Re: THEORY: phonemics (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum number of symbols

Julien:
> >But I agree
> >that a better way to look at it is to see not one phoneme
> >inventory for the whole language but rather one inventory per
> >position.
>
> So would you mean that if a language uses /t/ in initial position but
> not in final position, and /s/ in both positions, you would state as a
> part of the inventory something like :
> [#t], [#k] and [k#] (where # represents the word boundary)
That's right. Taking the classical definition of the phoneme as the
unit of lexical contrast, with the identity of each unit defined by
paradigmatic contrast with other units. The alternative is to abandon
phonemics completely.

> If I understand you (sorry if not) I think (but of course I can be
> wrong) that it would be somehow redundant, because this would make the
> phoneme inventory grow up exponentially. As a matter of fact, if we
> consider each context as different, initial /st/, medium /st/ or final
> /sk/, followed /preceded by a vowel, a consonant, which one? ... we
> would maybe have 5, or 6 or maybe more phonemes /s/, assuming that each
> context can influence the phoneme. Please tell me if I misunderstood
> you.
No, you understand correctly. The phoneme inventory is greatly increased,
but the body of phonotactic rules shrinks to nothing.

> >> I must certainly have been not clear because I assume that (as far as
> >> I know about phonology) there is no doubt by now that phoneme is not the
> >> ultimate phonological unit.
>
> >Correct, but this is a rejection of the phoneme. Your statement could
> >be rephrased as "there is no doubt by now that the phoneme is not a
> >valid phonological construct", since part of the definition of the
> >phoneme is that it is the ultimate phonological unit.
>
> The atom used to be described as the ultimate particle, and that is
> precisely why it id called a-tom. Then scientists discovered there were
> smaller particles such as electron, proton... Now they are talking about
> quarks, but this does not mean they reject the concept of the atom, they
> just have now a more precise idea of its internal structure and of its
> role in the theory. I think it is the same for the phoneme. Phonologists
> have a more precise idea of what the phoneme is, a less "monolithic
> view" as I said in another post, but I don't think they would all reject
> the phoneme at all.
There are two separate issues here. The first is whether the notion
of the phoneme under the classical definition is tenable: the consensus
is that it is not tenable. Taking your analogy, once it was decided
that atoms had parts, then to the extent that partlessness was definitional,
the concept of the atom *was* rejected, to be replaced by a different
concept.

The second (very different) issue is whether the phoneme can be redefined
as some analytically more useful category. This depends on the particular
redefinition. But at any rate, this second issue is not the one I have
been intending to debate.

> >> As I told in the preceding message, Theories
> >> like autosegmental or three-dimensional phonologies clearly
> demonstrated
> >> that we needed to separate different tiers in the underlying
> >> representations : this new way of representing sounds allows deeper
> >> analysises and they can take account for prosodic phenomena.
> >> So I hope I managed to explain clearly what I wanted to say :)
> >
> >I understand you and don't disagree with you. I gather that, schooled
> >in modern phonology as you are, you too reject the phoneme. Recall
> >it was my throwaway line about rejection the phoneme that prompted
> >requests for clarification.
>
> Actually not, as I said above, I just wanted to point out that we can
> give explanations of internal (and external) structure without rejecting
> the phoneme at all, by just revising its role in the whole theory. But I
> now understand what you meant and I am really interested and your
> theoretical developments.
> Please excuse me if my answer was long and borring.
I understand what you're saying. You are saying that there is some
analytically useful phenomenon in phonology that approximately
corresponds to the phoneme, and that the invalidity of any specific
definition or theory of the phoneme does not invalidate the
phenomenon itself. I was saying that the phoneme qua explicitly
defined theoretical construct is invalid. We don't disagree.

--And.