The preceding section establishes that there is a difference between
phonetics and phonology. While the former is concerned with the physical
properties of speech sounds, the latter is concerned with the structure and
function of these sounds in conveying meaning. It was said that two languages
can have the same phonetic segments, and yet these segments may
have different phonological properties in the two languages.
This statement can be better understood by comparing a fragment of the
phonologies of English and Thai. English has two kinds of voiceless stops
phonetically: aspirated [ph, th, kh] and unaspirated [p, t, k]. Aspirated stops
are found at the beginnings of words. As a result, the word which is written
pitf is pronounced [phm]. On the other hand, unaspirated stops are found
· after word-initial s. Thus, the word spin is pronounced [spin], not *[sphm].
That the stop consonant in spin is phonetically different from the stop
. consonant in pin can be demonstrated by holding a lit match in front of the
mouth: pronouncing the word spin makes the flame flutter less than pronouncing the word pin.
There are also two series of voiceless stops in Thai: an aspirated series and
an unaspirated series. The Thai words [phaa] 'to split' and [paa] 'forest'
(Ladefoged, 1971 : 12) illustrate the same difference between [ph] and [p] as
in the English words pin and spin. However, if the comparison were to stop
at the observation that English and Thai share a common inventory of
aspirated and unaspirated . stops, an important phonological distinction
would be missed.
In English, the two different ps are found in different environments. The
fact that one p is aspirated and the other is not is predictable from the place
it falls within the word. Thus, given the environments,
##--In ## s __ In where## marks the beginning of a word, it would sound un-English to put
[p] instead of [ph] in the first blank and [ph] instead of (p] in the second
blank. The same distribution is observed in the words tick and stick, pronounced
with [th] and [t], and the words kin and skin, pronounced with
[kh] and (k]. Since the presence or absence of aspiration can be predicted
from the environment of the voiceless stop in a word, aspiration is said to
be redundant in English.
The difference between English and Thai is that aspiration is not redundant
in Thai. Since [ph] and [p] both occur in exactly the same environment in
'to split' and 'forest' (namely, at the beginning of a word and before [aa]),
it is not possible to predict whether a given p will be aspirated or unaspirated
in this language. When two words such as [phaa] and [paa] differ only by
one sound, they are said to constitute a minimal pair. The difference between
the two sounds is sufficient to signal a difference in meaning. Examples of
minimal pairs in English are pin and bin, cat and cad. In Thai, if we pronounce
[ph] instead of [p] we risk pronouncing a word of a different meaning (for
example, 'to split' instead of 'forest'). In English, on the other hand, if we
pronounce [ph] instead of [p ], as in the non-native sounding [ sphm ], we
probably will not be misunderstood, since aspiration is a redundant property
predictable from the presence or absence of a preceding [ s]. If we pronounce
[b] instead of [ph], however, a word of a different meaning will result (for
example, bin instead of pin). This means that the difference between (b] and
[ph] is not redundant in English.
We now begin to appreciate Trubetzkoy's definition of phonology (1.2).
Since both p's are capable of occurring in the same place in a word in Thai,
and since the substitution of one for the other results in a word of a different
meaning, aspiration is said to be distinctive in Thai. Similarly, the difference
between [b] and [ph] is distinctive in English, though the difference between
[p] and [ph] is redundant. Trubetzkoy rightly pointed out that the concerns
of phonology go beyond those of phonetics. In phonology we are concerned
with the distinctive vs. redundant function of speech sounds (or, more
correctly, features, as we shall see below).
If the goal of phonetics is to understand the physical properties of speech sounds,
then the goal of phonology is to understand the ways these sounds function in language.
Phoneticians have long talked about sounds grouping into intersecting
classes. Some classes are more general or inclusive (for example, the class of
voiced sounds), while some classes are more specific or exclusive (for example,
the class of voiceless aspirated stops). While these classes are assumed to be
universally available to all languages, they are used differently by different
languages (compare the use of aspiration in English and Thai). However,
phonologists argue that there are only a certain number of "natural" ways a
language can deal with these classes. It should be clear that one way languages
differ is in their general inventory of sounds. A language can lack a
sound (for example, French does not have [h]) or even a whole series (class)
of sounds (for example, English does not have breathy voiced consonants).
However a difference in inventory between two languages has not only
phonetic consequences, but also phonological consequences.
As an illustration, consider the case of English and Berber. In the labial series,
English has four oral consonants, while Berber, like many languages
in North Mrica and the Middle East, has only two:
Berber does not have a [p] or a [ v ], whereas English does. In English, in
order to distinguish [f] from all other consonants, it is necessary to say that
it is (1) voiceless, (2) labial, and (3) a fricative.
We must specify it as voiceless,
because there is a [ v] in English which differs from [f] only in that it is voiced.
We must specify it as labial, because there is an[s] in English which differs
from [f] primarily in that it is alveolar. Finally, we must specify it as a
fricative, because there is a [p] in English which differs from (f] primarily
in that it is a stop. Thus, three features are required to distinguish [f] from
other sounds in English.
In Berber, on the other hand, only two features are needed. In order to
specify (f] in Berber, we can say either that it is (1) voiceless and (2) labial
or that it is (1) a fricative and (2) labial. In the first case we need not add that
it is a fricative, because we know that if a Berber consonant is voiceless and
labial, it can only be [f]. It cannot be [p ], since this sound does not exist in
the language. Similarly, in the second case we need not add that it is voiceless,
because we know that if a Berber consonant is a fricative and labial, it can
only be [f]. It cannot be [ v ], since this sound does not exist in the language.
Thus, in English each of these phonetic features is distinctive for all these
sounds, whereas in Berber there is some redundancy. In labial consonants
in Berber, voiceless + fricative go together: one can be predicted from the
other. In English, each phonetic property has distinctive value. Thus, if one
feature is changed, say, voiceless to voiced, a distinctive sound of the language
is obtained (for example, [v]).
Notice also in Berber that while voiceless + fricative go together in
the labial series, voiced + stop also go together. Thus,
we find only [b J and not [p ]. In summary, the two Berber
labials [f] and [b] differ from each other in two features, whereas in English,
[p] and [b ], [p] and [f], [f] and [ v ], and [b] and [ v J each differ from each
other in only one feature. As a result, there is less redundant information
in English than in Berber, for the labial series of sounds.
A child in acquiring his language must learn to recognize which sounds of
his language are distinctive and which sounds are redundant. Distinctive
sound units, that is, those which are capable of distinguishing words of
different meanings, are termed phonemes, whereas redundant sounds, that is,
those which are predictable from a given environment, are termed contextual
variants or allophones (see 3.1). As the child learns the phonemes and contextual
variants of his language, he establishes that certain phonetic features
are distinctive, whereas others are redundant. Some of these redundancies are
language-specific, such as the Berber case just examined. Other redundancies
are universal (for example, no language has a sound which is both an affricate
and nasal). In addition, there are some redundancies which are not universal
but which are frequently attested in languages. Thus, most languages only
have voiced sonorants (that is, nasals, liquids, glides, and vowels) and no
voiceless ones. Burmese, however, has a complete contrast between voiced
and voiceless nasal consonants, as seen in the following examples (Ladefoged,
1971: 11):
[rna] 'healthy'
[tpa] 'order'
[na] 'pain'
[!Ja] 'nostril'
[ua 1 'fish'
[ua] 'rent'
From these words it can be seen that voicing is distint tive in nasal consonants
in Burmese. Such a situation is relatively rare, and voiceless nasal consonants
are among those sounds which are viewed as complex by phonologists.
Finally, there are many sounds which are frequently missing from the
phonetic inventories of languages, for example, the interdental fricatives [9]
and [o], the front rounded vowels [ii, 0, re], the labiovelar stops [kp, gb,
tj!h ], and the South African click sounds. As was seen in Berber, gaps in the
phonetic inventory of a language partly determine which features are used
distinctively and which features are used redundantly.
resource : https://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwib99WWp8nRAhUHrY8KHWN4DlIQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fudel.edu%2F~heinz%2Fclasses%2F2014%2F607%2Fmaterials%2Freadings%2FHyman-Phonological-Theory-and-Analysis%2F1-What%2520is%2520Phonology%2520pp1-23.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH42uEjX805WVoE66-8E1l-2NN5YA&sig2=uK9bKXnRcccKr4ccOnm-2g&bvm=bv.144224172,d.c2I
phonetics and phonology. While the former is concerned with the physical
properties of speech sounds, the latter is concerned with the structure and
function of these sounds in conveying meaning. It was said that two languages
can have the same phonetic segments, and yet these segments may
have different phonological properties in the two languages.
This statement can be better understood by comparing a fragment of the
phonologies of English and Thai. English has two kinds of voiceless stops
phonetically: aspirated [ph, th, kh] and unaspirated [p, t, k]. Aspirated stops
are found at the beginnings of words. As a result, the word which is written
pitf is pronounced [phm]. On the other hand, unaspirated stops are found
· after word-initial s. Thus, the word spin is pronounced [spin], not *[sphm].
That the stop consonant in spin is phonetically different from the stop
. consonant in pin can be demonstrated by holding a lit match in front of the
mouth: pronouncing the word spin makes the flame flutter less than pronouncing the word pin.
There are also two series of voiceless stops in Thai: an aspirated series and
an unaspirated series. The Thai words [phaa] 'to split' and [paa] 'forest'
(Ladefoged, 1971 : 12) illustrate the same difference between [ph] and [p] as
in the English words pin and spin. However, if the comparison were to stop
at the observation that English and Thai share a common inventory of
aspirated and unaspirated . stops, an important phonological distinction
would be missed.
In English, the two different ps are found in different environments. The
fact that one p is aspirated and the other is not is predictable from the place
it falls within the word. Thus, given the environments,
##--In ## s __ In where## marks the beginning of a word, it would sound un-English to put
[p] instead of [ph] in the first blank and [ph] instead of (p] in the second
blank. The same distribution is observed in the words tick and stick, pronounced
with [th] and [t], and the words kin and skin, pronounced with
[kh] and (k]. Since the presence or absence of aspiration can be predicted
from the environment of the voiceless stop in a word, aspiration is said to
be redundant in English.
The difference between English and Thai is that aspiration is not redundant
in Thai. Since [ph] and [p] both occur in exactly the same environment in
'to split' and 'forest' (namely, at the beginning of a word and before [aa]),
it is not possible to predict whether a given p will be aspirated or unaspirated
in this language. When two words such as [phaa] and [paa] differ only by
one sound, they are said to constitute a minimal pair. The difference between
the two sounds is sufficient to signal a difference in meaning. Examples of
minimal pairs in English are pin and bin, cat and cad. In Thai, if we pronounce
[ph] instead of [p] we risk pronouncing a word of a different meaning (for
example, 'to split' instead of 'forest'). In English, on the other hand, if we
pronounce [ph] instead of [p ], as in the non-native sounding [ sphm ], we
probably will not be misunderstood, since aspiration is a redundant property
predictable from the presence or absence of a preceding [ s]. If we pronounce
[b] instead of [ph], however, a word of a different meaning will result (for
example, bin instead of pin). This means that the difference between (b] and
[ph] is not redundant in English.
We now begin to appreciate Trubetzkoy's definition of phonology (1.2).
Since both p's are capable of occurring in the same place in a word in Thai,
and since the substitution of one for the other results in a word of a different
meaning, aspiration is said to be distinctive in Thai. Similarly, the difference
between [b] and [ph] is distinctive in English, though the difference between
[p] and [ph] is redundant. Trubetzkoy rightly pointed out that the concerns
of phonology go beyond those of phonetics. In phonology we are concerned
with the distinctive vs. redundant function of speech sounds (or, more
correctly, features, as we shall see below).
If the goal of phonetics is to understand the physical properties of speech sounds,
then the goal of phonology is to understand the ways these sounds function in language.
Phoneticians have long talked about sounds grouping into intersecting
classes. Some classes are more general or inclusive (for example, the class of
voiced sounds), while some classes are more specific or exclusive (for example,
the class of voiceless aspirated stops). While these classes are assumed to be
universally available to all languages, they are used differently by different
languages (compare the use of aspiration in English and Thai). However,
phonologists argue that there are only a certain number of "natural" ways a
language can deal with these classes. It should be clear that one way languages
differ is in their general inventory of sounds. A language can lack a
sound (for example, French does not have [h]) or even a whole series (class)
of sounds (for example, English does not have breathy voiced consonants).
However a difference in inventory between two languages has not only
phonetic consequences, but also phonological consequences.
As an illustration, consider the case of English and Berber. In the labial series,
English has four oral consonants, while Berber, like many languages
in North Mrica and the Middle East, has only two:
Berber does not have a [p] or a [ v ], whereas English does. In English, in
order to distinguish [f] from all other consonants, it is necessary to say that
it is (1) voiceless, (2) labial, and (3) a fricative.
We must specify it as voiceless,
because there is a [ v] in English which differs from [f] only in that it is voiced.
We must specify it as labial, because there is an[s] in English which differs
from [f] primarily in that it is alveolar. Finally, we must specify it as a
fricative, because there is a [p] in English which differs from (f] primarily
in that it is a stop. Thus, three features are required to distinguish [f] from
other sounds in English.
In Berber, on the other hand, only two features are needed. In order to
specify (f] in Berber, we can say either that it is (1) voiceless and (2) labial
or that it is (1) a fricative and (2) labial. In the first case we need not add that
it is a fricative, because we know that if a Berber consonant is voiceless and
labial, it can only be [f]. It cannot be [p ], since this sound does not exist in
the language. Similarly, in the second case we need not add that it is voiceless,
because we know that if a Berber consonant is a fricative and labial, it can
only be [f]. It cannot be [ v ], since this sound does not exist in the language.
Thus, in English each of these phonetic features is distinctive for all these
sounds, whereas in Berber there is some redundancy. In labial consonants
in Berber, voiceless + fricative go together: one can be predicted from the
other. In English, each phonetic property has distinctive value. Thus, if one
feature is changed, say, voiceless to voiced, a distinctive sound of the language
is obtained (for example, [v]).
Notice also in Berber that while voiceless + fricative go together in
the labial series, voiced + stop also go together. Thus,
we find only [b J and not [p ]. In summary, the two Berber
labials [f] and [b] differ from each other in two features, whereas in English,
[p] and [b ], [p] and [f], [f] and [ v ], and [b] and [ v J each differ from each
other in only one feature. As a result, there is less redundant information
in English than in Berber, for the labial series of sounds.
A child in acquiring his language must learn to recognize which sounds of
his language are distinctive and which sounds are redundant. Distinctive
sound units, that is, those which are capable of distinguishing words of
different meanings, are termed phonemes, whereas redundant sounds, that is,
those which are predictable from a given environment, are termed contextual
variants or allophones (see 3.1). As the child learns the phonemes and contextual
variants of his language, he establishes that certain phonetic features
are distinctive, whereas others are redundant. Some of these redundancies are
language-specific, such as the Berber case just examined. Other redundancies
are universal (for example, no language has a sound which is both an affricate
and nasal). In addition, there are some redundancies which are not universal
but which are frequently attested in languages. Thus, most languages only
have voiced sonorants (that is, nasals, liquids, glides, and vowels) and no
voiceless ones. Burmese, however, has a complete contrast between voiced
and voiceless nasal consonants, as seen in the following examples (Ladefoged,
1971: 11):
[rna] 'healthy'
[tpa] 'order'
[na] 'pain'
[!Ja] 'nostril'
[ua 1 'fish'
[ua] 'rent'
From these words it can be seen that voicing is distint tive in nasal consonants
in Burmese. Such a situation is relatively rare, and voiceless nasal consonants
are among those sounds which are viewed as complex by phonologists.
Finally, there are many sounds which are frequently missing from the
phonetic inventories of languages, for example, the interdental fricatives [9]
and [o], the front rounded vowels [ii, 0, re], the labiovelar stops [kp, gb,
tj!h ], and the South African click sounds. As was seen in Berber, gaps in the
phonetic inventory of a language partly determine which features are used
distinctively and which features are used redundantly.
resource : https://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwib99WWp8nRAhUHrY8KHWN4DlIQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fudel.edu%2F~heinz%2Fclasses%2F2014%2F607%2Fmaterials%2Freadings%2FHyman-Phonological-Theory-and-Analysis%2F1-What%2520is%2520Phonology%2520pp1-23.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH42uEjX805WVoE66-8E1l-2NN5YA&sig2=uK9bKXnRcccKr4ccOnm-2g&bvm=bv.144224172,d.c2I
No comments:
Post a Comment