Further on minimal pairs 1 [was Re: PIE e/o Ablaut]

[Robert Whiting]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de> wrote:

[Pat Ryan]
>>Rightly or wrongly, however, I favor basically Trask's definition
>>with qualifications: "the smallest unit which can make a
>>difference in meaning"; the qualification being that I take
>>'meaning', which Trask does not define in the same place,  as a
>>difference in concept not in inflection. I would say that
>>'sooth/soothe' does not establish /dh/ as an English phoneme but
>>that 'ether/either' does.

>Maybe one of the broadest definitions of "meaning" states that
>elements said to have different "meanings" are used in different
>"contexts". Referential, situational, syntactic, you name it.
>Different inflections are used in different contexts, so they
>constitute minimal pairs and they are routinely used to pin down
>the phonemes of languages. I won't use sooth and soothe in the
>same contexts (or "frames" if you like), so this example is
>sufficient to establish the phonemic status of /dh/.  If you
>don't like "meaning" here, insert "function".

Sorry Stefan, but this sounds like a non sequitur to me.  The
fact that words (or elements) that have different "meanings"
can't be used in the same context is a limitation on homophones,
but doesn't really affect other words with different meanings.
In the sense that meaning is being used here (that different
phonemes give rise to different meanings), meaning and function
are not equivalent.  Meaning as you are using it here means
"meaning class," not "meaning."

Words that have the same function but different meanings can be
used in the same context:

   Bill hit John with a stick.
   Bill hit John with a rope.
   Bill hit John with a brick.

It is homonyms that cannot have the same function or be used in
the same context (you can't use quail [n.; a bird] and quail [v.
'to fall back', 'to give way'] in the same context, but that
doesn't prove that they have different phonemes).  In fact, even
homonyms with the same function can have different meanings so
long as each meaning requires a different context (or you are
willing to put up with a lot of ambiguity).  Consider the
following:

   Suzie runs five miles every morning.
   Suzie runs the office.
   Suzie runs for Mayor every year.
   Suzie runs off to Boston every weekend.
   Suzie's car runs well.
   Suzie's mascara runs when she cries.
   Suzie's toilet runs unless she jiggles the handle.
   Suzie's tongue runs away with her when she has a couple of drinks.

In each of these uses of the verb 'run' the context compels the
selection of a distinctly different meaning.  The fact that these
elements have different meanings does not prove that they have
different phonemes.  It is not true that words that have
different meanings must have different phonemes.  Phonemes can
cause differences in meaning, but differences in meaning don't
cause phonemes.  If they did then homonyms would have to have
invisible (inaudible?) phonemes that account for the differences
in meaning.  Phonemes are not units of meaning.  Phonemes are
semantically empty.  If a phoneme is not semantically empty, then
it isn't (just) a phoneme any more; it's a morpheme.  And
different phonemes do not necessarily create a difference in
function.  For example:

   John ate a fig.
   John ate a pig.

Now there is no doubt that /f/ and /p/ are different phonemes
in English but these two words have the same function and can
be used in the same context (or "frame" if you like) although
they have different "meanings" (in the senses that we are talking
about).

So it is rather the other way around.  Words with different
functions can have the same phonemes (hence we have homonyms).
It is words with the same function but different meanings that
can't have the same phonemes (otherwise you have ambiguity).
English has ways of distinguishing in writing words that have
come to have the same the same phonemes, but not in speech.  This
is what makes English such a marvelous punning language.  Take
for example the phonemically identical 'night' and 'knight' which
have the same function (noun).  This makes controlled ambiguity
(double entendre) possible ("once a king, always a king, but once
a knight is enough").

So the fact that 'sooth' and 'soothe' have different functions
(and even different meanings) does not prove anything about
whether [dh] is a phoneme in English or not since words with
different meanings and functions can have the same phonemes
('quail [n.]' and 'quail' [v.]) and words with the same function
can have different phonemes ('fig', 'pig') or the same phonemes
('knight', 'night').

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi