21.2179, Disc: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening

linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Tue May 11 13:20:19 UTC 2010


LINGUIST List: Vol-21-2179. Tue May 11 2010. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 21.2179, Disc: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Eric Raimy, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Evelyn Richter <evelyn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 10-May-2010
From: Lynn Guindon < lguindon at windstream.net >
Subject: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening
 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:18:55
From: Lynn Guindon [lguindon at windstream.net]
Subject: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=21-2179.html&submissionid=2633354&topicid=5&msgnumber=1
  


I've noticed a phenomenon only recently involving the apparent shift of
length from the consonant to the vowel. English speakers are frequently now
pronouncing 'irregular' as though it were 'eregular'. While it is possible
that length is being transferred or metathesized, I am more inclined to
think the following three suggestions are more likely:

1. The speaker is undergoing a bit of morphological reanalysis based on the 
fact that we pronounce the unstressed vowel in the prefix 'in-' more or less 
the same way that we pronounce the vowel (when unstressed) of the prefix
'e-' (irreconcileable vs. erect). This morphological confusion might arise
because the fact of the nasal in the prefix 'in-' having undergone total
assimilation to the following 'r' is no longer accessible to most native
English speakers. Another example of this confusion of morphemes deriving
from homophony is 'could of' from a confusion of 'could have' with 'kind of'.

2. The speaker may be subconsciously aware that the syllable is long, but
confuse syllable length with vowel length. I say this because for me, the
double 'r' in irregular really is long, beginning in the coda of the first
syllable, and extending into the onset of the next.  This makes the first
syllable heavy (VC), which can be reinterpreted as V: by speakers for who
the double 'r' is in the process of reducing.

3. A combination of #1 and #2.

If anyone else has noticed this, or knows of an explanation already posited
for it, I would greatly appreciate a response. I will, of course, be happy
to summarize the responses for the List.

-Lynn Guindon 


Linguistic Field(s): Morphology
                     Phonology

Subject Language(s): English (eng)




-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-21-2179	

	



More information about the LINGUIST mailing list