Re: Furrin phones in my own lect!

Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > (the only minimal pair I can think of off-hand:
> > /Rosa's/ [r\OUz@z] vs. /roses/ [r\OUz1z])
>
Often "just (adv.)" [dZ1st] vs. "just (adj.)" [dZVst]; come to think of it,
the adv. is weird in my lect:
--unstressed [1], and the less stressed, or faster the speech, the more
likely it'll be [1], but
--stressed [@], as in "he júst arrived..." [dz@st] whereas
--adj. just is always [dzVst]
which gives [1~@] and [V] marginal phonemic status, though they're all
supposed to be allophones of /@/.....

> And I totally get the substitution of [v] for [w] when the L1 has no
> [w]. But the reverse phenomenon (use of [w] for |v|) confuses me.
> Does that really happen outside of Hollywood accents?  If so, why?
> Hypercorrection?
Probably: "the teacher said I must distinguish [v] and [w], but I've never
seen word XX in print, so I'll just guess...(and show off that I _can_ make
the distinction!".  And it does happen outside Hollywood, in at least one
case: my sister likes to tell of the Austrian tour-guide who referred to the
quaint "willage" they were visiting.