Hypocorrection

Hypocorrection is a sociolinguistic phenomenon which involves the purposeful addition of slang or a shift in pronunciation, word form, or grammatical construction[1] propelled by a desire to appear less intelligible or strike rapport. It contrasts with hesitation and modulation because, rather than not having the right words to say or choosing to avoid them, the speaker chooses to adopt a non-standard form of speech as a strategy in order to establish distance from or to become closer to their interlocutor.

Hypocorrection may also be a phonetical or phonological phenomenon. Most sound changes originate from two types of phonetically motivated mechanisms: hypocorrection and hypercorrection. Hypocorrective sound change occurs when a listener fails to identify and correct the perturbations in the speech signal and takes the signal at face value.[2]

Causes

Originally, hypocorrection or an accented pronunciation of words may have stemmed from physical properties involved in sound production, such as aerodynamics, anatomy and vocal tract shape.[3]

Hypocorrection may also result from the failure to cancel coarticulatory effects. Ohala mentions that hypocorrection happens when a listener fails to make use of compensation, or to be exact, when the listener is lacking in experience with a series of contextual discrepancies that allows them to execute such correction, or is unable to detect the conditioning environment due to various reasons such as noise and filtering associated with communication channels.[4]

When a listener restores a phoneme from its contextually influenced realisation, normal speech perception involves the process of correction. This is in accordance to a model proposed by John Ohala which involves synchronic unintended variation, hypocorrection, and hypercorrection. For example, in a language that contains no contrasting nasality for vowels, the utterance [kɑ̃n] can be reconstructed, that is, 'corrected' by the listener as the phoneme sequence [kɑn] that was intended by the speaker because they have the knowledge that every vowel is nasalized before a nasal consonant. Hypocorrection occurs if the speaker fails to restore a phoneme, perhaps because the [n] was not pronounced very clearly, and analyses the utterance as [kɑ̃].[5]

However, further studies suggest that there could be another possible reason for the occurrence of hypocorrection: 'variation' in the compensation. For example, Beddor and Krakow (1999) tested American listeners' nasality judgments on the nasalised vowel [Ť]/[õ] between nasal consonants ([m ڧ ԝn]), on oral vowels [Ť]/[o] between oral consonants ([bVd]), and on the same oral vowels in isolation ([#V#]), and found that 25% of [ԝ] in nasal contexts were heard as more nasal than [V] in oral contexts, showing that compensation was incomplete or irregular. In addition, Harrington et al. (2008) illustrated systematic variation in compensation between young and old listeners. They contrasted the two groups' identification of a vowel from an /i/-to-/u/ continuum in palatal ([j_st]) and labial ([sw_p]) contexts. Both groups' category boundaries were at comparable points on the palatal continuum and were closer to the /i/-end than on the labial continuum, showing a compensation effect. However, as for the younger group's boundary on the labial continuum, it was much closer to the boundary on the palatal continuum, hence demonstrating less compensation in comparison to the older group. These results therefore indicated a difference in the listeners' own speech production: the /u/ for younger speakers was more fronted than that of the older speakers in general. These findings indicated that listeners compensate for only as much coarticulation as is expected in their own grammar and this form of 'grammar' is affected by the listener's previous linguistic experience. Hence, this could add to Ohala's list of causes of hypocorrection differences in the coarticulation/compensation norm between a speaker and a listener, which could result in events whereby a listener utilises compensation and still fails to extract from a heavily coarticulated speech segment 'the same pronunciation target intended by the speaker.'[4]

As for the realm of the social aspect, intentional use of hypocorrection or for example, affecting a Southeastern US accent to sound less elitist involves "make-believe hesitations and colloquial language" that "work as affiliative strategies (softeners) etc."[6] Over time, hypocorrection has emerged due to both physical features of voice production and affected accents, and is typically used by people who do not wish to associate themselves with overly sophisticated local dialects. Hypocorrection also works as a softener.[7] Some forms of hypocorrection consist attempts to give one's discourse a clumsy, colloquial, or even a broken and dysfluent style when introducing clever or innovating statements or ideas. More often than not, hypocorrection allows the speaker, by toning down a potential flattering image of self, to avoid sounding pretentious or pedantic, thus reducing the risk of threat to the recipients' faces. This can be linked to the Politeness Theory, which accounts for politeness in terms of the "redressing of affronts" to a person's sociological 'face' by face-threatening acts.[8] The theory elaborates on the concept of face (to 'save' face or to 'lose' face) and discusses politeness as a response to alleviate or avoid face-threatening acts that include insults, requests etcetera. Therefore, hypocorrection may be utilised in such situations in order to allow people to 'save' face.

Impacts

Hypocorrection may have a part in innovating sound changes. Ohala proposed a theory of sound change arising from the listener's misperception.[9][10] The theory highlights important variations in "the phonetic form of functionally equivalent speech units", and puts forth that when faced with coarticulatory speech variation, listeners either:

1) perceptually compensate for predictable variations and arrive at the pronunciation target intended by the speaker, or

2) fail to compensate for coarticulation and assume that the coarticulated form is the intended pronunciation.

The first situation describes what happens in normal speech perception and the second situation describes what happens in hypocorrection, which is the type of misperception in the perceptual compensation for /u/-fronting. Hypocorrection is the underlying mechanism for many assimilatory sound changes and the main concept of hypocorrection is that 'contextually induced' perturbation is regarded by a listener as a deliberate feature of the speech sound. Hence, hypocorrection has the potential to change the listener's phonological grammar by what Hyman called 'phonologisation', a process whereby intrinsic or automatic variation becomes extrinsic or controlled.[11] For years, many researchers have analysed sound change as a result of phonologisation[12][13][14][15] therefore underscoring the theoretical significance of hypocorrection as a condition for sound change via phonologisation.[4]

The listener misperception hypothesis of sound change[16][17][18] has been a worthwhile domain of inquiry over the years, partly due to the fact that it makes testable predictions. According to this area of research, phonological rules arise due to mechanical or physical constraints inherent to speech production and perception. These perceptions involve the likes of listener hypocorrection and hypercorrection. Cross-linguistic tendencies in grammars are therefore thought of as "the phonologization of inherent, universal phonetic biases".[19] Hypocorrection is formally symmetrical, so there is no basis for the unidirectionality of sound changes. For example, the fact that consonants normally palatalize rather than depalatalize before front vowels has no inherent explanation. This ambiguity therefore begs for reanalysis, but something else must demonstrate the directionality of the change. Assimilation and dissimilation are quite different in other ways as well: dissimilation (by hypothesis, hypercorrection) never gives rise to new phonemes, while assimilation (via hypocorrection) does. Such inherent asymmetries are not predicted by the theory as it stands.[20]

Types

Hypocorrection manifests in a few ways:

Syntactic hypocorrection

African Americans who have a native grasp of Standard English (SE) comprise a minority group within a minority group, In an attempt to show solidarity with inner-city African Americans, many of these speakers will accommodate and shift style using vernacular African American speech in appropriate ethnographic contexts. These efforts sometimes exceed the more prevalent linguistic norms for vernacular African American English (AAE), therefore resulting in the construction of hypocorrect utterances that become cases of linguistic over-compensation beyond the nonstandard target.'[21]

During interviews conducted by black fieldworkers, syntactic hypocorrection was observed in sentences including those that were produced by black Standard English (SE) speakers during conversational interviews where they were accommodating towards African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The black fieldworkers were encouraged to use vernacular norms, including slang, in order to provide conversational contexts where AAVE would be appropriate, regardless of the informants' backgrounds.

Some of the well-documented grammatical forms of AAVE frequently used by the African American interviewers were:

  1. Aspectual marking with steady
  2. Stressed been, used to mark distant past events
  3. Habitual and durative be
  4. Semi-auxiliary come
  5. Multiple negation beyond isolated lexical variation, as a marked increase in the use of "man" by black SE males who were being interviewed by black males, e.g. "Yeah man,", "Oh man!", "My man!", etc.

It was observed during the interviews that once the informants started getting more comfortable or felt like they wanted to emphasise a point with the black fieldworkers, they would use more AAVE features in their speech, when in fact, they mainly use SE in other circumstances. The above example demonstrates how syntactic hypocorrection is used in some scenarios to help speakers to achieve certain objectives or to express how they feel.[21]

Hypoarticulation

Hypoarticulation is one of the interactional-communicative factors in connected speech, and it has long been noted and widely studied as "a reduction of less important tokens in relation to the more important ones."[22] Some features of hypoarticulation include more pronounced enunciations, as well as diminished lip protrusions.

Many believe that infant-directed speech contains different characteristics which facilitate learning. However, it is not known for sure whether if the actual speech registers used when communicating when infants and adults differ.

In a study conducted by Englund, a large sample of vowels in infant directed speech was investigated and speech used in natural situations were elicited from both mothers and infants. This was achieved by recording infant-directed speech from direct face-to-face interactions between mothers and their infants. The experimenter interacted with the mothers to elicit their adult-directed speech but was not present when the infant-directed speech was recorded. Instead, the mothers recorded the infant-directed speech themselves in order to best simulate daily activities. The participants were gathered from maternity groups from various healthcare centres and their infants ranged from almost 4 to 24 weeks old. Recordings were done over a period of 6 months and were analysed with PRAAT.

Acoustical and statistical analyses for /æ:, æ, ø:, ɵ, o:, ɔ, y:, y, ʉ:, ʉ, e:, ɛ/ show a selective increase in formant frequencies for some vowel qualities. Furthermore, vowels had higher fundamental frequency and were longer in infant-directed speech. Due to the additional front articulation and less lip protrusion in infant directed speech as compared to adult directed speech, Englund thus concluded that infant directed speech is hypoarticulated. Although hypoarticulation may potentially complicate the auditory language learning of infants, it most likely facilitates their perception of the visual aspects of speech as well as the emotional aspects of communication. Despite the fact that infant-directed speech has an emotional and attention-getting message, it remains a perceptual challenge for infants.[23]

Listener hypocorrection

Perceptual compensation (PC) refers to the listeners' ability to handle phonetic variation because of the coarticulatory influence of surrounding context. Errors in PC have been hypothesised as a vital origin of sound change. However, little research has shed light upon when such errors might happen. Depending on the relative context-specific frequencies of competing sound categories, when PC is diminished, it results in hypocorrection; or when PC is exaggerated (resulting in hypercorrection).[24] Hence, when PC is attenuated, listener hypocorrection may be effected.

An example would be it is predicted that liquid dissimilation is largely originated from listener hypercorrection of liquid coarticulations. Liquid dissimilation is a co-occurrence restriction on identical features within a phonological domain (typically a word). In an experiment conducted by Abrego-Collier, the listener PC patterns for co-occurring liquids is tested for by examining the listener's identification of targets along an /r/-/l/ continuum. More specifically, when two liquids are present. The experiment seeks to find out how one's perception of a synthesised segment on a continuum between /r/ and /l/ is affected by the presence of another conditioning liquid consonant (/r/ or /l/). For the control, listeners were also tasked with categorising ambiguous liquids without other interfering liquids in a word.

The two hypotheses of the experiment were as follows:

Hypothesis A: When the conditioning consonant is /r/, listeners will be more likely to hear the continuum consonant as /l/ (the category space of /l/ will widen).

Hypothesis B: When the conditioning consonant is /l/, listeners will be more likely to hear the continuum consonant as /r/ than in the control (/d/) condition (the category space of /r/ will widen).

Abrego-Collier found that listeners' identification of the continuum liquid were affected by the presence of conditioning /l/ via strengthening rather than reversing the impact of coarticulation, whereby /l/ resulted in the continuum liquid being perceived as /l/-like more of the time. It was eventually concluded that if dissimilation had its roots in listeners' (mis)perception of coarticulation, and listeners' categorisation of co-occurring liquids is more of a hypocorrection rather than a hypercorrection.[19]

However, this list may be non-exhaustive.

See also

References
  1. Nordquist, Richard. "The Grammar of Anxiety: Hypercorrection". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2019-04-07.
  2. Yu, Alan (2006), "Sound Change: Phonetics", Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Elsevier, pp. 525–528, doi:10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/01871-x, ISBN 9780080448541
  3. Jones, Charles (2013). Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-0-582-06085-2.
  4. Kataoka, R. (2009, December). A Study on Perceptual Compensation for/u/-fronting in American English. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 156-167).
  5. Boersma, Paul (December 22, 1997). "SOUND CHANGE IN FUNCTIONAL PHONOLOGY" (PDF).
  6. Maury-Rouan, Claire. "Do listener's facial expressions influence speaker's discourse?". Gesture Studies. University de Provence. Archived from the original on 22 April 2018. Retrieved 20 December 2016.
  7. Maury-Rouan, Claire. "Do listener's facial expressions influence speaker's discourse?". www.gesturestudies.com. Archived from the original on 2018-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-07.
  8. Foley, William A. (2012-11-05), "Anthropological Linguistics", The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0031, ISBN 9781405194730
  9. Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones. ed., Historical Linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237-278. London: Longman.
  10. Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick, and M. F. Miller, eds., CLS 17: Parasession on Language and Behavior, 178-203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  11. Hyman, Larry M. 1976. Phonologization. In Alphonse Juilland, ed., Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, second volume: Phonology. Studia linguistica et philologica 4:407-418. Saratoga: Anma Libri.
  12. Barnes, Jonathan. 2006. Strength and weakness at the interface: Positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  13. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Blevins, Juliette, and Andrew Garrett. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74(3):508-556.
  15. Yu, Alan C. L. 2004. Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and history. Language 80(1):73-97.
  16. Ohala, John J. (2012), "The listener as a source of sound change", The Initiation of Sound Change, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 323, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21–36, doi:10.1075/cilt.323.05oha, ISBN 9789027248411
  17. Ohala, John J. (October 1993). "Sound change as nature's speech perception experiment". Speech Communication. 13 (1–2): 155–161. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(93)90067-u. ISSN 0167-6393.
  18. Ohala, John J. (2003), "Phonetics and Historical Phonology", The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 667–686, doi:10.1002/9780470756393.ch22, ISBN 9780470756393
  19. Abrego-Collier, Carissa (2011-06-25). "Liquid dissimilation as listener hypocorrection" (PDF). Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 37 (1): 3. doi:10.3765/bls.v37i1.3195. ISSN 2377-1666.
  20. Kiparky, Paul (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. p. 39.
  21. Baugh, John (July 1992). "Hypocorrection: Mistakes in production of vernacular African American english as a second dialect". Language & Communication. 12 (3–4): 317–326. doi:10.1016/0271-5309(92)90019-6. ISSN 0271-5309.
  22. Lindblom, Björn; Sussman, Harvey M.; Agwuele, Augustine (2009). "A Duration-Dependent Account of Coarticulation for Hyper- and Hypoarticulation". Phonetica. 66 (3): 188–195. Bibcode:2009ASAJ..125.2697S. doi:10.1159/000235660. ISSN 1423-0321. PMID 19776667.
  23. Englund, Kjellrun T. (2017-11-02). "Hypoarticulation in infant-directed speech". Applied Psycholinguistics. 39 (1): 67–87. doi:10.1017/s0142716417000480. hdl:11250/2496485. ISSN 0142-7164.
  24. Yu, Alan C. L.; Lee, Hyunjung (July 2014). "The stability of perceptual compensation for coarticulation within and across individuals: A cross-validation study". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 136 (1): 382–388. Bibcode:2014ASAJ..136..382Y. doi:10.1121/1.4883380. ISSN 0001-4966. PMC 5392075. PMID 24993222.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.