Date:    Wed, 13 May 1998 11:47:25 -0400
<br>From:    Beverly Flanigan <flanigan[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]OAK.CATS.OHIOU.EDU>
<br>Subject: Re: Beijing /j/
<br>
<br>The latest issue of _American Speech_ (Winter '97) has a Miscellany article
<br>on one of these foreignizing sets, /a/~/ae/, as in Colorado, mantra,
<br>pistachio, even habitat; the thesis is that we tend to use /a/ even if /ae/
<br>was the original (or nativized) vowel because we want to "sound authentic."
<br> It's by Michael Shapiro.  On Beijing: When we hired a Chinese instructor
<br>this year, a Far East colleague chastised us for saying [zh]; it was so
<br>easy to slip into.
<br>
<br>Incidentally, what is the range of pronunciation of 'Chicago' with [ch]?
<br>It's heard early on in "American Tongues."
<br>
<br>
<br>At 11:27 AM 5/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
<br>>At 12:14 AM -0500 5/13/98, Donald M. Lance wrote:
<br>>>>Does anyone know why the j in Beijing is frequently pronounced as if
<br>French?
<br>>>>The Mandarin pronunciation is clearly like a "regular" English j, and the
<br>>>>switch from Peking happened recently enough that it shouldn't have gotten
<br>>>>mixed up.
<br>>>
<br>>>For the same reason people say 'machete' and 'Chicano' as if they were
<br>>>French words.  Also the -ch- in 'Appalachian', said like 'appelation'.  And
<br>>>some other words I can't think of at the moment.  Radio and TV announcers
<br>>>seem to have a rule that says "when in doubt, assume French origin."  But,
<br>>>when in doubt, -ei- is treated as if it were German.  Thirty or so years
<br>>>ago, before news people knew that Brunei existed, I knew someone from
<br>>>there.  He said it 'bru-nay'.  Now we just hear 'bru-nigh'.
<br>>>
<br>>>DMLance
<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>>Larry
<br>>
<br>