W's "A"

[Wilson Gray]

At this rate, it shouldn't be long before we have th[i] answer to this
conundrum.

-Wilson

On 9/16/05, Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at csli.stanford.edu> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: W's "A"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Sep 16, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Peter A. McGraw wrote:
>
> > W shares a lot of linguistic mannerisms with his daddy, whose public
> > speaking, at least, was larded with lots of emphatic forms, often
> > in (to
> > me, at least) unexpected contexts.
>
> this doesn't accord with my impression of HW's speech, which i think
> of as distinctly preppy -- notably *unemphatic*, deliberately un-showy.
>
> perhaps the problem is that you're thinking of unreduced articles as
> emphatic.  they *can* be this, but it's pretty clear that a lot of
> unreduced articles signal hesitation about what the speaker is going
> to say next, not emphasis.  (this is why "emphatic" would be a really
> bad label for the unreduced articles.  the label "unreduced" refers
> to their form, independent of the uses they might be put to.)
>
> similarly, from alison murie:
> -----
> Of course I've heard this in lots of people's speech, especially
> small children reading with some dificulty, but in W's case, when he
> is really just speaking off the cuff his "a"  is the usual "uh" or "@".
>
> We all use "unreduced"  articles for emphasis or to particularize
> what we're referring to, but in the case of this speech,  that
> wasn't  (I'm pretty sure!) intended.
> -----
>
> unreduction in reading out loud (including from a script) is probably
> still another phenomenon, motivated by a drive for "clarity", rather
> than hesitation, emphasis, or particularization ("oh, you mean *the*
> George W. Bush, not the George W. Bush who's my barber").
>
> i don't know about W's rate of unreduction in off-the-cuff speaking,
> but i doubt very much that it's close to zero.  but this is an
> empirical question, one i hope that mark l. and chris w. are looking
> into.
>
> arnold
>


--
-Wilson Gray