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
Shakespeares 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 changein 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 Deens 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 cashstrapped and often culinarily challenged (York 1).
So what about the word hotdish? Its 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 ht (West Frisian hjit , also hyt ), Old Dutch heit (only in the compound heitmuodi
anger, lit. hot mood; Middle Dutchheet , Dutch heet), Old Saxon ht (Middle Low German ht,
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
Minnesotas 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 13inch 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 populations 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 (participants preferred term here) instead of
(participants 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 participants 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 observers 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 ChiSquare 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 participants stated term hotdish
or casserole; ethnicity and participants stated term hotdish or casserole; age and participants
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 ChiSquare = 43.51, p < .05 (See Table 1). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. This

Hotdish/Casserole 11
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

28.3

-20.3

goulash
Total

85

Test Statistics
what they called
it
Chi-Square

43.506a

df
Asymp. Sig.

2
.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.

Hotdish/Casserole 12
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
hotdish
gender

casserole

goulash

Total

female

38

11

52

male

18

10

33

56

21

85

Total

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value

df

sided)

3.625a

.163

Likelihood Ratio

3.573

.168

Linear-by-Linear Association

3.581

.058

Pearson Chi-Square

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.

Hotdish/Casserole 13
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
hotdish
economic status

casserole

goulash

Total

low

10

15

average

37

48

10

22

56

21

85

high
Total

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

df

sided)

12.059a

.017

13.531

.009

3.954

.047

85

a. 4 cells (44.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 1.41.

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

Hotdish/Casserole 14
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
hotdish
grew up where

Western ND

casserole

goulash

Total

12

19

30

10

44

Canada

Central ND

Eastern ND

56

21

85

Northern South Dakota

Western Minnesota

Total

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

df

sided)

23.285a

10

.010

14.497

10

.151

.089

.765

85

a. 14 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .19.

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

Hotdish/Casserole 15
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
hotdish
ethnic background

German Hungarian

casserole

goulash

Total

14

26

German Swedish

Scottish Irish Polish

German Russian

10

13

Ukraine Czech

French Canadian

Asian Philipino

32

16

56

Scandanavian Swedish
Norwegian

Total

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases

df

sided)

16.271a

14

.297

18.828

14

.172

.005

.947

56

a. 21 cells (87.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

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 responseshotdish, 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.

Hotdish/Casserole 16
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
Between Groups

df

Mean Square

2.530

1.265

Within Groups

34.364

82

.419

Total

36.894

84

Sig.

3.019

.054

Food Item Response

Tukey HSD
95% Confidence Interval

Mean
(I) economic status

(J) economic status

low

average

average

high

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

.00000

.19149

1.000

-.4571

.4571

high

-.39394

.21676

.170

-.9114

.1235

low

.00000

.19149

1.000

-.4571

.4571

high

-.39394

.16667

.053

-.7918

.0039

low

.39394

.21676

.170

-.1235

.9114

average

.39394

.16667

.053

-.0039

.7918

Hotdish/Casserole 17

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 responseshotdish, casserole, and goulash-- were analyzed using a twoway 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
95% Confidence Interval

Mean
(I) grew up where

(J) grew up where

Western ND

Northern South Dakota

.13534

.28006

.997

-.6827

.9534

Western Minnesota

.01196

.17388

1.000

-.4959

.5198

-1.57895*

.47088

.015

-2.9543

-.2036

Central ND

.08772

.25631

.999

-.6609

.8364

Eastern ND

-.07895

.34846

1.000

-1.0967

.9388

Western ND

-.13534

.28006

.997

-.9534

.6827

Western Minnesota

-.12338

.25775

.997

-.8762

.6295

-1.71429*

.50787

.014

-3.1977

-.2309

Central ND

-.04762

.31921

1.000

-.9800

.8848

Eastern ND

-.21429

.39702

.994

-1.3739

.9453

Western ND

-.01196

.17388

1.000

-.5198

.4959

.12338

.25775

.997

-.6295

.8762

-1.59091*

.45796

.010

-2.9285

-.2533

Central ND

.07576

.23173

.999

-.6011

.7526

Eastern ND

-.09091

.33079

1.000

-1.0571

.8753

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

Western ND

-.08772

.25631

.999

-.8364

.6609

.04762

.31921

1.000

-.8848

.9800

-.07576

.23173

.999

-.7526

.6011

-1.66667*

.49517

.014

-3.1130

-.2204

Eastern ND

-.16667

.38064

.998

-1.2784

.9451

Western ND

.07895

.34846

1.000

-.9388

1.0967

Northern South Dakota

.21429

.39702

.994

-.9453

1.3739

Canada

Northern South Dakota

Canada

Western Minnesota

Northern South Dakota

Canada

Canada

Central ND

Northern South Dakota

Western Minnesota
Canada

Eastern ND

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Hotdish/Casserole 18

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
Spearmans Rho Correlational Statistical Analysis to Determine Significant Correlation between Food
Choice Item on Menu and Hot Lunch Region

food choice given

food choice

region of hot

given

lunch

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

.973

N
region of hot lunch

.006

33

33

Pearson Correlation

.006

Sig. (2-tailed)

.973

33

33

Correlations

Spearman's rho

food choice given

Correlation Coefficient

region of hot

given

lunch

1.000

.000

.999

33

33

Correlation Coefficient

.000

1.000

Sig. (2-tailed)

.999

33

33

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
region of hot lunch

food choice

Hotdish/Casserole 19
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.

Hotdish/Casserole 20

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

Hotdish/Casserole 21
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 audiences 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 regions unconventional use of the term hotdish,

Hotdish/Casserole 22
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 participants 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 observers 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 participants
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

Hotdish/Casserole 23
determining their vocabulary. This participants 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.

Hotdish/Casserole 24
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 Observers 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.
Tams, Vradi. "Guided Conversation." The Budapest Sociolinguistic Interview: Version 3. 3
Mar. 1998. Web. 30 Apr. 2012.

Hotdish/Casserole 25
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 CashStrapped. Advertising Age. 80.8 (2009): 8. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar.
2012.

Hotdish/Casserole 26

APPENDIX A
Photo of Hotdish

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

Hotdish/Casserole 27
APPENDIX B

Documents Providing Information of

1981 Cass County Homemakers Club
and Recipes of 1978 Cookbook

Hotdish/Casserole 28

Hotdish/Casserole 29

Hotdish/Casserole 30

Hotdish/Casserole 31

Hotdish/Casserole 32
APPENDIX C
Figure 2
This figure indicates the items found on hot lunch menus in the Upper Midwest region
targeted in this particular study

Hotdish/Casserole 33
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?

Hotdish/Casserole 34

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?

Hotdish/Casserole 35

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 (participants preferred term here) instead of (participants nonverbalized 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 mothers occupation during your childhood/adolescent years?
What was your fathers occupation during your childhood/adolescent years?
What is your current city and zip code?