Talk:Hypercorrection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
*/Archive 1: August 2003 - August 2006


Contents

[edit] Delete...?

I removed the following:

In many dialects of English, word-final and preconsonantal r, in words such as "car" and "hard," is not pronounced. These dialects include those of the British Isles; the traditional dialects of the Coastal Plain of the U.S. South; and those of the coastal cities of the U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic (such as Boston and New York). Speakers of such dialects may append r where there was none, such as pronouncing Africa as Africar, as sometimes heard on the BBC, or the stereotypical Brooklynites mispronunciation of oil as earl.'

I'm prepared to be over-ruled on this but the paragraph seems beyond redemption. I started to edit it but the more I tried the more its point faded away from me. I'm reluctant to correct someone who uses the impressive terms "word-final" and "preconsonantal" but whether a letter is pronounced or not would seem to be a matter of accent rather than dialect. Given that, there seem to be two points in the paragraph: (a) readers on the BBC sometimes add an 'r' where they shouldn't due to confusion related to their pronunciation of 'car' without an 'r' (b) Brooklynites say 'earl' rather than 'oil', presumably for some similar reason

Both of these 'errors' seem to me to be as much in the ear of the person hearing them as in the voice of the person saying them. If a BBC news reader pronounces 'car' and 'Africa' so that they rhyme (as they should under Received Pronunciation) then this does not seem hypercorrective. I confess that I am making an assumption that the Brooklyn example is similarly mis-identified.

Tre1234 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree --Selket Talk 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - Many British dialects sound the R in words like world, bird, tractor (Scotland and the West of England for example). BBC announcers may add an intrusive R, eg "Africa Ris" for "Africa is" (or laura norder). British actors when impersonating Americans often add an R to the end of words that don't have them (Emma, Africa again).````

Reply: Interestingly, when I started trying to edit the paragraph I was hoping to make your point about other British dialects. In the end, I decided that that wasn't the point. I still say that under RP "the car is" and "Africa is" rhyme. I can understand how a 'r'-pronouncing listener would hear an 'r' in the latter. Whatever it is, I don't think it's a good example of hypercorrection. Also, I haven't checked but presumably somewhere on Wikipedia there is a discussion of how the RP 'r' issues leads to some poor English folk being unable to say 'r' properly in any word but, again, that's different from the topic here. I do, however, give you your point on British actors: why not add some examples (Kenny Everett..?) and put it on the main page. Tre1234 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

""Reply to Reply"" "Africa is" - some Brits don't just hear an R before the is, here, they put one in! I don't think RP is to blame for some of us not being able to pronounce the letter R properly. Those who can't pwonounce their Rs create an R with their top teeth and bottom lip (it seems to afflict archaeologists, who are always having to say things like "Roman remains" and "Bronze Age rubble"). More examples of hyperforeignism: creton rhyming with Breton for cretonne; kletzmer for klezmer.64.236.227.6 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the following - "Another example would be the pronouncing of the name Pinochet as if it were French(Peenoshay)--actually, it is pronounced Pee no Chett--Latin speakers pronounce such names according to their ruiles of phonetics just as we do. CNN frequently messes this up."

Pinochet is a French-Basque name, not Spanish. The correct pronunciation is unknown and there's quite a lot of debate about it. That's a whole debate in itself, but there are plenty of reasons for pronouncing it "pin-o-shay" or "pin-o-chay" that have nothing to do with hypercorrection.

The problem with the deleted paragraph at the top of this section is that the writer is simply misinformed about certain phonological issues: the various accent-areas mentioned all belong to the so-called "non-rhotic" group, and in scientific (or we might say in mature, adult) discussion there is no basis for ridiculing their "inability" to pronounce the postvocalic r. Further, the "intrusive" r found in "I have no idea -r- about that" is certainly not characteristic of this whole large non-rhotic area; in the U.S. it is identified with parts of New England --- President Kennedy was famous for this kind of accent. This instrusive r is a strategy for linking two vowels together. Most English accents do this in one way or another: there is a slight w between the two words "Go in." and a slight y (palatal) between the first and second syllable of words like create. My Chinese students show their foreign accent by putting a glottal stop between the two vowels, which sounds very un-English. Naturally a speaker with a non-rhotic accent would have more occasion to use this intrusive r, but various accents have adopted other strategies. A slight contraction in the back of the throat (sounds like a uvular or pharyngeal approximant to me) is used by many speakers to link two vowels together. One can especially hear this with people who pronounce "saw" as sah when they say, "I saw it". - The statement about Brooklynese is also quite confused: this accent is part of the traditional lower-class non-rhotic pronunciation of the NYC area, wherein the centralised vowel of words like "turn", instead of just being lengthened, gets followed by a slight palatal glide, thus sounding to other speakers something like oi. So "earl" sounds like "oil", not the opposite. Jakob37 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prepositional stranding

Recently, Antaeus Feldspar added this hidden comment to the article's paragraph on the Churchill quote:

The sometimes-argued-to-be-incorrect practice of ending a sentence with a preposition is an example of prepositional stranding; this should probably be mentioned in discussion of this anecdote.

It seemed reasonable to me to change the paragraph so that some of the words (e.g., "elaborate refusal") a link to the "Preposition stranding" article.

But, then, I had a look at that article—and I'm not sure that such a connection is valid.

That article defines prepositional stranding as "the syntactic construction in which a preposition appears without an object", but then gives English examples in which the prepositions definitely have objects (the English pronoun what, for example). Having the object of the preposition in the sentence but not immediately following the preposition (e.g., "What do you live on?" instead of "On what do you live?") is not the same as omitting the object (e.g., "This cake has raisins in").

Because that article misrepresents a different placement of the object as an absence of the object, it is, I think, not the right thing to link to when the issue Churchill was mocking was pedantry about the placement of the object. If that article were actually about the 'rule' about putting the preposition's object (be it a normal noun or a relative pronoun) specifically after the preposition, the link would be more appropriate.

What do others think?

President Lethe 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

The current lead in is awful. It's a bit short and using a bullet-point list makes it read more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia entry. Moreover, two given meanings are not distinct (much less distinct phenomena) and don't need to be listed seperately (I'll get to this..) There's a major omission in not mentioning hypercorrection in pronunciation, in particular since the bulk of examples refer to it. (That is not a distinct phenomenon either.)

Point 2) is particularily bad: "usage that many informed users of a language consider incorrect but that the speaker or writer uses through misunderstanding of prescriptive rules, often combined with a desire not to seem informal or uneducated." The word "informed" implies a value judgement and the first subclause is redundant anyway since "correct usage", per definition, is what most people consider to be "correct usage". The last subclause should never have been allowed. It's speculation, and given no source can only be assumed to be the non-NPOV opinion of the writer. More importantly though, it's fairly irrelevant: A hypercorrection is a hypercorrection regardless of exact underlying motives.

Not to say the underlying intent isn't important! It makes for a both simpler and less subjective definition of "hypercorrection": That the writer/speaker, through the (over-)application of some percieved rule achives the opposite of what they intended.

This is a much better definition. First because it avoids the subjective nature of what "correct" is, second because it includes the cases where the result is neither clumsy nor incorrect (the only definitions currently given). The term "hypercorrection" is frequently used for such cases, including many of the given examples. A common usage is describing a speaker with an accent or dialect overcompensating when trying to speak more 'neutrally'. The result is then often "correct", in the sense that the pronunciation is within dialectal variations. But it's still a hypercorrection, since they failed to replicate the intended dialect (and possibly any other unmixed dialect).

Another example is "lingerie" pronounced to rhyme with "hay". That pronunciation started as a hypercorrection, but it's now a perfectly acceptable English pronuncation. It's only a hypercorrection if you intended to use a French pronunciation. Another way of saying it is that hypercorrection always results in something incorrect, where 'correct' means 'what was intended', which may or not be the same as correct usage.

Similarily, the first (currently given) definition also applies, although this is less obvious. The intent of the writer is to follow a prescripted style. This means you have to take into account the intent of the prescription, and that intent is not to make the text more difficult. Their aim is usually the exact opposite.

The first and second paragraphs both imply (implicitly then explicitly) that "correctness" is defined by prescription. It is not. Prescriptions are always based to at least some extent on descriptions, while descriptions like dictionaries are often used proscriptively. The relative importance can be debated, but that debate is entirely irrelevant because the definition of the subject doesn't require an absolute definition of "correct". As I already explained, it is a lot simpler to define without attempting one!

The second paragraph is also factually wrong in claming that French has a "supreme authoritive body" which defines correct and incorrect usages. It doesn't. That's nothing but a popular misconception. The French Academy is a French government body, which publishes various prescriptions on language use. Those prescriptions do not carry any more legal weight than any other ones. (Even if they did, the vast majority of French speakers are not citizens of France anyway.) Most governments have one or several official style guides, including the US and UK governments. There is no fundamental difference.

Furthermore, the description that follows is an unnessary and arbitrary categorization, which actually does a good job of exemplifying the contrived attempts at communication that it describes! In an attempt to sound formal and correct it resorts to extreme vagueness: "within certain groups of users of English, some of which are quite large, certain usages are indeed". In clear violation of several of Wikipedia's own prescriptions! There is no reference cited for the categorization that follows, and there's probably every reason to think it's simply an ad-hoc invention of the author.

Worse: What is the author trying to define, anyway?! It's impossible to tell! The preceeding sentence leads one to believe that they're trying to define "correct", but the definition itself uses the word "correct" - so that can hardly be it, or? The alternative would seem to be that it's trying to define "Hypercorrection", but that was already defined! (albeit poorly) This "definition" explains nothing at all. The subjective term "correct" remains undefined, all while it manages to introduce several more ill-defined words like "formal" and "formal rule". An word is being defined in terms of other undefined words, using a seemingly arbitrary categorization which it implies is applicable in an extremely vague set of circumstances.

Shape up folks! A dictionary would've easily given a much clearer definition. (I note, BTW, that they do define the intent differently. American Heritage implies the hypercorrecter is attempting to comply with "standard usage", whereas OED implies they're attempting to comply with a "more prestigious form". While not mutually exclusive, taken together they do illustrate what I'm trying to say: That which exact form they intend isn't very relevant.)

Finally: The article suffers from having too many examples. Two examples is better than one, but a hundred isn't better than ten. It also seems like an inordinate amount of editing and debating is going into the examples. I suggest a representative group are chosen, and if someone really wants the rest, they could be put in a separate list-type article.

I agree that words like "correct" and "prestigious" should be eliminated. Hypercorrection is what happens when someone who uses any one mode of speech tries to adapt to any other, and overshoots the target. Whether the attempted change is up the social scale, or down it, or from dialect to a standardised form, or vice versa, or from one dialect to another, is of secondary importance. The point is that the speaker notices a difference between the two modes of speech, invents a rule to account for it, and generates a result that does not occur among native speakers of the target mode of speech.
In the case of a hyperforeignism, the result may be so widespread as to become "correct". That does not stop it from being a hyperforeignism. The point is that the form originated from a mistaken attempt to mimic the foreign language in question; mistaken, that is, in terms of the foreign language, whether or not in terms of the language spoken. Similarly, when we say that a given form results from "back formation" or "folk etymology", that does not imply that it remains incorrect in the language in which it occurs, or that if it becomes acceptable usage it ceases to be a back formation or folk etymology as the case may be. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree with most of what you write. I would add that such phrases as "wanting to sound Spanish" are very much out of line. "Wanting"?--who are you to say what their motivations are? I would argue that most people who use such pronunciations are not "wanting to sound Spanish," they are just talking and using the pronunciation that comes natural to them (or natural as how they were taught). Perhaps--with loads of qualifications--one could make an argument that the very first user of a hyperforeignism "wanted" to sound "Spanish" (for example), but this pales in comparison to the majority of speakers engaging in such a practice. This, too, however, would be up for argument. For all we know, this mythical "first speaker of a hyperforeignism" misheard a foreign pronunciation of the word. To suggest that there is some underlying desire or motivation behind such pronunciations is to cast a blanket of presumption over the linguistic practices of a wide variety of speakers. Mishearing is just as probable as wanting is just as probable as being taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.252.53 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Espresso

Too much detail on the espresso/expresso example. I don't think this is a hypercorrection at all: I think people who say this are thinking of the English word "express" (possibly thinking that this kind of coffee is produced quickly). In the same way, many people, in spelling or pronunciation, confuse "Colombia" (the South American country) with "Columbia" (poetic term for the American continent). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Columbia is obviously unadulterated Latin, Colombia is Spanish. --4.245.248.23 03:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Frankly, this mispronunciation is not an example of hypercorrection, but is (as stated) a confusion with "express" and therefore shouldn't be included in this article. Spuddddddd - Cambridge '07

I would argue that it's neither - try saying it yourself, and you find that it's easier for a native (American) English speaker to say 'expresso' than 'espresso'. The 'x' elides much more easily for me than the correct pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfunk1967 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] h in Latin

I recall a poem by Catullus talking about his friend who, apparently, is of a low class and tries to hide this by pronouncing h's (which the common people appeared to have dropped) in front of words that simply begin with a vowel, under the impression that there's actually an unpronounced h. Would this be worthy of noting in this article? -- 68.160.184.11 07:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


That is Catullus 84 ("chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet..."). Pronouncing the "h" was a hyperforeignism deriving from the Attic Greek rough breathing and the aspirated stops (phi, theta, chi). Romans of the upper class who had been truly educated in Greek would use such aspiration in Greek loans words or when speaking in Greek. Arrius, although he had no Greek education but still wanted to sound educated, overused the aspiration, much to the revulsion of his fellows. --ben (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herbs

I am not at all sure that American "erbs" is an attempt to imitate French. It could be just an old-fashioned English thing: in England, "h" was formerly dropped in "humour" and "hotel" (though in the case of "hotel" I suppose French was operative), and it still is (in both countries) in "honour". It used to be a rule that words beginning with "h" and not stressed on the first syllable took "an" as the indefinite article, as in "an historian"; so maybe in those words too the "h" was pronounced weakly or not at all.

If this is right, "erbs" is not a hyperforeignism; rather, "herbs" is a spelling pronunciation. What does everyone else think? Should we keep this example, or delete it on the ground of uncertainty? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The aspirated h is an innovation in English for words of French origin (see The American Heritage® Book of English Usage: H). Definitely don't keep as an example of a hyperforeignism; but it might be worth recasting as a non-example, a cautionary tale. So many levels of dialect: standard>substandard>hypercorrect>putatively-hypercorrect>...how low can you go? jnestorius(talk) 12:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your points, but there are no other examples I can think of that drop the h in such an obvious and contrived way as in the American 'erbs. I never hear anyone refer to 'erpes simplex, 'ermaphrodites or 'ermit crabs. I think this is because those are not associated with French cookery (at least not in any recipes I would like to sample!) I agree that on the basis of the reasonable doubt it should not be included here, but I still believe it is very likely related to the French pronunciation. Nnanook9 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de wrong way to type it

English-language media sometimes decapitalise the first letter of surnames beginning with words like "de", "van" or "von" when clearly unnecessary, for example at the beginning of sentences (e.g. here). I saw a local newspaper in Milton Keynes that had managed to work Osama bin Laden into a headline, which began "bin Laden". Does this count as hypercorrection? Lfh 11:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

The statements about why people hyper-correct are very elitist and speculative, and most important, not cited. (Bjorn Tipling 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

Re: Changes. That's a citation that explains what it is, but it says nothing about the claim that's its caused by a 'desire to seem formal or educated'(Bjorn Tipling 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

The source does say, "it’s usually a matter of trying to please, but without really knowing what is required." I consider that sufficient to back up the statement, "through misunderstanding of prescriptive rules, often combined with a desire to seem formal or educated." I am tenuously reverting; please let me know if you disagree --Selket 15:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, my problem with even that claim, which is a little bit more watered down than the actual claim in the paragraph we're disputing, is that there is no proof presented. The tag I used is {{fact}}. That the claim is also made in other publications, whatever they maybe, doesn't mean it is a fact. I want to see evidence, such as a survey, a study, research. As far as I'm concerned the claim being made is nothing other than a widely believed false generalization, a myth, a consequence of ignorance. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. A much more likely situation is that hypercorrection is the result of benign misunderstanding, a hazy recollection of grammar rules, or simple ignorance. But since we have nothing to go on, other than the printed speculation of others, let's just leave it out, or if you really think it is true, leave the tag on, and maybe someone will know a reference. (Bjorn Tipling 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC))
The problem with that line of thinking is that it ignores that hyercorrection is linguistic jargon. Hypercorrection is not making gramatical errors. Hypercorrection is the making of one gramatical error in order to avoid what is percieved as another. That is how hypercorrection is defined; no studies are required. Whether most people who say, "Come to the store with Bob and I," are hypercorrecting could be the subject of the study you describe. If the study discovers they just don't understand the rules it means they are not hypercorrecting and are simply making an error. If the study discovers that they believe the construction, Bob and me is always wrong and said, Bob and I to avoid that mistake, then the study finds that they are hypercorrecting. Either way, definition two from the article is unchanged.
We are defining something. I think The Columbia Guide to Standard American English is an apropriate source for that definition
--Selket 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, interesting. Thanks for clarifying, I no longer have any objections in that case. (Bjorn Tipling 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Criterion/criteria

I regularly hear people mistake the plural and singular forms for one another. Irnoically, the same people often stress the last part of the word in a way that suggests they are making sure you heard them use it correctly. While the simple mistake is in no way hypercorrection, the deliberate overstressing of the 'ion or 'ia (when the worng ending was used anyway) seems to make it so. Any thoughts? Nnanook9 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Same goes for phenomenon phenomena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.75.9 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Aprentice and his apprenti

Concerning the pseudoplural apprenti used by Donald Trump, maybe can we consider the fact that in French the word for Apprentice is Apprenti. I don't know anything about the show but what I'm sure is that English speakers often use French words when talking 'cuisine'; so maybe it's not a plural but just a word from that language ? (Cyrus 02:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Talk amongst yourselves

In such common phrases as "Talk amongst yourselves", the reflexive pronoun is used where the reciprocal pronoun is grammatically appropriate. This claim is not true. The reciprocal pronoun cannot be used in place of the reflexive pronoun, because that would produce "Talk amongst one another", which is nonsense. Talking "among themselves" is not the same as talking "to themselves". I think special mention of "talk amongst yourselves" is needed, but it needs tidying up. Mooncow 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Pronoun

I think that this sentence could be changed a little:

[quote]The rule is that the pronoun that would stand in isolation is the one to use: if "I went to the movies", then "You and I went to the movies"; if "They gave it to me", then "They gave it to you and me".[/quote]

It could be clarified with the following change: "The rule is that 'I' is the subjective case of the personal pronoun, while 'me' is the objective case..." or the even simpler "...'I' is a subject, while 'me' is an object..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.65.134.208 (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ain't ain't in here...

Whether or not you consider it proper today, the word 'ain't' is historically the correct contraction of the phrase 'am not,' but has fallen into a state of being constantly used but reviled by grammarians. It seems to me that the change in perceived correctness of this word is an example of hypercorrection gone haywire (the correct correction being not using it for 'isn't', and 'aren't' and the extended phrase 'ain't gonna' for 'won't', but correcting 'ain't' out of properiety being the general hypercorrection.

[edit] Hypercommification

Wouldn't the annoying, tendency some people, have, of sticking, extra, commas, in all over the place where they, are unnecessary, and, useless, be considered, a form, of hypercorrection?

If so, I recommend the possible words 'hypercommification' or 'shatnerisation' as nominees to, describe, the, phenomenon... Spock.

[edit] Non-alphanumeric graphemes

Hypercorrection can involve non-alphanumeric graphemes.

--- Wavelength 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Definition

The current definition of Hypercorrection contains the following sentence: 'usage which is correct in another language but is not required in English. Examples include myself, yourself, himself which obtain in Irish and German for instance but not in the more casual English.' I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Maybe it's because I am not a native speaker, but the passage does not make any sense to me. Unoffensive text or character 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English and you are right - that sentence makes no sense at all. The word "obtain" is wrong and I am not sure what is meant by "the more casual English". I would say that the examples given are found predominantly in written English in the mistaken belief that it sounds more formal - possibly similar in origin to the confusion surrounding the use of you and me/you and I. Using these words in this context would not be hypercorrection either - it's just a simple error. Non-native speakers might indeed make this mistake based on usage in their own language but that does not explain why native English speakers often make the same error. I think the offending sentence should be deleted. --62.249.233.80 (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Party and Colbert

I just want to say that I don't think Partay is really a hyperforeignism, but who knows. I also think the T is silent in Colbert normally, but I could be wrong about that too. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal pronouns

"You and I" in object position is sometimes described as a hypercorrection, but the form appears in writings as old as Shakespeare, so it is something of a point of dispute whether or not this is hypercorrection. Some linguists (i.e. Chomsky) think that something like "This is between you and I" follows standard rules of internalized native-speaker English grammar.

The article has a link (now redirected) to disputes in English grammar. -- Wavelength 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypercorrection of foreign word pronunciation - more examples

I feel that most hypercorrection in this regard, some major aspects of which are very common and not mentioned in this article, is based on both ignorance and the lack of interest on the part of the standard speaker, the latter of which again is often a function of the lack of education. As the article correctly states, this process occurs in every language, both within the language itself and in dealing with foreign words.

I would like to see more examples such as these below, which I would classify as "hyperpronunciation of vowel sounds":

Popular cultural terms in the context of Starbucks or Ben & Jerry's, such as a coffee "latte" and and a "dulce de leche" ice cream are overpronounced to the hilt by most English speakers. It isn't lah-TAY or dul-SAY di LAY-CHAY in the original language, but if we learn anything at all in Spanish class, it's the untruth that all vowel sounds in foreign languages are simple and completely constant. Americans in Germany call Stuttgart "stootgart" with the "oo" as in food, because they have been taught that "u" is always this sound in German. They are not aware that there are short and long vowel sounds in other languages as well, and that the "oo" here should be as in foot, due to the double consonant.

In Germany, similar hyperforeignism -- here regarding foreign consonant sounds -- leads to fascinating mispronuciations of words such as "Lamborghini" and "Karmann Ghia" (the "gh" being prounounced as if it were a soft "g" [Gina], particularly interesting because a] they pronounce "spaghetti" correctly [but refer to a plural as "spaghettis"], and b] because there is no comparalble soft "g" sound in the German language); "tequila" is pronounced as if it were "tequilla" ["y" instead of "l"], whereas "Mallorca" is often pronounced "Malorca". In France, the process leads to the addition of an "h" sound in front of foreign (particularly English) words starting with a vowel sound; etc.

Jtnet 10:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Get a blog. 68.180.82.98 (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not very helpful your remark, is it?
"Go get a blog" could be used as a motto to this article. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mallorca

Do we want to mention forms originating in hypercorrection that have since become standard? One example is the Spanish spelling of "Mallorca": the ll has no etymological basis, as it was Maiorca/Majorca in Latin and Mayorca in medieval Spanish, but it is now the only correct spelling. The mechanism was clearly one of hypercorrection, but one wouldn't call this a hypercorrect form today. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe the very common spelling in Danish of *ld and *nd for final *l and *d sounds are due to hypercorrection. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valencia/Barcelona

It is claimed under the section on Spanish and Italian words that: "Also, many non-Spanish speakers attempt to sound more Spanish by pronouncing Barcelona as 'Barthelona'. In fact, in the local language of Catalan, the 'c' is pronounced as an 's' and even non-Catalan speaking Spaniards will pronounce it as such. The same can be said of 'Valencia', which is always pronounced 'Valensia' and never 'Valenthia'." I, admittedly not a native speaker of Spanish but nevertheless a fluent one, have lived in Valencia for a few months and have never observed this phenomenon; that is, most everyone seems to pronounce "Valenthia" and "Barthelona". Similarly, on the English Wikipedia pages for these cities, their names are given with the IPA pronunciations [ba'lenθja] and [baɾθeˈlona], respectively. There is discussion about the pronunciation of the city's name on the Valencia page, but it centers around the b/v phonetic ambiguity in Spanish, not around the s/θ opposition. There is no IPA pronunciation of either name given on their Spanish Wikipedia pages. I propose that unless the author of this line brings forth some proof of this claimed exception to the Castilian ceceo, that this factoid be stricken from the article. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This was added fairly recently and I thought it sounded pretty dubious, but I did not change it because I don't speak Spanish well enough to know for sure. However, it doesn't seem likely, because for people in Spain who pronounce /s/ as /θ/, it is their version of the same phoneme—why would it be something that they would turn on and off when it's time to say the name of certain Spanish cities? Maybe some will nod to the Catalan pronunciation by using it; but to say "always" and "never"? Sounds like an artificial proscription. Seems more likely that there is some natural variation. — ¾-10 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is nonsense to claim that
even non-Catalan speaking Spaniards will pronounce it as such [i.e. the 'c' of Barcelona as /s/]. The same can be said of 'Valencia', which is always pronounced 'Valensia' and never 'Valenthia'.
One has normally only to spend a few minutes listening to a Madrid-based radio station like Radio 5 Todo Noticias to hear Barcelona and Valencia pronounced /barθe'lona/ and /ba'lenθja/. Yes, the names are pronounced /bərsə'lonə/ and /va'ɫɛnsia/ locally by speakers of the respective versions of Catalan, but that does not affect their pronunciation in Castilian Spanish. Indeed, Valencians when speaking Castilian, will often pronounce the name of their city /va'lenθja/ (i.e. retaining the Catalan /v/, which does not exist in Castilian, but nevertheless using the Castilian /θ/).
Whether or not the use of /θ/ in these names by English-speakers speaking English constitutes hypercorrection or not (and I tend to think it does), the remarks about "non-Catalan speaking Spaniards" are incorrect as they stand and I agree with D. J. Cartwright that they should be removed. -- Picapica (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I changed this paragraph. I think it's better now. — ¾-10 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a big improvement. However, it implies
a) that [θ] versus [s] is an accent difference, which it is not – Castilian Spanish has both phonemes: ceda [θeda] = yield / seda [seda] = silk – Catalan has only [s]: [sedə] for both words
b} that Catalan is a dialect: that is asking for trouble!
I will have a go at another rewrite myself shortly. -- Picapica 09:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert Report

Isn't the pronunciation of "Report" as "Repor" more a play on the fact that his name has a silent 't' on the end... and not as a link to anything French? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.133.69 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

When I was in elementary school in The Bronx, some people added a syllable to the letter "R" in spelling. For example, to spell "butter," one would say "bee-you-tee-tee-ARR-ah." Is that a hypercorrection or simply a dialect trait? Also, a pet peeve I have is when a person adds a "T" at the end of "across." Is there a formal term for this error? NBK1122 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fleur-de-lys/fleur-de-lis

The final "s" is not pronounced in French, contrary to what the article states. (although it is pronounced if the word is by itself) Source: Trésor de la langue française informatisée —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.179.174 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong foreign language - Russian/German confusion

A particularly gruesome example of hyperforeignism is the incorrect pronunciation of the word for a Russian country house, a "dacha." This should be pronounced, straightforwardly enough, as it looks, with the "ch" as in "duchess." Presumably because of some confusion (!) with the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau, the "ch" is very often erroneously "germanized." If this theory of the origin is correct, I assume everyone pronounced in the English-speaking world pronounced it more or less correctly until about 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.75.9 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)