W's "A"

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

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