Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: PHONO: feature theory (was: vowel harmony)

From:JS Bangs <jaspax@...>
Date:Friday, June 20, 2003, 19:27
Jonathan Knibb sikyal:

> When the vowel harmony discussion got on to comparing languages in > terms of the features applied to their phoneme inventories, it > reminded me of something that's been bugging me for a while. > > Question 1: in standard feature theory, is a phoneme uniquely > associated with a particular set of features *no matter which language > it's in*?
No. Phonetically identical consonants can be assigned to different feature sets depending on the overall phonology of the language. However, the feature values themselves do have *some* phonetic content--one can't go around saying that [labial] distinguishes /t/ from /k/ without damn good reason. One should think of the feature matrix as defining a set of broad articulatory properties for a phoneme, the exact implementation of which is left to the phonetic component and can vary from language to language.
> Question 1a: is it meaningful to speak of 'the same phoneme' cross- > linguistically anyway?
Sort of. In the case of segments with the same phonetic value and the same place in the overall phonological system, there is no reason not to call them 'the same phoneme'. However, there are lots of cases of segments with the same phonetic value but different places in the phonological system, or segments with different phonetic values but the same place in the phonological system. In either of these cases, it's a judgement call whether we're referring to 'the same phoneme.'
> Question 2: how do you decide which value of a feature is unmarked?
Very carefully, and hopefully with lots of cross-linguistic evidence. NB that the whole concept of classical binary features has been superceded by feature geometry using privative features, which has a whole different mechanism and set of assumptions regarding unmarked features.
> ObC - Telona's consonant inventory is ruthlessly feature-symmetrical, > and I've had the devil's own job trying to get it to fit my personal > aesthetic given this constraint. If I could make up my own features, > it would make things a *lot* easier. :))
Feh. Don't constrain yourself too much with theory. Natlangs don't. Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/ http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?" And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our interpersonal relationship." And Jesus said, "What?"