United States are not familiar with the term hotdish as those people of the Upper Midwest area.

Another participant, after learning of the linguistic feature sought in the guided

conversation, noted that her 6-year-old sister refused to eat a dish referred to as hotdish, but

happily consumed the very same dish if it was referred to as casserole.

Non-native North Dakotan and non-native Minnesotan participants shared a common

theme of assimilation to regional vocabulary. One participant, a Filipino who has lived in

Minnesota for 15 years, acknowledged the regional trend toward hotdish in the Upper Midwest

in contrast to her parents-in-law from the South who use casserole; due to this distinction, the

participant explained her usage of both terms as dependent on her audience’s homeland.

Similarly, a participant who grew up in South Carolina specified his use of the term hotdish as an

adaptation to his northern audience and his use of the term casserole to be more natural and

instinctual to him. Much the same, a participant originally from Nebraska used the term hotdish,

but after gaining awareness of the linguistic purposes of the study, became flustered saying, “Tell

them I said casserole! This place is just getting to me.” Much less intentional and much less

aware of her assimilation than that of the South Carolina participant, she seemed alarmed.

Contrarily, an Oregon native commented on the region’s unconventional use of the term hotdish,


saying, “You people in North Dakota have it all wrong; a hotdish is just that … any hot dish,”

demonstrating how linguistically isolated the region might be.

Finally, some participants acknowledged specific emotions with the terms hotdish and

casserole, which resulted in them using a different word in the guided conversations than they

normally use in their daily lives. A sense of prestige could offer terms that are inappropriate,

such as calling a hotdish-type food crap possibly due to being raised in a upper-middle class

household, and the attitude of using a term other than casserole would be a knock in prestige in

that participant’s vocabulary.

III. Discussion

The results of this research have found an isogloss between eastern North Dakota and

central Minnesota. These findings have also found that it is difficult to define a hotdish in the

Upper Midwest because there seems to be no universal agreement regarding the definition for

hotdish for each region. Research further found in the interview questions that how a person in a

specific culture defines a hotdish or a casserole based on the ingredients included in the food

item. As the results indicate in the demographic survey, the average socioeconomic participants

are much more likely to use the term hotdish, whereas the high socioeconomic group prefers to

use the term casserole. Which may indicate that those of higher prestige will use the French

word casserole over the Anglo-Saxon word hotdish.

The data is consistent in finding that languge follows power. This is perhaps the most

striking evidence of unconscious linguistic practice in our study as it speaks to the linguistic

privileges that follow power, particularly the Greco-Latinate influence still embedded in English

speaking culture and vocabulary.

The observer’s paradox could explain how some participants may initially say a term that

they would not normally use in order to sound more intelligent, which was found in two

participants of high socioeconomic status. This is one response that was quite unusual, but it

does add to the social aspect of language follows power, and to sound more intelligent is a sense

of empowerment. The explanation provided was the mere fact that the interviewer was a

graduate student and that using the word casserole sounded more prestigious. ADD MORE?

Further support for unconscious linguistic attraction to prestige is another participant’s

difficulty deciding whether to use hotdish or casserole. It was found that myriad participants

explained uncertainty of which term to use as a result of awareness that many people may not

understand both term, and if language is identity, then using a term that is not normally used

would be found as a social violation, perhaps. This example exhibits the conflicts many Upper

Midwest speakers experience, the choice between communication and local identity, in


determining their vocabulary. This participant’s stammered responses articulated that feelings

many other participants described after completing the guided conversation.

Because language is a semi-conscious social activity, it is imperative to these individuals

in the communities that the language used to engage in activities such as cooking is understood.

Based on the data collected, in the Upper Midwest, namely the entire North Dakota/Minnesota

region shares a language that defines a hotdish as having these most commonly mentioned

ingredients: hamburger, noodles, vegetables, and a variety of canned soups. However, the

definition may always be open to interpretation. In the participant who stated that the term crap,

it may still suggest another piece of evidence in terminology used and sense of prestige in

preferring the French term casserole.

Based on the findings of this study, we researchers hope to share such powerful Upper

Midwest linguistic information, and it is expected that future research will continue to find the

term hotdish to remain a part of the everyday language in the Upper Midwest and will carry a

specific connotation for many natives.

Future Research

Further research might include data collection from around the rest of the United States,

concentrating specifically on the areas surrounding the Upper Midwest in order to locate a more

prominent and distinct regional isogloss. Further research might investigate other meanings

attached to the terms hotdish and casserole in regards to the ingredients used and the methods of

cooking those ingredients. The study may be improved by conducting further data collection in

the areas of Iowa, Wisconsin, and South Dakota that have not yet been researched.


Works Cited

Allen, Irving Lewis. The Language of Ethnic Conflict: Social Organization and Lexical Culture.

New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1983. Print.

Boghossian, Naush. “Students struggle to Leave Dialects at Home.” Monterey County Herald. 18

Feb. 2008. Web. 15 March 2012.

"Casserole" The Online Etymology Dictionary. rd ed. 2012. Web.

Casserole. Oxford English Dictionary. Eds. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. Vol. 2. B. B. C.

Chalypsography: Clarendon Press Oxford, 1989. Print.

Cukor-Avila, Patricia. “Revisiting the Observer’s Paradox.” American Speech 75.3 (2000):

253.54. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2012.

Culinary Guide. Fargo: Plymouth Congregational Church, 1923. Print.

Culinary Guide: Favorite Recipes. Fargo: First Presbyterian Church, 1934. Print.

Crystal, David. The Stories of English. New York: Overlook Press, 2004. Print.

"Dish." Oxford English Dictionary. Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012

Duntin-Downer, Leslie. The English is Coming!: How One Language is Sweeping the World.

USA: Touchstone, 2010. Print.

Fennell, Barbara A. A History of English: A Sociolinguistic Approach. United Kingdom:

Blackwell, 2001. Print.

Harron, Hallie. “Heating up the Heartland: Minnesota's Signature Hotdish Combines Heartiness,

Great Taste and Adaptability - Includes Recipes." Vegetarian Times. CBS Interactive

Business Network Resource Library. Feb. 1996. Web. 26 April 2012.

Holtan, Merrie Sue. “Travel the World with Tater Tot Casserole.”Area Voices. 10 Jan. 2011.

2012. Web. 3 April 2012.

"Hot." Oxford English Dictionary. Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

“Hot dish.” Dictionary of American Regional English. Ed. Frederic G. Cassidy. Associate Ed.

Joan Houston Hall Vol. 2. D-H. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

1985. Print.

"Hotdish." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 18 Sept. 2005. Web.

26 April 2012.

Mohr, Howard. How to Talk Minnesotan: A Visitor's Guide. New York, NY: Penguin, 1987.

Print.

North Dakota Dept. of Agriculture. “School Lunches Feature North Dakota Products, Locally

Grown Foods.” 4 Oct. 2011. Web. 7 May 2012.

Reed, Carroll E. Dialects of American English. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Company

1967. Print.

Shortridge, Barbara G. “Not Just Jello and Hot Dishes: Representative Foods of Minnesota.”

Journal of Cultural Geography. 21:1 (2009): 71-94. Print.

Tamás, Váradi. "Guided Conversation." The Budapest Sociolinguistic Interview: Version 3. 3

Mar. 1998. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n221/ai_17911055

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n221/ai_17911055


Thorkelson, Berit. You Know You're in Minnesota When... 101 Quintessential Places, People,

Events, Customs, Lingo, and Eats of the North Star State. Guilford, CT: Insiders' Guide,

2006. Print.

York, Emily Bryson. “Casseroles Make Comeback As Easy, Quick Meals for the Cash-

Strapped.” Advertising Age. 80.8 (2009): 8. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar.

2012.


APPENDIX A Photo of Hotdish

Thmoore. Tater-tot hotdish. 27 March 2006 self-made photo. JPEG. transferred from

en.wikipedia.


APPENDIX B

Documents Providing Information of 1981 Cass County Homemaker’s Club and Recipes of 1978 Cookbook


APPENDIX C

Figure 2

This figure indicates the items found on hot lunch menus in the Upper Midwest region

targeted in this particular study


APPENDIX D

Methodological Instrument #1: Guided Conversation

Guided Conversation Sample Questions

How was your winter? Did you find yourself craving any certain foods as a result of the cold

weather?

Do you remember what school lunches were like?

What kinds of foods could a person expect to find at a church potluck here in _______?

What were some of your favorite foods at a potluck?

Did your family cook much?

Have you or your parents ever make a meal out of whatever was in the fridge?


APPENDIX E

Methodological Instrument #2: Interview Questions

What would you say is the difference between a hotdish and a casserole, if any?

If you were to mix browned, ground hamburger, noodles, tomato sauce, and canned vegetables

and cooked it, what would you call this?

If you were to mix egg noodles, tuna, cheese, and perhaps cream of mushroom soup, what would

you call this?

How would you define the term casserole?

What specific ingredients would be found in a hotdish?

What specific ingredients would be found in a casserole?

Is food preparation a factor in how you would name a hotdish or casserole?

Are there any other determiners you can think of that would differentiate between a hotdish and a

casserole?


APPENDIX F

Methodological Instrument #3: Demographic Survey

Where did you grow up?

What is the zip code of the city in which you were raised?

How long did you live there?

Why do you think you said _______ when I asked about certain ingredients?

Why do you think you said (participant’s preferred term here) instead of (participant’s non-

verbalized term here)?

How would you describe a hotdish/casserole? (Say the one they said earlier in the questions)

Would you ever use the other term?

What is your age?

What is your gender?

What is your ethnicity/heritage?

What was your mother’s occupation during your childhood/adolescent years?

What was your father’s occupation during your childhood/adolescent years?

What is your current city and zip code?

Collaborative Primary Research

Documents

Transcript of Collaborative Primary Research