Distribution of Vowel Content

The vowel content of American county names follows a surprisingly normal distribution, with most counties settling into a comfortable 40-45% vowel range. This suggests that English phonetic patterns naturally gravitate toward a balanced sound structure—neither the vowel-heavy musicality of Hawaiian names nor the consonant-dense efficiency of Germanic influences dominate the American toponymic landscape.

Regional Phonetic Patterns

Regional patterns reveal America’s linguistic heritage: the South, with its English colonial roots and later settlement patterns, shows lower vowel percentages—think “McCracken County” and “Culpeper County.” The West, influenced by Spanish toponymy and Native American names, tilts toward vowel-rich appellations like “Saguache County” and “Ouachita Parish.”

The Extremes: America’s Phonetic Outliers

Where does linguistic musicality reach its peak? Our computational analysis reveals the counties that stretch the boundaries of American toponymic convention—places where vowels flow like rivers (Kauai County’s 58.8% vowel content) and others where consonants cluster like mountain peaks (St. Mary’s County’s austere 23.8% vowel density).

The phonetic extremes tell fascinating stories. Kauai County, Hawaii leads the vowel parade at 58.8%—its name rolls off the tongue like a gentle wave. At the opposite end, St. Mary’s County, Maryland achieves consonant density at 23.8%, reflecting the county’s colonial English heritage where efficiency of speech mattered more than melodic flow.

Population Growth and Vowel Content

The data reveals a modest but statistically significant relationship: counties with vowel-rich names show higher population growth rates. This 0.028 correlation coefficient might seem small, but in the context of 2,988 observations, it represents a measurable phonetic effect on demographic outcomes.

The Complexity Paradox

Phonetic complexity—measured by the frequency of vowel-consonant alternations—shows intriguing patterns. Counties with more complex phonetic structures tend to attract higher migration rates, perhaps because complex names signal cultural diversity and cosmopolitan appeal. The relationship with tourism proxies (seasonal housing) is even stronger, suggesting that phonetic complexity might serve as a subconscious marker of “interesting” places.

The Education Enigma

Here lies the study’s most intriguing paradox: vowel-rich counties show lower educational attainment rates. This -0.050 correlation suggests that phonetic pleasantness might correlate with different cultural values—perhaps prioritizing community harmony over academic achievement, or reflecting historical settlement patterns where educated elites chose more “serious-sounding” locations.

Champions of Each Category

The case studies reveal that economic fundamentals consistently outweigh phonetic characteristics. Hudspeth County, Texas—despite its consonant-heavy name—achieved 32.6% population growth thanks to oil boom economics, while Treasure County, Montana struggled with -17.7% growth despite its vowel-rich, appealing name.

The Texas Phenomenon

Texas emerges as the great equalizer: both vowel-rich and consonant-heavy counties achieve spectacular growth rates when underlying economic conditions align. Hudspeth, Glasscock, and Hays counties—spanning the full phonetic spectrum—all exceed 20% population growth, demonstrating that oil, gas, and technology sectors care little for linguistic aesthetics.

The Vowel Geography of America

Population Growth Across America

The spatial analysis reveals clear geographic clustering: the Mountain West and Louisiana show pronounced vowel-rich corridors (reflecting Spanish and French influences), while Appalachian and Upper Midwest counties cluster toward consonant-heavy naming patterns (reflecting Germanic and English heritage).

Overlaying growth patterns suggests that regional economic conditions dominate individual county phonetic characteristics—the Texas energy corridor, Colorado’s mountain counties, and Florida’s population magnets all show strong growth regardless of their names’ vowel content.

Model Summary Statistics

Correlation Matrix: The Full Picture

## [1] "Significant correlations:"

The correlation matrix reveals that phonetic complexity shows the strongest relationships with economic outcomes—particularly with tourism proxies and educational attainment. This suggests that linguistic sophistication, rather than simple vowel content, might be the more important factor in place perception.

Bivariate Relationship Explorer

These bivariate explorations confirm that vowel percentage shows the strongest relationship with population growth, while relationships with other outcomes are weaker or even negative. The education relationship deserves particular attention—it suggests that areas with “prettier” names might prioritize different values than academic achievement.

Initial Hypothesis vs. Reality

When we began this analysis, we expected to find strong, consistent relationships between phonetic pleasantness and positive outcomes. The reality proved more nuanced:

1. Population growth shows the clearest vowel effect—but it’s modest in magnitude
2. Income growth shows virtually no relationship—economic fundamentals dominate
3. Education shows a paradoxical negative relationship—challenging our assumptions about “pleasant” places
4. Regional effects consistently outweigh phonetic effects—geography and culture matter more than names

Robustness Checks

The robustness checks confirm that our findings are not sensitive to model specification. The vowel effect on population growth remains consistent across linear, quadratic, and categorical specifications, suggesting a genuine but modest relationship.

Data Quality and Limitations

Our analysis faces several important limitations:

1. Causality: We cannot establish whether vowel-rich names cause growth or whether growing places choose vowel-rich names
2. Selection bias: County names reflect historical settlement patterns that may correlate with current economic conditions
3. Measurement: Our phonetic measures are simplified—professional linguistic analysis might reveal different patterns
4. Temporal scope: We examine only 2015-2019 growth, missing longer-term trends

For Regional Development

While the vowel effect is statistically significant, its practical magnitude suggests that place branding efforts should focus on substantive improvements rather than cosmetic name changes. A county seeking growth would see greater returns from investing in infrastructure, education, or business development than from rebranding with a more vowel-heavy name.

For Academic Research

This analysis opens several avenues for future research:

1. Longitudinal studies: Do phonetic effects persist over longer time periods?
2. International comparisons: How do phonetic preferences vary across cultures?
3. Individual-level analysis: Do people’s migration decisions show measurable responses to place name aesthetics?
4. Business applications: Do companies choose locations based partly on name appeal?

The Broader Context

The modest but measurable vowel effect fits within a broader literature on seemingly irrational factors in economic decisions. Just as studies have found effects of stock ticker symbols on trading volume or weather on judicial decisions, place names appear to exert subtle influences on human behavior—present but ultimately secondary to fundamental economic and geographic advantages.

Data Dictionary

## R version 4.5.0 (2025-04-11)
## Platform: aarch64-apple-darwin20
## Running under: macOS Sequoia 15.4.1
## 
## Matrix products: default
## BLAS:   /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.5-arm64/Resources/lib/libRblas.0.dylib 
## LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.5-arm64/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib;  LAPACK version 3.12.1
## 
## locale:
## [1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
## 
## time zone: America/Los_Angeles
## tzcode source: internal
## 
## attached base packages:
## [1] stats     graphics  grDevices utils     datasets  methods   base     
## 
## other attached packages:
##  [1] DT_0.33          plotly_4.10.4    kableExtra_1.4.0 patchwork_1.3.1 
##  [5] corrplot_0.95    broom_1.0.8      scales_1.4.0     tigris_2.2.1    
##  [9] sf_1.0-21        tidycensus_1.7.1 lubridate_1.9.4  forcats_1.0.0   
## [13] stringr_1.5.1    dplyr_1.1.4      purrr_1.0.4      readr_2.1.5     
## [17] tidyr_1.3.1      tibble_3.3.0     ggplot2_3.5.2    tidyverse_2.0.0 
## 
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
##  [1] gtable_0.3.6       xfun_0.52          bslib_0.9.0        htmlwidgets_1.6.4 
##  [5] lattice_0.22-6     tzdb_0.5.0         vctrs_0.6.5        tools_4.5.0       
##  [9] generics_0.1.4     curl_6.3.0         proxy_0.4-27       pkgconfig_2.0.3   
## [13] Matrix_1.7-3       KernSmooth_2.23-26 data.table_1.17.4  RColorBrewer_1.1-3
## [17] uuid_1.2-1         lifecycle_1.0.4    compiler_4.5.0     farver_2.1.2      
## [21] textshaping_1.0.1  htmltools_0.5.8.1  class_7.3-23       sass_0.4.10       
## [25] lazyeval_0.2.2     yaml_2.3.10        pillar_1.11.0      crayon_1.5.3      
## [29] jquerylib_0.1.4    classInt_0.4-11    cachem_1.1.0       nlme_3.1-168      
## [33] tidyselect_1.2.1   rvest_1.0.4        digest_0.6.37      stringi_1.8.7     
## [37] bookdown_0.43      splines_4.5.0      labeling_0.4.3     fastmap_1.2.0     
## [41] grid_4.5.0         cli_3.6.5          magrittr_2.0.3     e1071_1.7-16      
## [45] withr_3.0.2        backports_1.5.0    rappdirs_0.3.3     timechange_0.3.0  
## [49] rmarkdown_2.29     httr_1.4.7         blogdown_1.21      hms_1.1.3         
## [53] evaluate_1.0.4     knitr_1.50         viridisLite_0.4.2  mgcv_1.9-1        
## [57] rlang_1.1.6        Rcpp_1.0.14        glue_1.8.0         DBI_1.2.3         
## [61] xml2_1.3.8         svglite_2.2.1      rstudioapi_0.17.1  jsonlite_2.0.0    
## [65] R6_2.6.1           systemfonts_1.2.3  units_0.8-7