Morphemes Cheremes Phonemes Articulators

[Louis-Félix Bergeron]

Charles talks about PHONETICS (and chemerics), that is the study of the
nature of the smallest recognizable unit of an utterance. I talk about
PHONOLOGY, that is the study of the relations between the smallest
recognizable units in a language and the rules governing those
relations. We can continue to argue about the use of the word
"phonemes", but since we are not talking about the same context of use,
there is no need to argue. If Charles thinks it is usefull to have
different names for the different natures of the smallest recognizable
units of an utterance, fine. But I don't think it is usefull in a
PHONOLOGY perspective to have different names because we are talking
about the same kind of relations and rules, whether the smallest
recognizable units are based on sound or movement.

By the way, sound is produced by vibration, that is... movement! ;-) In
fact, what is common to sign language and spoken language is that their
smallest meaningless units are produced by movement of articulators,
whether these articulators are arms, hands, eyes, eyebrows, lips,
tongue, etc. The output of this production is different in sign and
spoken languages, but the processes are similar and comparable.
Phonetics and cheremics are interested in the nature of the output and
and how it is produced by the articulators movements. So there is a need
to have different names for different kinds of output. Phonology is
interested in the rules governing the structure of the output. So the
use of "phonemes" meaning "smallest meaningless units" for both sign and
spoken language will be fine, because the emphasis will be on the
relations between these units, not the form of them.

Louis-Felix