Re: Phonemes

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:07:35 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

> Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:35:57 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> > <kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

> >> Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:29:11 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> >> > <kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

> >> >> I was going by canonical descriptions of /A/ as a back vowel, but
> >> >> for me it does indeed feel more front than /@/, and /A/ to /&/ is
> >> >> largely a matter of going up. /@/ is about the height of /E/,
> >> >> which is higher than /&/.

> >> > You're using /A/ erroneously to refer to a low front vowel, where
> >> > /a/ would be correct.

> >> No, I'm using /A/ correctly to describe the vowel of the word "not",
> >> the same phoneme as that used in the word by other speakers who
> >> produce it as a back vowel, and which I perceive as the same phoneme.
> >> Had I used /a/, I would be implying that it was a different phoneme,
> >> one not in their inventory. Since when I say the phoneme (my way),
> >> they perceive me as saying the phoneme they would use in the same
> >> words (and vice versa), this would be incorrect, or at least
> >> misleading.

> > The accepted wisdom as I understand it is that two sounds represent
> > the same phoneme if a listener perceives them to be the same sound.

> I would add "for the purpose of identifying words and after
> unconsciously adjusting for the speaker's systemmatic pronunciation
> differences".

You seem to be implying that the phoneme /A/ doesn't
correspond to the low back region of vowel space at all, but
that it's purely and simply the vowel in "not". If a
dialect community were to be discovered in which "not" was
pronounced [ni:t] and whose speakers had no knowledge of
other pronunciations, would you then say that for them the
phoneme /A/ encompassed the vowel [i] and not [A], [a], or
[&]?

> > If you know your vowel in "not" is not the same as someone else's
> > vowel in "not", then you are not perceiving the two vowels to be the
> > same sound and they do not represent the same phoneme for you.

> For them not to be the same phoneme for me, I would have to hear their
> pronunciation of "not" as either some other word or as a non-word.

Well, yes, I suppose we could say that when they say [nat]
instead of [nAt] they are indeed saying another word. The
two of you would each have his or her own word for the
concept covered by "not", and the words would differ in that
a different phoneme would be used for each of them.

You would only have to discern that their pronunciation of
"not" was different from yours because they used a different
phoneme for it. And you would know it's a different phoneme
because you would perceive their vowel as being
significantly different from the vowel you expected to hear.

> If I hear them and, without having to think about it,
> perceive them as saying "not",

If the speaker is speaking Italian and you understand that
language, then when they say "non", you will without having
to think about it perceive them as saying "not". You
wouldn't deduce from that that their vowel "o" is in the
same phoneme as your [A] and their consonant "n" is in the
same phoneme as your [t]. An English speaker who pronounces
"horse" [hA:rs] is speaking a nonstandard dialect,
effectively a different language from conventional English.
We can understand their meaning, and grown accustomed to
understanding their speech without conscious effort, without
assuming that [O] and [A] represent the same phoneme.

> then I'm hearing the same phoneme that I use when
> producing the word "not".

Suppose the speaker said [gi:k] for "not". Having grown
accustomed to the idiosyncrasy, would you then be content to
say that each of the pairs [n] and [g]; [i] and [A]; and [k]
and [t] represented the same phoneme?

> And I'd say that I "know" that the vowel is different (and how it
> differs) only because I have a fair amount of training in the area.
> The average speaker of my dialect won't notice the difference at all.

I find it hard to believe that there's an English speaker
anywhere on Earth, no matter what level of training they
have, who won't perceive the different between [nat] and
[nAt]. If someone pronounces "not" [nat}, I will probably
deduce from the context that they are saying "not" and will
conclude that they use the phoneme /a/ or /&/ in "not"
instead of /A/. I certainly won't understand without
context that they're saying "not".

> > I continue to believe that a vowel that you know is a low front
> > vowel cannot represent the same phoneme for you as a vowel that you
> > know is a low back vowel.

> Why?

Because two sounds that represent the same phoneme will be
perceived to be the same vowel. You have said that you know
they are different vowels. different enough to represent
different phonemes, so you're not perceiving them as the
same sound: you're merely tolerating their use in the same
word.

> It's almost certainly the case that you have different sounds
> that represent the same phoneme (even though the different sounds
> would represent different phonemes in some languages) and also that
> you have sounds that in different contexts will represent different
> phonemes.

> > An example of two vowels that would be for some people in different
> > phonemes is [a] and [&]. A traditional Bostonian would pronounce
> > "pack" [p&k] and "park" [pak], but to me the two pronunciations are
> > the same. So for me [&] and [a] represent the same phoneme. I
> > can't distinguish the two sounds. You can distinguish your [a] and
> > someone else's [A], so the two do not represent the same phoneme for
> > you.

> That I *can* do something doesn't mean that I ordinarily would. And,
> frankly, I'm not sure I could consistently distinguish them by hearing
> them. I have learned what [A] is, I've read it asserted that it's the
> common reflex for /A/, and I know that mine differs. I can produce
> both. I'm more confident that I'd be able to distinguish the
> consonants at the beginning of "king" and "cold" or at the beginning
> and end of "lull", even though both of the first pair are /k/ and both
> of the second are /l/. But recognizing differences from your own
> reflexes, especially with respect to vowels, while still perceiving
> the phonemes as the same ones you use is the very concept of
> recognizing that somebody "speaks with an accent".

An important aspect of speaking with an accent is using in
various words phonemes that are different from the phonemes
used by native speakers for the same words. I see no value
in believing that they are using the same phonemes I do just
because they are trying to pronounce the same words and
using greatly different vowels.

Either [a] and [A] are in different phonemes for people who
perceive that they represent widely different sounds, sounds
that can be demonstrated by contrastive-distribution tests
to be in different phonemes, or all is chaos.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Subtitutes for English /T/ and /D/
    ... Any case in which the vowel did not delete is a case in which the rule ... If the speakers are not articulating a vowel, ... when some phenomenon of interest is indistinguishable from the noise, ... which hard-encodes the sound change into the phoneme inventory is not ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: why cant the BBC
    ... and must not appear in a phonemic transcription. ... short vowels, normal practice is for the long vowel phonemes are ... rejects the level and entity of the phoneme entirely (and, IMHO, ... Possibly relevant distinctive features for them are long/short, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Literary phonetic alphabet
    ... Furry has the NURSE vowel, which we've so far avoided. ... Are you claiming that they have the Mary phoneme (/eh / in T-S), and not the marry phoneme, either in your dialect or more generally in non-mergerers? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Phonemes
    ... I suggested that vowel length was a phoneme and he objected ... as a syllable feature rather than a segment feature (but it's easy ... languages as a supersegmental (I think it extends beyond syllables) ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Phonemes
    ... >> the same phoneme as that used in the word by other speakers who ... >> produce it as a back vowel, and which I perceive as the same phoneme. ... then you are not perceiving the two vowels to be the ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading