Reversing mergers

Lazar   Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:40 am GMT
Oops, I left one out: "can't" is another word that commonly has broad A here.
J   Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:37 am GMT
Which way would you say that social pressures push people in Boston? Do people feel like they "should" pronounce can't, half, etc. with the BATH vowel or do people who naturally do so feel like they shouldn't (are they criticized for it for example). From what I've heard, non-rhotic accents are fairly stigmatised (except perhaps Boston Brahmin?).
Lazar   Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:40 am GMT
<<Which way would you say that social pressures push people in Boston? Do people feel like they "should" pronounce can't, half, etc. with the BATH vowel or do people who naturally do so feel like they shouldn't (are they criticized for it for example).>>

I'd say neither, really. Having the trap-bath split just has connotations of being a more "traditional" local pronunciation, more common among middle-aged and older people. The pronunciations that use the TRAP vowel have become more common, especially among younger people, but I don't think there's any criticism of people using the BATH vowel.

I think an analogy could be drawn with areas in the South where some people (especially middle aged and older) preserve the witch-which distinction.

<<From what I've heard, non-rhotic accents are fairly stigmatised>>

I know what you mean, but part of me thinks that "stigmatization" is too harsh a term. Non-rhotic accents are really prevalent here, and there's many politicians and local media personalities who are non-rhotic. Non-rhoticism has connotations of being working-class, traditional, and "folksy", as it were. But it's true that there is social pressure on younger people to adopt more GenAm pronunciations - a big reason might be that many of the colleges here have student bodies that are predominately not from this region, so a non-rhotic accent would really stand out there.

(Maybe my perception is distorted by the fact that I really *like* to hear non-rhotic accents.)

I think non-rhoticism is less common if a person is younger, and especially if they live in the suburbs. As an example, most of my high school teachers were non-rhotic, but most of my classmates were rhotic.

<<(except perhaps Boston Brahmin?).>>

I think nowadays, a Boston Brahmin accent would be more stigmatized than a working class accent. I think the Boston Brahmin accent is practically extinct (I don't think I've ever heard one in real life), and somebody using it would probably be perceived as a pretentious fool. Think of somebody using a super-posh U-RP accent in modern Britain.
Josh Lalonde   Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:00 am GMT
That makes sense. I've heard of this phenomenon in Creole studies; they call it 'basilectal focussing'. While the basilect is less prestigious (ie. it conveys a lower social class), it becomes more popular as the acrolect comes to be seen as pompous or pretentious. The basilect also serves as an 'in-group' language to exclude outsiders.