Talk:Hypercorrection

Swedish

I just removed the following part:

"The words 'och' (and) and 'att' (to) can both be pronounced /ɔ/ in spoken language, which can lead to speakers mistakenly replacing 'att' with 'och' in some situations: "Det ska bli kul och göra" – 'That will be fun and do'."

While what the sentence says is correct, I removed it because it is not a hypercorrection but just a simple language error.

--Jhertel (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic subject requires high quality sources.

As this is a somewhat pedantic and contentious subject with variation between different dialects, I think we should only have examples that are supported with high quality sources, otherwise the article becomes a home for everybody's pet hate, whether it is correct or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Do non-English language examples belong in English Wikipedia?

I understand that WP should have a global perspective and that there are undoubted examples of hypercorrection in other languages but I cannot see the point of giving examples of these in English Wikipedia. Such examples require a high level of competence in the other language which most readers her will not have. I propose to remove non-English language examples unless anyone objects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The examples in other languages help widen understanding of the phenomenon beyond the specifics of the English language, and can be helpful to the interested general reader. For example, the explanation of hypercorrection of German speakers regarding "v" and "w" explains the odd pronunciation of "very" as "wery" sometimes heard among non-native English speakers in the US, including Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong who were taught by German speakers.

I doubt that there are many readers of any Wikipedia article covering multiple languages who can understand every single example in detail. But there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for broad as well as in-depth coverage, and survey articles such as this do not need to be dumbed-down to the presumed lowest-common-denominator level of some mythical "average reader". Anybody uninterested in the details will simply skip them; they can remain harmlessly for other future readers to enjoy and learn from. Wikipedia has coverage of many topics not of interest to any given individual reader at a given moment; they are very simply ignored, leaving them to editors and readers who are interested in those topics. The extensive use of IPA phonetic symbols is unavoidable, and readers are duly warned by the template box at the head of the article.

On the other hand, referencing of some sections certainly could be improved (as is the case in much of Wikipedia). Still, this is not a good reason for wholesale deletions of content, unless there is good reason to believe that the material is false or deliberately misleading. Reify-tech (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See the essay Wikipedia:Systemic bias for some discussion of related issues. For what it's worth, my opinion is that examples should not be limited to English, but that the current hoard of examples is too long. Cnilep (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have no problem whatever with the use of IPA. I do understand the desire for WP to have a world view. We do not have one WP but many versions in different languages. I agree that, ideally, all versions of WP should have the same content, covering the whole of human knowledge, from all possible perspectives. The problem I see is that this is an article about language itself. That, in my opinion, is one case where a genuine world view is not possible, unless we envisage having every case of hypercorrection in every language in the world in the article.

Another problem is that the pool of editors who can verify references is much reduced for articles in foreign languages, potentially reducing the quality.

It is interesting to see how other language articles deal with the issue:

Pronoun Refers almost exclusively to English but has links to the same subject in other languages.

Grammar Deals with the subject much more historically and conceptually, giving examples from many languages.

Verb Covers the subject conceptually but gives extensive Spanish and Kalaw Lagaw Ya examples only.

I think that giving predominantly non-English examples in English WP is absurd and lets our readers down. Most users, both Native English speakers and others, will be expecting a comprehensive discussion of the subject as it pertains to the English language in English WP.

As a model for this article, I suggest something between Pronoun and Grammar. We should deal with the subject historically and conceptually, give comprehensive examples in the English language, have links to other language articles, and have some examples of other languages, particularly where they have forms of hypercorrection that are not found in English.

We could start by reducing and summarising the non-English examples. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Spanish V/B

In most Spanish-speaking countries, the V and B have exactly the same sound. But because people learning Spanish insist on adding a fricative to their Vs, natives studying English absorb the same into their Spanish. More than that, quite often you'll hear people adding that fricative to their Bs. For example, Americans, refusing to say /bibir/ say /vivir/, then many Mexicans not only begin saying /vivir/, but /vivlia/ (for biblia). Any linguists want to pitch in a source for that, or simply edit it in to the Spanish section?--Mrcolj (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well v. Good when asked "how are you?"

I've heard many people answer the question "how are you?" with "well". this seems like a hypercorrection. "how are you doing?" is more appropriately answered with well instead of good, so people overgeneralize. Should this be added? I am not good at research. does anybody know where to find a source for this? Cliff (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of factors are at work:

* One thing that explains some (likely most) instances is that "well" can be an adjective (even though it is usually an adverb). When it is being used adjectivally, it means "healthy". How are you? I am sick. How are you? I am well (I am healthy). This is the sense of "well" in a "well-child visit" at the pediatrician's office ("a routine checkup for a child who is well").

* Another thing is a usage bugaboo (which is what you suspected). This applies when the speaker does in fact intend the adverbial sense of "well". It is influenced by people arguing over "I feel bad" versus "I feel badly" and "I feel good" versus "I feel well"—that is, arguing about whether it's "wrong" to follow that verb with an adjective rather than an adverb (because it is true that many verbs could be followed only by an adverb, e.g., he sings well not he sings good). Among sensible usage advisers, the bugaboo of insisting on an adverb in "I feel well" is debunked, because "feel" is functioning in its linking verb sense in those statements, and linking verbs easily link a subject to an adjective (for example, it is yellow, I am happy, he seems sad, she is becoming unruly, you were late). Furthermore, they point out, if you say "I feel badly" out of hypercorrective qualm, you are changing the meaning, because you're truly saying that "you're doing a poor job of feeling" (as if your hands were numb or your mind were emotionally numb). That last bit suggests a listener who is being a little overly literal in their interpretation, but nonetheless the point about linking verbs is the important and valid point. The dust-up over "I feel well" clearly has influenced people's choices about "I am well", even if it properly shouldn't, somewhat like how a lot of people become so averse to misusing "me" that they say "I" even when they should say "me". The factors involved here are discussed in various usage guides (including Bernstein) and usage notes in dictionaries (for example, see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good and scroll to "Usage Discussion").

One last thought: three reasons why, if someone says "I am well", you should not take it as an error: (1) they may mean the adjectival sense ("I am healthy"); (2) even if they intended the adverbial sense, the words sound the same as in the adjectival sense, so the string of words they uttered is not "wrong"—it is completely homonymous, in sound and spelling, with a valid statement, and you cannot tell which sense they intended, so there is no diction correction to be made (no inflection or word choice to change); (3) even if there were, it would be polite to let it pass and pedantic to object to it. But if anyone is wrongly abused for saying "I am well", they can rightfully defend themselves by countering that they meant the adjectival sense. Even better, they can preempt any attack by saying "I'm doing well" instead—because that statement is irreproachable, with an adverbial intent that is clear and correct.

Quercus solaris (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The traditional answer to "How are you" is "Very well, thank you" (note, if "well" is an adverb, so is "how"). "I'm good" is an Americanism that was never heard till the last couple of decades, and carries a misleading implication of "I'm morally virtuous"! On the other hand, "smell badly" (as opposed to "smell bad") is a genuine hypercorrection: if I smell badly, that means there's something wrong with my nose! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The precursor was, "How do you do"—not much in use these days in the UK.
It was not a question about the person—just a meaningless greeting whilst tipping one's hat. The other person replied with the same meaningless greeting, also saying "How do you do".
"How do you do" was even spoken as a statement, not as a question—without a rising tone at the end.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the traditional response was, 'Very well thank you. And you?'. It is not hypercorrection just traditional idiom. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Exactly. "How do you do" is an irrelevance here, as it was never answered except with another "How do you do". "I am well" means "I am in good health", and conversely "I'm not very well today", even if there has been no previous greeting or enquiry. Similarly one can be "unwell" or "ill", depending on how bad one's condition is. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding hypercorrection section for psychology

Hypercorrection is a term in Psychology as well as Linguistics. I am looking to add a section about what it means in Psychology.Jh470 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Also at the top of the wiki page there is a link that says if you are looking for the psychological use then see Compensation (Psychology). Compensation is not the same as hypercorrection. I think it would be best to take to take out that link. Jh470 (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia articles are organized by topic rather than by name, two different ideas that happen to have the same label should be on separate pages. It would only be appropriate to describe hypercorrection in psychology within this article if the two concepts are very similar. I don't think they are, but I'm not sure. (For more explanation see WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary.)

You can help by creating a page with a name such as Hypercorrection (psychology). See Wikipedia:Your first article for help creating a new article.

The note at the top of the page (called a "hatnote" in Wikipedia parlance) is meant to disambiguate articles – in other words, to send people to the correct article when two or more things might be known by the same name. I don't see any mention of hypercorrection at Compensation (psychology), so agree with you that the note should probably be removed. When Hypercorrection (psychology) is created, a hatnote could be added to each page to help readers find the topic they are looking for. Cnilep (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I will try to make a new page then. 12.46.79.4 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest to change the title to Hypercorrection (Linguistics) since there is a hypercorrection (psychology). This way both terms are equally weighted. Jh470 (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone."

Currently, under personal pronouns, the page reads this:

Jack Lynch, assistant professor of English at Rutgers University, says that correction of "me and you" to "you and I" as subject leads people to "internalize the rule that 'you and I' is somehow more proper, and they end up using it in places where they shouldn't – such as 'he gave it to you and I' when it should be 'he gave it to you and me.'"

On the other hand, the linguists Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum claim that utterances such as "They invited Sandy and I" are "heard constantly in the conversation of people whose status as speakers of Standard English is clear"; and that "Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone. Actual usage is in conflict with this assumption."

However, in English, the case of a pronoun in a coordination is the same as when it stands alone. Although some professional speakers might say, "They invited Sandy and I", they are still human. And to err is human. Furthermore, if professional speakers sometimes use this form, that only means it is becoming acceptable. Another example is split infinitives. Take the following for instance: "Try to not do that." This may be acceptable, but it is still grammatically incorrect. The correct sentence is as follows: "Try not to do that." And as one more note, the English professor is the one that argued against such usage of "They invited Sandy and I." The linguistics argued for it. If either one of the two groups would know the correct grammar, it would be the English professor. Over and out.74.102.216.186 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I may have lost my temper, here. I apologize. (f.k.a 74.102.216.186)LakeKayak (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

On a very technical note, when you say "the case of a pronoun in a coordination is the same as when it stands alone" you are using the term case not entirely the way a professional linguist would. The use of a different case form when the pronoun occurs in coordination is just the matter at hand. What you are saying is that the grammatical role of me in he gave it to me is no different from the grammatical role of John and me in he gave it to John and me which is true. It is also true that English normally uses pronoun cases to mark just these grammatical roles. But what Pullum c.s are claiming is precisely that this is changing: acceptance of different morphology in coordinated position would imply a novel syntax rule, where declension is apparently used to mark for something else than grammatical role. Exactly what for is the intriguing question here. Why does "me" feel better to perfectly competent native speakers? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The use of "and I" where the grammatical case is oblique is a recent phenomenon and it is obviously a case of hypercorrection, i.e. people remember that something was up with "and me" and avoid it even when they do not need to. So the underlying cause is the use of "and me" when the case is nominative and the same speaker would always say "I" in a stand-alone, non-coordinated position. If we compare "Anna and I received heartwarming letters" and "Anna and me received heartwarming letters" is the distinction simply that the latter is grammatically incorrect, or is there a different shade of meaning ("and I": we both received distinct letters on possibly distinct subjects versus "and me": the letters were addressed to Anna and myself as a pair)? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Original Research

This is perhaps the best example of inappropriate synthesis and WP:OR I've come across anywhere in Wikipedia. It's a well-written, and quite fascinating article, but entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'm almost tempted to propose deletion. 62.245.143.18 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Polish and other

This article should really cite some sources. For example the section about Polish is quite ridiculous.

"One example of hypercorrection in the Polish language is the "adoption" of coleslaw (itself stemming from a Dutch term) by adding accents that seem to be simulating the Polish name Bolesław."

Adding 'accents'? What accents? What does that even mean?

"This can be explained by only some English sounds in foreign names entering the Polish mass lingual consciousness: for example, Cola is almost never pronounced with a [ts] sound, as would Polish language rules dictate the letter "c" to be pronounced, yet "leggings" are often pronunced the same way the word "jeans" is (ledżinsy)."

I don't understand how this explains coleslaw. The sentence "only some English sounds in foreign names entering the Polish mass lingual consciousness" is very unclear. [d͡ʒ] in "jeans" would also be an English sound. Cola is never pronounced with a [t͡s] probably because "c" is never pronounced that way in English, while "gi" is sometimes pronounced [d͡ʒ] - hence the confusion. Do you mean that [g] as an English sound didn't "enter the Polish mass lingual consciousness"?

"Other common examples of hypercorrection in Polish include nasal pronounciation of terminal ę, as in rękę (correctly [-ɛ] and hypercorrectly [-ɛ᷉]) or hypercorrect pronounciation of voiced consonants instead of voiceless ones (jabłko pronounced as [ʝabʊłko] instead of [ʝapłko] or [ʝapko])."

This phonetic transcription is insane. It's neither IPA nor anything else. And [japwkɔ] is virtually impossible to pronounce, do you suggest it's the correct pronunciation? Also, I don't think pronouncing voiced consonants instead of voiceless ones is a problem in Polish. Do you know any other example other than 'jabłko', which is a word with quite an unusual consonant cluster?

English Example: The suffix "er" ( /ʊɹ/ ) and ( /ə/ ).

In several North American English accents (including my own), the letter ⟨r⟩ is not pronounced when it is the coda. For example, the word ⟨trucker⟩ is pronounced like /tɹə.kə/, the word ⟨cluttering⟩ is pronounced like /klə.tə.ɪŋ/, and the word ⟨rubber⟩ is pronounced like /ɹu.bə/. Though not limited to the letter combination of ⟨er⟩, this feature is typically highlighted by the realization of ⟨er⟩ as /ə/. Generally, when a word ends in the letter ⟨a⟩, it is pronounced as /ə/ as well. Thus, when some people with accents with this pronunciation feature attempt to speak with a more standard American dialect, they end up pronouncing words like ⟨africa⟩ as /æ.fɹɪ.kʊɹ/, ⟨soda⟩ as /so.dʊɹ/ and ⟨vanilla⟩ as /væ.nɪl.ʊɹ/. Sometimes this hyper-correction is done for comedic purposes as well.

Anyone have any citations for this? It's something that I have observed throughout the years but not something that I can back up with non-anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That's rather similar to what happens when speakers of other forms of British English try to imitate West Country accents for comedic purposes. Because in RP the sound of "or" is identical to that of "aw" (i.e. both are non-rhotic), they assume that West Country people pronounce "lawn" as "lorrn". A similar process is responsible for the so-called "intrusive R", as in "lorandorder" (law and order). I agree we need sources for these things.

In some cases these differences are a genuine feature of dialect. People from Bristol are noted for an intruded "l": "Africal is a malarial areal". (The very name "Bristol" was originally "Bristow".) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

B23Rich -- First, few if any dialects of English pronounce the "-er" suffix as [ʊɹ]. The more common IPA transcription of the sound in "General American" English is [ɚ]. By [ʊ], you may actually have in mind [ɨ], since in some dialects of American English there's a partial or contextual merger between [ɨ] and [ʊ]...

Also, some of the other details of your transcriptions are dubious. But Wikipedia already has an article Linking and intrusive R... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Overcompensation redirect

I just added the following hatnote (and another on a related page):

"Overcompensation" redirects here. For compensation as psychological tactic, see Compensation (psychology).

The question arises whether overcompensation should point to the other place instead, which actually defines the term, whereas this article only manages one use in passing:

Some older people, who grew up speaking nothing but their dialect, are unaware that there is a difference between 'g', 'ch' and 'h' altogether and trying to 'mimic' Dutch, they often overcompensate and pronounce every word they would normally pronounce with a 'h'-sound as a 'g'.

For myself, overcompensation has always meant the other thing to begin with. — MaxEnt 20:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Who vs. Whom

I was surprised not to find "who" and "whom" among the English examples. Overuse of "whom" seems to be a very common hypercorrection. JMT32 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Link to "third declension" in the "octopi" example

The article states: "An example [...] is the use of octopi for the plural of octopus in English; this is based on the faulty assumption that octopus is a second declension word of Latin origin when in fact it is third declension and comes from Greek."

I don't doubt that this is correct; however the link for "third declension" goes to a page about Latin declension. Should this instead be a link to a page about Ancient Greek declension - such as: Ancient_Greek_nouns#Third_declension? Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not having heard any response, I went ahead and made this change. (If this is wrong, however, feel free to change it back.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The normal plural octopuses is always available, of course. Early proto-indoeuropean languages added -s to everything, even the plural declension was initially just the singular declension with -s added. The more baroque systems of Latin and Greek evolved from this. Octopus is Latin, by the way, a loanword from the Greek octopous. Both had nominative plural octopodes in our transliteration.

The plural of rhinoceros is rhinocerotes. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Conspicuously missing "myself" hypercorrection

Consider incorporating something about the very common over-usage of "myself" instead of "I" when people are trying to sound more formal. Example: "John and myself will lead this initiative". (Reference)

I agree. Why don't you add this to the article yourself? Anyone can be an editor. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Is this really an error? I have always interpreted this as an effort to sound refined, posher than posh. It could also arise because people are becoming unsure about the you and me versus you and I thing and they take myself as an escape route. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

R / L in Japanese

As the L sound does not exist in Japanese, Japanese people learning and speaking foreign languages may hypercorrect the Ls and say the Rs instead. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR

I don't see why we should give benefit of the doubt the all the WP:OR that was in the article. Some of it was even asking (via the use of wikitext comments, <!-- ... -->) for other editors to add their personal opinions on the matter. WP:V is very clear in either case, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if a section has been tagged as unreferenced for 3 years, you kind of have the right to delete it. It's a pity though, because many of the deleted statements are probably true or at least partly so. We can all agree that deleting in WP is very easy, while looking for good sources is much more difficult and time-consuming. --Jotamar (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

you and me

"Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone. Actual usage is in conflict with this assumption."

That is fine, but in dative or accusative position this usage is immediately rooted in hypercorrection, stemming from the perceived error of "you and me" in nominative (subject) position. Since incorrect "you and me" is the older one, the question ought to be what compels people to use "me" in coordinated subject position - which does often sound more natural (unlike dative/accusative "you and I" which is a bit jarring). The underlying mechanism appears to be (i) one of politeness. In "John and me" I de-emphasise myself and make John the most important character, and this holds up even when I rudely mention myself first, as in "Me and John couldn't find any." and / or (ii) a grouping effect: "John and me" signals that it is the pair of us that, as a single entity, serves as the grammatical subject. Thus the nuance of "John and me found that strange" is that we responded together, whereas "John and I found that strange" implies that initially we responded similarly but independently and perhaps compared notes later.

Also possibly relevant are phrases such as "It's only me" and "Who else but lil' ol' me?" - here we clearly have the grammatical role that would normally trigger the nominative case but virtually all native speakers would agree that "I" sounds odd in these phrases and "me" perfectly normal. Interestingly, in the first example the "grammatically correct" I now smacks of hypercorrection, whereas "lil' ol' I" changes a standing idiom, which a native speaker would only do in jest. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning unclear

Under the heading Personal Pronouns, the meaning of the second paragraph is unclear. Does it mean to say that "Sandy and I" or "Sandy and me" (my choice) is correct? Rick Bellamy (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Under traditional grammar rules, "Sandy and I" is correct as the subject of a verb (or in isolation), while "Sandy and me" is correct as the object of a verb or preposition. Many people say "me and Sandy" in both subject and object position in their casual spoken language, so when they correct (when attempting more formal speech styles) they overcorrect, replacing "me" with "I" even in object position, where it doesn't belong according to traditional grammar rules. Pullum is questioning whether such traditional grammar rules even make any sense for English (as opposed to Latin). Very few people say theoretically correct "It's I", instead of "It's me"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)