Re: Your first "linguistic" memory

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:32:05 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:

>> OK, so phonemes can be identified by minimal pairs, or by asking
>> native speakers if words are different or not.
>> With both methods, I see practical difficulties. Is that bad?
>
>What is "both methods"? How is asking if they're different or not not a
>search for minimal pairs?
>
>What difficulties? Is it bad that you see them? Perhaps, if they are
>illusory.

Dutch g and ch, in intervocalic position, are perceived as different
by many native speakers, but others deny that. Many of those that deny
the difference can nevertheless be heard by others to make the
difference. The difference cannot be explained by adjacent phonemes or
position. Convincing minimal pairs are very hard to find. Are they one
phoneme or two?

The same with /s/ and /z/. Very few minimal pairs, those that exist
seem artificial, some people don't make the distinction at all, others
say hardly anybody does, but they exaggerate.
Yet, the unwritten distinction between 60 (with [s]) and 16 (with [z])
has survived for centuries although the t that caused it by
assimilation has long gone. One or two phonemes?

Portuguese <s> is [s] initially, [z] medially, and [S] finally (but
many speakers in Brazil have [s], though not all). Seperate /S/ and
/z/ phonemes also exist. What phoneme model is correct?

Modern Greek has /s/ and /z/, but /s/ also has an allophone [z]. Is
that a problem?

>> Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:58:47 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
>> >Labov likes to play tiny extracts -- a single word -- and ask people
>> >what the word is. He does it to illustrate the Northern Cities Shift,
>> >since the word is unidentifiable in isolation but perfectly clear in a
>> >context as short as a few-word phrase.
>> >
>> >That technique could clearly be used in this case.
>>
>> OK, good point, that helps in solving of the difficulties I saw.
>
>Why is having a recording of someone saying something less "difficult"
>than having someone saying something?

Did I say or imply that? I don't understand what you're getting at.

>> >There is no such thing as "modern phonemic theory"; "phonemes" are not
>> >discussed in modern phonological theory.
>> And what replaces them? What is "modern phonological theory"? This
>> really puzzles me. Pardon my ignorance (which no doubt causes this).
>
>See the large selection of phonology textbooks currently available.

Could you post summaries?

--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your first "linguistic" memory
    ... >>> The minimal pairs are unconvincing. ... I have always regarded the pair as distinct phonemes despite the few ... began the thread with until I started to read about linguistics. ... they have studied a foreign language or linguistics, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Your first "linguistic" memory
    ... >> seem artificial, some people don't make the distinction at all, others ... but they exaggerate. ... The minimal pairs are unconvincing. ... >That sort of "problem" is why Halle chose to throw out phonemes ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Your first "linguistic" memory
    ... >>> OK, so phonemes can be identified by minimal pairs, or by asking ... >>> native speakers if words are different or not. ... >>See the large selection of phonology textbooks currently available. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Speaking without a foreign accent
    ... >>pronunciations of English worldwide. ... Vowel length ceased to be phonemic ... Minimal pairs exist, but are rare. ... Of course phonemes! ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: some more Irish vowels
    ... Not enough for identifying phonemes? ... what native speakers think are different sounds is NOT ... Dutch meer vowel is closer to that of English mere than of English ...
    (sci.lang)