surge of news on endangered languages...

[Aidan Wilson]

I think that is what Richard means. Consider an example:

In most Australian languages, there is no voicing contrast, voicing is 
phonetic and determined by environment (syllable initial = voiced, 
syllable final = voiceless). But some languages have a length of closure 
distinction for intervocalic stops. It's possible that the linguist, 
having been conditioned throughout their life to attend to VOT and not 
length of closure, would misinterpret the contrast, or, even if they are 
aware of the 'correct' phonology, would still enunciate the short/long 
closure contrast as short-long VOT contrast.

(I'm sure there are plenty of people on this list who are more versed in 
Australian phonology, I'm just regurgitating things I've heard.)

If, in the unfortunate but altogether likely situation that the last 
native speakers die, and the young semi-speakers (as the various 
articles have termed them) have not been conditioned for the closure 
contrast, then if and when they/the community restart learning the 
language, via linguists directly, rather than the linguist merely 
facilitating transmission between one generation and the next, the 
contrast might become (subconsciously) fixed as VOT.

This is all a bit hypothetical I agree, but it's been something I've 
been grappling with for a while. I, for one, wouldn't trust my ability 
to faithfully pronounce a geminate as opposed to a voiceless stop. 
Hopefully though, it won't come to that.

Which is one reason we have to maintain that link between generations of 
speakers, however threadbare it becomes.

AW

William J Poser wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'm not entirely clear on what the problem was with "reinventing
> the phonology". Do you mean that the linguist did not learn
> to pronounce the language correctly?
>
> Bill
>