Lecture-5.2 - Lecture notes 5.2 July 7 2009 1 Phonology problems Let’s look at a problem we saw(if we did the reading for today – Mokilese

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Lecture notes: 5.2 July 7, 2009 1 Phonology problems Let’s look at a problem we saw (if we did the reading for today) – Mokilese. Mokilese is an Austronesian language of the Malayo-Polynesian family, spoken in Micronesia. We want to explain the distribution of the voiced and voiceless vowel pairs [i, i ˚ ] and [u, u ˚ ]. (Reminder: voiceless vowels have a circle under the phonetic vowel symbol.) (1) Mokilese voiceless vowels: a. [pi ˚ san] full of leaves g. [uduk] flesh b. [dupuku ˚ da] bought h. [kaskas] to throw c. [pu ˚ kol] basket i. [poki] to strike something d. [ki ˚ sa] we two j. [pill] water e. [su ˚ pwo] firewood k. [apid] outrigger support f. [kamw O ki ˚ ti] to move l. [lu > d Z uk] to tackle There are no minimal pairs in the data where [i] vs. [i ˚ ] are the only different sounds between the pair, and none where [u] vs. [u ˚ ] are the only different sounds. Even a near-minimal pair would cast grave doubt on the idea that [u], [u ˚ ], e.g., are allophones of one phoneme. Imagine if we found the pair [dupu ˚ kda] / [bupukda] (hypothetical). This would be hard to reconcile with the idea that u and u ˚ belong to the same phoneme, because it is extremely unlikely that the decision whether or not we get [u] or [u ˚ ] in position #4 depends on whether or not we find [b] or [d] in position #1. Why is this extremely unlikely? Because the conditioning environments that determine the distribution of allophones 1 of a phoneme are overwhelmingly local – very close to the allophone in question, not far away. We had concluded that [i ˚ , i] are not in contrastive distribution: no minimal pairs. And the same for [u ˚ , u]. Our hypothesis: [i, i ˚ ] are allophones of one phoneme, and [u, u ˚ ] are allophones of one phoneme. To see whether that’s true, we need to try the local environment method. So we can next test the hypothesis that the pairs [u], [u ˚ ] and [i], [i ˚ ] are each allo- phones of one phoneme, /i/ and /u/. We proceed to look for complementary distribution, keeping in mind what we learned about natural classes. Our hypothesis: [i] and [i ˚ ] are allophones of one phoneme, and [u] and [u ˚ ] are allo- phones of one phoneme. Are the sounds in complementary distribution? What is the rule? Lets call these phonemes /i/ and /u/, respectively, assuming that [i] and [u] are the default allophones and that [i ˚ ] and [u ˚ ] are derived. We could also have tried /i ˚ / and /u ˚ /, but /i/ and /u/ seem more plausible. And we can always reconsider our choice. We collect [i ˚ ] and [i], then the same thing for [u ˚ ] and [u ˚ ]. Second step: evaluation of local environment tables. Evaluation of preceding context for [i ˚ , i]....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2010 for the course LINGUISTIC 117 taught by Professor Farkas during the Spring '09 term at University of California, Santa Cruz.

Page1 / 13

Lecture-5.2 - Lecture notes 5.2 July 7 2009 1 Phonology problems Let’s look at a problem we saw(if we did the reading for today – Mokilese

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online