11.181, Disc: Phonemic Analysis
The LINGUIST Network
linguist at linguistlist.org
Fri Jan 28 12:19:30 UTC 2000
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-181. Fri Jan 28 2000. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 11.181, Disc: Phonemic Analysis
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Associate Editors: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
Scott Fults <scott at linguistlist.org>
Jody Huellmantel <jody at linguistlist.org>
Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editors: Lydia Grebenyova <lydia at linguistlist.org>
Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
James Yuells <james at linguistlist.org>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Sudheendra Adiga <sudhi at linguistlist.org>
Qian Liao <qian at linguistlist.org>
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
=================================Directory=================================
1)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:35:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jorge Guitart <guitart at acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: 11.155, Disc: Phonemic Analysis
2)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:00:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Richard D. Janda" <rjanda at ling.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: 11.156., Disc: Phonemic Analysis
3)
Date: 26 Jan 2000 16:03:03 -0000
From: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" <geoffn at siu.edu>
Subject: Phonemic analysis
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:35:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jorge Guitart <guitart at acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: 11.155, Disc: Phonemic Analysis
Have I been dreaming all this time and the year is 1943 or 44? No, it
can't be, because generative phonology was mentioned, and that was
invented in the 60s.
I never thought I would see anybody advocating autonomous phonemics in the
year 2000.
To me the best foundation for the best discovery procedure possible in
phonology, given the state of our knowledge about cognition, computation,
and yes,phonetics, is for someone to learn the language well and then become a
theoretical phonologist interested, not in grouping sounds into classes
(by pretending to start from the sounds while knowing all the time that
the sounds are parts of meaningful units called morphemes and words) but
in proposing models that attempt to answer, among others, the question of
how we recognize physically different sequences of sounds ***as the same
word***, even though the identity of the sounds has been distorted to the
point of not being pronounced at all (deletion) or pronounced with
gestures that make them identical to sounds with which they contrast
distinctively under non-distortive conditions (assimilation).
We should not try to find out what the phonemes of the language are
starting from the sounds: biuniqueness is not an inviolate constraint of
any known human language and using minimal pairs is cheating because you
are assuming that sounds are part of words but you said you were starting
from the sounds. Rather, we should find out what phonemes are starting
from the lexical units, then see what happens to them under conditions
of distortions, and then propose a theory of what mediates between lexical
units and their physical realizations.
The theory certainly should not be classical generative phonology, but
that is a straw man that no serious phonologist I know, or know of, is
trying to prop up.
Jorge Guitart
State University of New York at Buffalo
-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:00:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Richard D. Janda" <rjanda at ling.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: 11.156., Disc: Phonemic Analysis
My message of January 3, posted this morning (Jan. 25), was unfor-
tunately corrupted in transmission. (I sent myself a trial version and
checked it, but the submitted version somehow got frostbite, I guess.)
Here are the missing portions, with minimal context before and after.
[Garbled or omitted from near beginning of message:]
....
>>From a recent children'9s book on dinosaurs: "_Allosaurus_
comes from the Greek words allo- 'leaping' and saur- 'liz-
ard', so _allosaurus_ means 'leaping lizard'!". [Close,
but no cigar: the author here must have looked in a dic-
tionary of Ancient Greek but missed the rough breathing of
_ha'llomai_ 'I leap' (inf. _hale'sthai_), although smooth
breathings (with no initial aspirate) are found for this
verb in Epic (e.g., Homeric) Greek. Unfortunately, allo-
phones can't be 'leaping sounds' unless metathesis is in-
volved.]
0.2
Hugh Buckingham (Linguist List Vol-10-1876) encouraged teachers to
"tell the students to look up... allo- in the dictionary...[, w]here it says
'closely related...[, in] a group whose members together constitute a
structural unit...['; o]nly then, are the students ready to get it...[:] al-
lo- has no special use for things like -phones..., but... for grouping
within [all] categories, and the categories can be many...[;] you can find
many more allo-s in classificatory science".
Unfortunately, looking in "the" dictionary leads, in the case of the
widely used _Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary_ (10th ed.), to the
finding that a meaning something like 'involving members of a group
which together constitute a structural unit (especially of language)' is
given third. The very first meaning given is a rather non-allophone-like
sense that is approximately as follows: all(o)- 'other, different, atypi-
cal' (still, the next sense is more allophone-like: 'isomeric in form
[for a specified chemical compound]'). After all, Greek allo- is cognate
with Latin alien-us, and you can hardly make something sound more
'exclusionarily different' to students' ears than the latter term does. And
the examples that follow again include some exclusionary-sound scien-
tific terms (rather than collusionary, as our allophones are)....
[Garbled or omitted from near end of message:]
....
And, to take off from Picard's query about English flapping, which
provoked at least one strong response arguing that this process is assim-
ilatory: does the same answer hold for British (and American -- e.g.,
New York City) dialects that glottalize where (other) American English
tends to flap? (E.g., in Joseph Greenberg's iconic pronunciation of the
word _glottalization_.) Admittedly, a glottal stop is perhaps not the ulti-
mate obstruent, but is it really more assimilated than a [t]?
Then there are varieties of English which preglottalize in a word like
_back_ (so that some such speakers even show glottal intrusion when
speaking French, as in a word like _avec_) -- again, is this assimilatory?
In short, does the commitment to assimilation (as a putative character-
istic of all [non-elsewhere?] co-allophones) that seems to be so strong
among recent respondents represent a hypothesis that has been rigor-
ously tested through an active search for potential counterexamples, or
is it more a matter of fervent belief, of concern for innocent language-ac-
quiring children who might otherwise have to learn something whose
degree of naturalness is neutral, rather than unmarked?
Finally, according to Joaquim Branda~o de Carvalho [Linguist List
Vol-10-1863]:
In English, assimilation is involved in both (1) initial aspiration of stops
(since stop voicelessness extends into a vowel, via a VOT lag) and
(2) the final unrelease of stops that arises when a "final plosive is not
aspirated because there is no vowel at its right, and therefore no pos-
sibility of coarticulation". Now, the aspiration in question tends to
be concentrated in stressed syllables, and not just word-initial ones,
so it occurs in, e.g., _apophony_, _atrocity_, and _acropolis_. If
there is something assimilatory and natural about aspiration's (VOT
lag's) spreading into a following vowel, wouldn't we also expect to
find medial consonant-lengthening, even to the point of gemination,
into a following vowel, since this would, by parity of reasoning, al-
so be assimilatory? (It could occur before diphthongs or long vow-
els, for example, so that a decent syllable nucleus would still be left.)
....
-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------
Date: 26 Jan 2000 16:03:03 -0000
From: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" <geoffn at siu.edu>
Subject: Phonemic analysis
At the risk of dragging this discussion on far beyond everyone's patience
I'd like to respond to a few of Rich Janda's recent points. Specifically,
I'd disagree with any view that suggests that all allophones are
assimilatory. If we assume (as Stampe did within Natural Phonology and as
I and others have done within some recent Cognitive Grammar (1) models)
that phonemes are idealized targets (an idea that stems originally from
Baudouin de Courtenay), then allophones are deviations from those targets
that may occur either for assimilatory or for dissimilatory, specifically
augmentative, purposes. Work by Ken de Jong has shown that extra careful,
emphatic pronunciations constitute deviations toward more extreme
positions, while casual pronunciations, as is well known, represent
movements towards more central ones. Thus allophonic changes may be
assimilatory (such as the labiodentalization of /p/ found in 'cupful', as
discussed in the new Roca and Johnson text), dissimilatory (aspiration
spreads voicelessness onto a neighboring voiced vowel), augmentative
(making /l/ syllabic, as in 'Puh-lease!') or reductive (as in English
flapping). Sounds can be foregrounded or backgrounded (to use Dressler's
terminology) either with respect to their surroundings or absolutely. The
conflict between these four competing forces is perfectly captured with the
OT view of the world, incidentally, especially if we add the additional
countervailing force to maintain the idealized target as is (Faithfulness).
(1) References on my views of Cognitive Phonology available on request.
Geoffrey S. Nathan
Department of Linguistics
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Carbondale, IL, 62901-4517
Phone: (618) 453-3421 (Office) / FAX (618) 453-6527
(618) 549-0106 (Home)
geoffn at siu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-181
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list