Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]

Quoting Peter Bleackley <Peter.Bleackley@...>:

> Staving Andreas Johansson:
> >Quoting Peter Bleackley <Peter.Bleackley@...>:
> >
> > > Staving Thomas Wier:
> > >
> > > > > Also, it seems to me that Englishers tend to hear [dZ_0] as /dZ/
> rather
> > > > > than /tS/. Nativers?
> > > >
> > > >That is the case. This is what you would expect if the contrast
> > > >in English is more between aspirated and nonaspirated than between
> > > >voiced and voiceless.
> > > >
> > >
> > > An alternative analysis might be that for a given voiceless consonant
> [c]
> > > and the corresponding voiced consonant [q], [c_h] is an allophone of [q]
> > > when whispering. (Note that c and q are arbitrary).
> >
> >You mean that [c]=/q/ and [c_h]=/c/, don't you?
> >
> >                                                        Andreas
>
> What I think I mean is
>
>                  Underlying                      Realisation
>                                          Normal speech   Whispered
> Voiceless       /c/                     [c]             [c]
> Voiced          /q/                     [q]             [c_h]
>
> Hope that makes some sort of sense - try whispering /b/ and /p/ and you'll
> see what I'm talking about - /c/ and /q/ can be any pair contransting by
> voice
That's pretty much the opposite of what I've been thought about English
phonology, provided that by [_h] you mean to indicate aspiration (it's its X-
SAMPA value). English voiceless stops are certainly typically aspirated, and
the "voiced" ones, regardless of their sometimes lacking voicing, are not.

                                                             Andreas