Date:  Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:08:27 -0500

From:  "Timothy C. Frazer" <mftcf[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU>

Subject: Re: you



On Tue, 16 Aug 1994, Donald M. Lance wrote:



>

> It seems to me that in the past decade there has been a considerable increase

> in the use of "bad grammar" and four-letter words in quotations in newspaper

> articles. We who've been (mis)quoted by reporters are well aware of where

 many

> of the quotes come. The news people would argue that they're attempting to

> be more accurate, but stereotyping seems to me to have a higher priority than

> accuracy in these quotes.

Bob Greene had a column on this phenomemom (chicago trib; dunno if it was

syndicated) and cited it as another example of the decline of civility

and civilization. If anyone saved it I'd like to get a copy.



>

> I'm a 'was' rather than 'wuz' speaker, so my reaction to this particular item

> of eye dialect is different from that of 'wuz' speakers. I mean that I use

> the low vowel in stressed 'was' but of course use a schwa when the word is

> in an unstressed position. From my own reaction, I suspect that some

> writers who use 'wuz' in eye dialect are indirectly commenting on their own

> "correct" pronuncation, the one taught by Miss Fidditch.



My guess would be that this distinction is unusual. I think I hve the

same vowel in both positions, as do most of the people I know. Do I just

have a bad ear? Or is the tendency I describe a striclty

inlandnorth/north midland thing? I know my students panic when they

can't hear the difference between a schwa and anything slightly lower or

low-bck (represented by an upside down "a", respectively, and a carrot in

IPA). I have to skip over that cause I can't either.



Cross-dialectal

> messiness notwithstanding, the use of 'wuz' is one of the most useful eye

> dialect items that a writer can use to suggest dialect but not "heavy"

> dialect.



Yes, and I think it's useful precisely cause it does not represent a real

ifference between standard and vernacular. That's a tough one to prove

absolutely, though. Any suggestions out there?



Tim Frazer