* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 21.2179

Tue May 11 2010

Disc: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening

Editor for this issue: Evelyn Richter <evelynlinguistlist.org>

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
        1.    Lynn Guindon, Supposed Compensatory Lengthening

Message 1: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening
Date: 10-May-2010
From: Lynn Guindon <lguindonwindstream.net>
Subject: Supposed Compensatory Lengthening
E-mail this message to a friend

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

Subject Language(s): English (eng)

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.