Date:    Wed, 13 May 1998 09:52:01 -0700
<br>From:    Garland D Bills <gbills[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UNM.EDU>
<br>Subject: Re: Beijing /j/
<br>
<br>On Wed, 13 May 1998, Larry Horn wrote:
<br>> Clearly, there's a real phenomenon of generalized "foreign pronunciation"
<br>> that may well encompass the [zh] pronunciation of Beijing.  But I'm not
<br>> sure all the above fit under that category.  I've usually heard "Chicano"
<br>> with a Spanish affricate rather than a French fricative, but I think
<br>> there's also a phonological process whereby a number of words in which [ch]
<br>> occurs in a totally unstressed syllable is de-affricativized.  Consider,
<br>> for example, Chicago (with a [sh]) vs. Chi-town and Chisox ('Chicago White
<br>> Sox') with a [ch].  Or chiropodist, with either initial [k] or [sh], but
<br>> not [ch].  Or cheroot (evidently from Tamil), usually (in my experience)
<br>> [sh] rather than [ch].  I think the key here is not the extension of [+
<br>> French] but the lack of stress on the first syllable; maybe Chicano (in
<br>> losing its [+ Spanish] feature?) is assimilated to this class rather than
<br>> treated as specifically French.
<br>
<br>        In my experience, the if-foreign-then-French rule is salient.
<br>There may be other things going on with Chicano (dialect variation in
<br>Spanish showing both [sh] and [ch]). However, when you encounter -- even
<br>in New Mexico!! -- people who will pronounce the surname Cha'vez (with
<br>stress on the first syllable) as [shave'] (with stress on the second
<br>syllable), I feel pretty confident those people are working with a
<br>[+French] procedure. And maybe a host of attitudinal baggage.
<br>
<br>        Garland
<br>
<br>Garland D. Bills                                E-mail: gbills[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]unm.edu
<br>Department of Linguistics                       Tel.:   (505) 277-7416
<br>University of New Mexico                        FAX:    (505) 277-6355
<br>Albuquerque, NM 87131-1196 USA
<br>