"exotic" and "hyperforeignization" phonologies vs "consistent Native phonologies".

[Mike Cleven]

Sally Thomason wrote:

> The word "skookum" doesn't, as far as I know, show up with
> a "hard" (glottalized) k in any of the older materials, or
> have one etymologically.  If it has one nowadays, it might
> be the "hyperforeignization" phenomenon that other people
> have found in other languages, where speakers extend "exotic"
> pronunciations beyond their etymologically expected domains
> into new words -- deliberate extension, that is.

Um, so they're adopting a non-Native phonology, then, right?
"Deliberately" or not doesn't this mean that the phonology in question
is then not exclusively Native?  But rather _original_?  I suppose
"deliberately" must be regarded in terms of how self-consciously or not
the variant sound is adopted; could it be because Native-spoken Jargon
phonology was - gasp - influencecd by _non_-Native Jargon phonology??
And therefore isn't a "purely Native phonology" nor ever could be?
Horrors - a phonology drawing on non-Native culture/language -
deliberately or indiberately - and I'd bet there's a reasonable
proportion of the latter, if there was a way to map the psychological
history and method of such borrowings.....isn't this a sort of
"creolization", too, then, i.e. I wonder how much that hard Fraser
Canyon 'k' in skokum became more and more like the hard 'k' of the
non-Native way of saying this word, and I wonder how much the
progressive creolization ("indianization") of the GRCW in the last
decade - as attested to by Tony in his defenses of "only one Wawa" last
summer - became more and more a soft 'g' sounding "unaspirated k"
through the course of the century.  One "dialect" influenced by
non-Native cultural forces, the other by the entrenchment of Native
cultural preferences/biases (as also attested to by Tony as the reason
for GRCW's "indianization" - to make it more Indian so as to make the
developing creole form of the Jargon "more Indian" and "less white".
Strikes me that it's two peas in the same pod, with there being as much
legitimacy to the non-Native influenced phonology (used by Natives,
deliberately or indeliberately) as to the pro-Native influenced
phonology (used by Natives, deliberately or indeliberately).....and can
it be shown that this "hyperforeignization"/"exotic" phonology is _only_
an exception cultivated by individuals (as suggested by Sally above) or
could it be that such hyperforeign/exotic phonology might have been
consistent within a certain geographical area, e.g. the Fraser Canyon,
Kamloops-Nicola-Cariboo, Queen Charlotte Strait, the Skeena etc.?



Here we go 'round the mulberry tree....

MC