ah/ awe

[Alice Faber]

Tom Zurinskas wrote:
>> From: Alice Faber <faber at HASKINS.YALE.EDU>
>
>> But it *is* a merger, by the definition of a merger. One language state
>> with two contrasting sounds develops into a state in which there is only
>> one.
> OK.  Special meaning.  The alligator ate the dog.  They had a merger:)
> Seems to me a better term than merger here would be apropriate if its
> really
> a takeover not a merger.

Well, I'd call it a technical term within the discipline of linguistics.
>
>> > Seems to me "r" dropping and "awe" replaced by "ah" are both easier to
>> say.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
> You don't know?

For the reasons that I explained, I don't consider the question meaningful.
>
>> It's common for folks who haven't studied sound change
>> extensively to appeal to "ease of articulation" as an account both for
>> particular sound changes and for sound change in general. The problem is
>> that it's impossible to predict in advance which sound combinations are
>> so difficult as to be susceptible of change.
> I intuitively dissagree.  For those learning English they'll have trouble
> with certain phonemes.

Sure. Simple observation shows this. However, more systematic
observation reveals that the specific sounds a learner will have
difficulty with depends on the structure of his or her native language.
Spanish speakers have difficulties with different English sounds than
Chinese speakers do. The problem isn't the inherent difficulty of
particular sounds but rather the mis-match in structures between L1 and
L2. There's an extensive scientific literature on these matters, with
substantial agreement on conclusions, but some disagreement on details
and on psychological mechanisms. Do you have a few semesters for a
directed reading course? If so, you might start with works by Labov that
have already been referred to for cross-dialect perception, and for
cross-linguistic issues, you can start with papers by Jim Flege and
Catherine Best.
>
>> The canonical argument is that reform of English spelling would make it
>> harder for speakers who learned a reformed spelling to read classics of
>> the past. "How would they read Shakespeare?"
> Canons or waterpistols.  What's the problem?  Suppose it were spelled
> phonetically?  It could still be decoded.  The language is beautiful but
> the
> references are dated.

But would you want to reprint Shakespeare in a new spelling? That's the
argument. I'm not saying that I subscribe to it, but that's what it is.
>
>> I think the collected experience of the linguists in this group of
>> teaching beginning students phonetic transcription and dialectology
>> counts for something more than your untutored intuitions.
> Like you said.  Maybe maybe not.  That answer from an untutored person is
> just as good as from a tutored person.

You're starting with a hypothesis, and, sure, it's not a *bad*
hypothesis. But the essence of science is testing hypotheses, and any
test of this hypothesis reveals that it's wrong.
>
>> Furthermore,
>> studies of second language and second dialect acquisition show quite
>> clearly that learners, especially those beyond their primary school
>> years, have substantially difficulty learning to make linguistic use of
>> sounds not used in their native speech variety. Sure, they can learn to
>> mimic the sound AWE, but they'll likely have difficulty producing it in
>> running speech.
> Likely?   I doubt it.  We're talking about native USA English speakers
> speaking English.  The data show that 60% speak the "awe" sound.  Those
> that
> don't should hear it often on TV/radio.  They can do it.  They choose
> not to
> because it's not they're local way.

No, it's not a matter of choice. People may choose to *try* to do this,
but their success or lack thereof isn't a matter of choice.
>
>> And, if they don't distinguish the COT and CAUGHT
>> classes of words in their own speech, even if they can learn to
>> pronounce the two sounds differently, they'll inevitably make many
>> errors in correctly assigning words to the COT and CAUGHT classes.
> No kidding. Takes practice.  So?

How much practice? For how long?

Research by Julie Roberts shows that kids in a Philadelphia suburb
completely acquire Philadelphia speech patterns only if their parents
are also from Philadelphia. How much practice would these kids need to
get it "right"?

--
 =============================================================================
Alice Faber
faber at haskins.yale.edu
Haskins Laboratories                                  tel: (203)
865-6163 x258
New Haven, CT 06511 USA                                     fax (203)
865-8963

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org