Re: Allophones Question

At 5:53 PM -0500 2/19/03, John Cowan wrote:
>Dirk Elzinga scripsit:
>
>> But if [D] is only considered an allophone of a more basic /d/, then
>> there should be no confusion of [D] with [T], which belongs to a separate
>> phoneme. That is, there is no version of /T/ which is pronounced [D];
>> [D] can only be /d/. So your example casts doubt on your analysis of
>> underlying/d/.
>
>I don't follow your reasoning.  To recap what Christophe said:
>
>        /d/ is realized as [D] or [d], in complementary distribution;
>        /T/ is always realized [T];
>        [d] where [D] is expected is perceived as /d/;
>        [D] where [d] is expected is perceived as /T/.
>
>Among anglophones who actually voice their voiced stops, we have a
>identical pattern:
>
>        /p/ is realized as [p] or [p_h], in complementary distribution;
>        /b/ is always realized [b];
>        [p_h] where [p] is expected is perceived as /p/;
>        [p] where [p_h] is expected is perceived as /b/.
>
>So which is more basic (notational convenience aside), [p] or [p_h]?
>This removes the question of speaker intuition entirely, and bases things
>on objectively testable questions.
Okay, I'll buy that. The English example helps.

Your question about which is more basic in English is interesting since there have
been analyses proposed which claim that [p_h] is more basic; this is the same
debate as Spanish [D]/[d].

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga                                               Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"It is important not to let one's aesthetics interfere with the appreciation of
fact." - Stephen Anderson

Reply