Linguistics Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology Problems with Phonemic Analysis Principal Investigator Prof. Pramod Pandey Centre for Linguistics, SLL&CS, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067 Paper Coordinator Prof. Pramod Pandey Module ID & Name Lings_P2_M23; Problems with Phonemic Analysis Content Writer Pramod Pandey Email id & phone [email protected]; 011-26741258, -9810979446 Reviewer Editor Module 23: Problems with Phonemic Analysis Objectives: • To familiarize students with the problems in phonemic analysis • To provide a background to the motivation for the development of generative phonology Contents: 23.1 Introduction 23.2 Insufficiency of the notions of phonetic substance and significant contrast 23.3 Monosystematicity 23.4 Problems in Phonemicization 23.5 Principle of Biuniqueness 23.6 Morphophonemics and separation of levels 23.7 Summary 1 23.1 Introduction In the present module, we take a close look at the various problems in the structural phonology view of phonemic analysis. We discuss the difficulties lying in the strict use of the principles of analysis and the classical concept of the phoneme, the basic assumptions about the separation of levels and the goals of phonological analysis. These issues are taken up in the successive sections 23.2- 23.6. Section 23.7 sums up the main points of the discussion. Figure 23-1: A problem http://blog.regehr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/bug.jpg 23.2 Insufficiency of the notions of phonetic substance and significant contrast The two basic notions that inform the principles of phonemic analysis are phonetic similarity and significant contrast. Let us consider the notion of significant contrast first. 2 According to the principle of contrastive distribution (see Module 19), two sounds, X and Y, are phonemes if they occur in identical environments and contrast in meaning when substituted, for example, the sounds [s] and [ʃ] as in the words so and show. The notion of significant contrast is not workable on the grounds of the distribution of the sounds in question. One of the aspects of distribution that is problematic is when environments are not identical. For example, in English, it is well-known that the [h] and [ŋ] never occur in identical environments- [h] always occurs in the onset position in a syllable, most commonly at the beginning of words and [ŋ] always occurs in the coda position in a syllable, that is, at the end of words or before a consonant. They are thus in mutually exclusive environments: 23/1 a. him [hɪm], hat [hæt], behave [bɪˈheɪv] b. sing [sɪŋ], banker [bæŋ.kə], England [ɪŋ.glənd] There is no way in which it can be shown that [h] and [ŋ] contrast in meaning. On the contrary, they always occur in mutually exclusive environments. What is the conclusion to be drawn in their case then? We can go by the criterion of phonetic similarity. [h] and [ŋ] are phonetically so different from each other that they cannot be expected to be allophones or variants of one phoneme. Another example where distribution of sounds cannot be fully relied upon is that of the allophones of a set of sounds. Consider the sets of allophones [t s z] and [č š ž] in Congo, that we looked at in Module 20. We arrived at the conclusion that [t] and [č] are allophones of one phoneme, [s] and [š] are allophones of another phoneme, and [z] and [ž] are allophones of yet another phoneme. The distributions of the allophones are reproduced in 23/2. 23/2 a. [t] [s] [z] # __ o (1) e __ o (3) # __ e (5, 11) e __ u (13) a __ u (7) e __ u (14) 3 n __ e (9) n __ w (13) b. [č] [ š] [ž] # __ i (2, 8) o __ i (4) # __ i (6) n __ i (10) a __ i (12) We shall use the IPA symbols [ʧ ʃ ʒ] for [č š ž] respectively. Notice that on the basis of the distribution of the two sets of allophones, we conclude that [t] and [ʧ], because they occur in complementary distribution, are allophones of the same phoneme /t/. However, [t] also occurs in complementary distribution with [ʃ] and with [ʒ]. And the same could be said about [s]/ [ʧ], [s]/ [ʒ] and about [z] /[ʧ], /[z]/[ʃ]. What prevents us from arriving at the conclusion that the latter are not allophones of one another is not the criterion of distribution, but of phonetic similarity, as was observed in Module 18 (section18.4.) However, the notion of phonetic similarity is not yet a well-defined criterion, but a working notion for phonologists. In the case of the phones in [t], [ʧ] and [s], [t] is just as much phonetically similar to [ʧ] as is [s]. The following data show that this indeed is so. a. /ʧ/ > /s/ In Assamese and many other Indo-Aryan dialects in the north-east India [ʧ] has changed to [s], e.g. Hindi [ʧa:r] ‘four’, Assamese [sar] ‘four’. The change has taken place in some Dravidian languages, too, e.g. Irula, Kota and Tamil. b. /s/ > /ʧ/ In the Tibeto-Burman languages, Lepcha and Limbu, /s/ changes to [s]. c. [ʧ] ~ [s] in the Dravidian language Ave, [ʧ] and [s] are in free variation. The point that emerges is that there is no clear way in which the notion of phonetic similarity can be defined. 4 To buttress the point further, there are also cases of allophones having remote phonetic similarity. For instance, • In the Tibeto-Burman language Chokri, spoken in Nagaland and Manipur, the post-alveolar approximant [ɹ] freely varies with the voiced velar fricative [ɣ]. As the labels for the sounds suggest, they are similar in a much more remote way than, say, [ʧ] and [s]. • The glottal stop [ʔ] is an allophone of a whole array of consonants in different languages- / p t d k ɡ h/. From the Austro-Asiatic family, [ʔ] is an allophone of /t, k/ in Juang, /ɡ/ in Mundari and /h/ in Korku. It is thus difficult to say precisely when two sounds can be said to be phonetically similar and when not. 23.3 Monosystematicity Figure 23-2: A monolithic structure https://encrypted- tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfYsDISikqjNdehO1mkVFy9uZ0uiTa_cceZv96gYlafzNGilsA The basic assumption in phonemic analysis is that a language being described is monosystematic, that is, a single system. All the phonemes of a language can be arrived at by examining their distribution and the criterion of significant contrast. However, languages are constantly evolving, among other reasons, by the process of 5 language contact and regional variation. As a result, not all the speech sounds can be analysed decidedly as phonemes or allophones. For example, in Hindi, there are certain sounds which have been borrowed from other languages with which it has come into contact. The voiceless uvular plosive [q] is thus found in the pronunciation of words of Perso-Arabic origin, /qissa:/ ‘story’ and /qətl/ ‘murder’ in the speech of some but not all speakers of Standard Hindi. The words are part of the present-day Hindi. In the speech of these Hindi speakers, /q/ and /k/ contrast, as in [kəmər] ‘waist’ and /qəmər/ ‘(the) moon’. Since the sound is found to contrast in the speech of only some speakers, but not all, do we consider it a phoneme? Similar cases are found in borrowings from English. The vowel [ɔ:] is one such case in words such as [kɔle:ʤ], which freely varies with [a:], [ka:le:ʤ] ‘college’. It is common to find differences of the type described above in the phonemic status of sounds across all languages and communities. Phonemic analysis in the structural approach that we have been discussing in the modules (17-22) assumes that a language is a single system of sounds. In fact, it is more common for languages to have multiple systems. A phonemic analysis is thus best conceived of as restricted to a single homogeneous dialect. As has been suggested above, this is not the normal case. As languages evolve, some sounds remain on the periphery of the phonemic system. They can be described as ‘marginal’ phonemes in a system or left out as belonging to another dialect. As marginal phonemes, the practice is to enclose them in parentheses. For example, the vowels of Hindi are listed as /i, u, ə, i:, u:, a:, e:, o:, æ:, ᴔ: (ɔ:)/. The vowel /ɔ:/ is assumed to have restricted distribution in the language. Examples of fricative consonants from two languages- Santali and Punjabi are given below. As you can see, whereas Santali has a single system, Punjabi has a sub-system in it, shown in parentheses. Fricatives Places → 6 Language↓ Dental Alveolar Post- Retroflex Palatal Glottal Alveolar Santali s ʂ h Punjabi (v) s (z) ʃ (x) (ɣ) h Figure 23-3: Monosystematic and polysystematic Fricatives in Santali and Punjabi. 23.4 Problems in Phonemicization The phonemic principle in Structural phonology (see Module 18, section 18.3) views the phoneme as a minimal contrastive unit of sound. The phoneme cannot be reduced further. This conception of the phoneme was held for a long time, with multiple consequences discussed below. Single segments or sequences of segments? The view of the phoneme as a minimal contrastive unit of sound sometimes led to problems of analysis, when it came to diphthongs among vowels and to complex segments among consonants. With regard to diphthongs, the issue that arises is whether to treat them as single vowels or as sequences of vowels. The principles of phonemic analysis are silent on this issue. There are some points of difference between diphthongs as single vowels and vowel sequences that may prove useful in analysis.