minimal pairs (was: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[Robert Whiting]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Larry Trask wrote:

> Pat Ryan writes:

>>>> True minimal pairs, a paltry requirement for phonemicity that would be
>>>> undisputed in any other language.

<snip of lots of stuff>

> The existence of minimal pairs may be a *sufficient* condition to
> establish a phonemic contrast, but it is not a *necessary* condition.
> Even when phones are phonetically similar, we can consider assigning
> them to a single phoneme only when their distribution can be stated
> by rule.  If we can't state their distribution by rule, then we can't
> put them into a single phoneme, even if there are no minimal pairs.

<snip of lots more stuff>

>> [SF (= Stefan Georg)]

[ Moderator's note:
  "SF" is Stanley Friesen rather than Stefan Georg.
  --rma ]

>>> To show some sound difference is not phonemic you have to show
>>> that it occurs in a *strictly* conditioned fashion.  If it is not
>>> *uniformly* due to some identifiable set of conditioning factor,
>>> then it is left as a phoneme.  This is how it is presented in all of
>>> the best texts on phonology.

<snip of still more stuff>

>> [PR]

>> Sorry, I just cannot accept that. If /o/ is an IE phoneme, it should occur
>> in true minimal pairs. I have this on the authority of a degreed linguist
>> with whom I have consulted on this question. Your reluctance to accept
>> this basic method of establishing a phoneme continues to amaze me!

> This is *a* method of establishing phonemes.  But it is not *the only*
> method of establishing phonemes.  If the distribution of two sounds
> cannot be stated by rule, then they can't be assigned to a single
> phoneme.

I would say that even a minimal pair is not a sufficient condition to
establish two sounds as separate phonemes.  The distribution by rule
takes precedence.  Take the English minimal pair

         'thigh'  /  'thy'

         (the pair 'thistle'  /  'this'll' [contraction of 'this will']
         is clearly marginal)

Most people would not insist on phonemic status for both [th] and [dh] in
English on the basis of this minimal pair (although some would doubtless
claim that there has been a phomemic split similar to what occurred with
/s/ and /z/).  This is because otherwise the sounds are in complementary
distribution, [dh] occuring in voiced environments and in deictic words
and pronouns, [th] otherwise.  Thus it is not only as Larry says "If the
distribution of two sounds cannot be stated by rule, then they can't be
assigned to a single phoneme," but also 'If the distribution of similar
sounds can be stated by rule, then they can't be assigned to separate
phonemes.'

Minimal pairs are a shortcut to finding phonemes, but contrastive
environments are a clincher.  As in the comparative method and
internal reconstruction, similar items that are in complementary
distribution are usually aspects of the same thing.  But believe it
or not, linguists will still disagree on the phonemic status of sounds
and different analyses may result in different numbers of phonemes
claimed for a particular language.

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi