Talk:Hypocorrection

Some examples would help to clarify the definition. - Logotu (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all wrong

All of the definition is wrong. In the link given, i read: "hypo-correction is an “unintended failure of the perceptual process” (Ohala, 1993)" (my empasis) --188.103.73.232 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, it is just a different notion of hypocorrection, namely that of a kind of recategorization on behalf of the listener or rather language learner. The article considers another phenomenon which is also called "hypocorrection" (I personally would prefer "hypoarticlation" in this sense). This hypocorrection is an intended and furthermore articulatory process. So, not "all wrong" just different. --Thidrek (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see the talk below. Sorry! --Thidrek (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed facts

The comment above ("all wrong") suggests that this page mis-states Ohala's notion of hypocorrection. In addition, it mis-characterizes the source it cites. Per those lecture notes, hypocorrection is an error of perception, not an error of production, much less a "purposeful addition of slang in an attempt to appear less intelligible". That sounds more like Sociolinguistics#Covert prestige or possibly Anti-language. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Hypocorrection means different things to different people. In this document it is defined this way: Hypocorrection consists in an attempt to give one's discourse a clumsy, colloquial, or even broken or dysfluent style, when introducing clever or innovating statements or ideas. By and large, hypocorrection allows the speaker, by toning down a potential flattering image of self, to avoid sounding pretentious or pedantic, thus reducing the risk of threat to recepient(s) face. Jotamar (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, two apparently unrelated ideas share the same name. This article seems to intend the Moury-Rouan sense rather than the Ohala sense, yet the only source cited refers to the latter. I don't know of any work in English that relates to the former sense, but the page Jotamar links to includes this promising-looking citation.

Maury-Rouan, C.(2000):"L’hypo-correction: entre sociolinguistique et analyse linguistique des interaction", in: Lengua, Discurso, Texto. Madrid, Visor Libros 1627-1638.

I'll see if I can locate and read it. In the meantime, I'll replace the current source with that web page. Cnilep (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find the book (actually a conference proceedings) in libraries in my area. Google Scholar suggests that Moury-Rouan's paper is cited in other papers five times, and lists about a dozen other papers by the same author each cited 1-8 times (not all on the topic of hypocorrection, though). Web of Science doesn't include any of the hypocorrection papers; it lists one other paper co-authored by Moury-Rouan, cited 0 times. None of this is definitive, but suggests that, at least under this name, not much has been written on the subject.

On the other hand, as I mention above, this sounds a lot like covert prestige. Maybe the information here would be useful for a Covert prestige article. Cnilep (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately needs an example

I have no idea from reading the article what this term is supposed to mean. Presumably someone does know or the article would not exist. Would that someone please add an example? 50.72.196.97 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Actually, should the article have some sort of "disputed" notice at the top, given the disagreement further up this page?--A bit iffy (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker vs speaker's or just omit it?

The second sentence reads: "It contrasts with hesitation and modulation because rather than the speaker not having the right words to say or choosing to avoid them, the speaker uses hypocorrection as a strategy." If grammatical, it should read: "It contrasts with hesitation and modulation because, rather than the speaker's not having the right words to say or choosing to avoid them, the speaker uses hypocorrection as a strategy."

Replacing "speaker" with "speaker's" would possibly be objected to by some writers. Therefore, the better part of prudence is just to leave out the use of "speaker" in the clause, since it will in a moment be obvious to the reader that it is the speaker who is having difficulty finding or using the right words. Doing so also removes the awkwardness of the original. Corrected, the sentence now reads: "It contrasts with hesitation and modulation because, rather than not having the right words to say or choosing to avoid them, the speaker uses hypocorrection as a strategy." --Wikifan2744 (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]