Re: Allophones or Separate Phonemes?

I'll first summarize my problem here for people who have just tuned
in to the thread: Are sounds that are in complementary distribution
but quite _dis_similar to each other allophones or separate
phonemes?

And Rosta wrote:
>From your post I haven't been able to work out the rationale for
>that choice of symbol. Unless things have changed in some recent
>revision of the IPA, the symbol represents a velar approximant
>glide. Why not use the symbols for pharyngeal fricatives (hook-top
><h> and barred <h>)?
Because there aren't any specific IPA symbols representing
pharyngeal approximants. So I could have chosen other symbols, but I
didn't. Besides, in the modern language they are now realized as
voiced and voiceless velar approximants in syllable-final position -
at the phonemic level, that is. So the turned m with a long right
leg seems appropriate.

-----<snip>-----

>If you're going to do a traditional phonemic analysis, then this
>seems the obvious analysis: two phonemes, /?/ and /h/ that can be
>syllable-final or syllable initial, and with the phonetic
>realizations that you describe.
Note however that on a phonetic level, both [?] and [h] in
syllable-final position are a result of the two contrastive
phonations of syllable codas in Boreanesian. Heavy syllables ending
in a stiff voice always end in a glottal stop, while heavy syllables
ending in slack voice always ends in voicelessness or [h]. So I
guess syllable-final [?] and [h] are prosodic units (rather than
segmental) that apply to heavy syllables as a whole. Would that
change things?

-----<snip>-----

>These are pseudoproblems that arise only when your minimal unit of
>phonological contrast is the segment. Well-known problems arise: In
>English are /t-/ and /-t/ the same phoneme? (standard answer is
>yes, even though their allophones are markedly different) Are /h/
>and /N/ the same phoneme? (standard answer is no, because of their
>dissimilarity even though they're in complementary distribution).
>
>Modern phonological theory separates out "structural" or "prosodic"
>properties like "syllable-intial/final" from "segmental" or
>"melodic" properties like "nasal" or "noisy" or "occluded".
I think the problem with Boreanesian phonology is that both [?] and
[h] are phonemic both segmentally (syllable-initial) and
prosodically (syllable-final).

>For an expository description -- as opposed to a full analysis --
>of Boreanesian, I see no problem in using phonemic analysis, so
>long as you accept that the analytical system is itself imperfect.
>
>In my view, there is another problem that can face either kind of
>phonological analysis. The problem lies in trying to cram all of
>phonology into a single level of phonological representation. This
>(in my view, again), is not how phonology works: there are two
>levels. One is the level that interfaces with the lexicon, which
>represents only phonological *contrasts*. The other is the level
>that interfaces with phonetics, specifying what the phonetic
>realization should be. It is entirely usual for the repertoire of
>representational elements to be much larger for the phonetic
>interface level than for the lexical interface level.
I'm well aware of the two levels of phonological representations. In
fact, in the grammar I'm writing, the phonemic representation of
Boreanesian is meant to be a kind of practical orthography. Examples
are given in this orthography, but since it does not specify
phonetic realizations, some examples are given with a more narrow
transcription on the phonetic level to give readers a feel for the
phonological processes involved.

-----<snip>-----

>In this instance I think the solution is as follows. At the lexical
>interface, you can have just one "melodic" unit - call it /S/, say.
>This then entails that [s-], [-:h] and [-jh] are noncontrastive,
>without you having add to the phonology a stipulation restricting
>/s-/ to syllable initial position and /-jh/ to syllable final.
>But at the phonetic interface level the distinction must be
>represented, because of course it is *systematically* reflected
>in the pronunciation of Boreanesian.
I had a feeling that this _might_ be the case. But how would I
represent such a unit in IPA; with an under-ringed lower-case-j,
or with a c-cedilla? The problem here is that [s-] and [-jh] are
rather dissimilar making it difficult to decide which symbol to use.
Furthermore, the [h] in [-jh] is more a mark of the slack
phonation - a prosodic unit applying to heavy syllables as a whole
rather than a segmental unit.

So then again, this might _not_ be the case afterall. Both [s-] and
[-jh] are noncontrastive - they are in complementary distribution
being that one only occurs in syllable-initial position and the
other in syllable-final position. But despite all this, I would
still consider [s-] and [-jh] quite dissimilar. You mentioned a
similar situation with English /h/ and /N/ where they too are in
complementary distribution but are quite dissimilar. In fact, as you
know, they are represented by different symbols altogether. Another
dissimilarity is the fact that [-jh] bears a prosodic feature that
applies to heavy syllables as a whole (ie., [h]). The sound [s-]
bears no such feature. Boreanesian has evolved in such a way that
the feature of phonation is segmental in syllable-initial position
and has become prosodic in syllable-final position. So might [s-]
and [-jh] be different phonemes altogether due to their
dissimilarity despite their complementary distribution?

-----<snip>-----

>There doesn't seem to be a contrastive unit ":h". You have either
>/-@H/ or /-IH/. [Where @ could be taken as notation for a
>melodically unspecified structural segment].
That is essentially the analysis I had in mind. In fact, I'm
representing this "@" as a velar approximant in my grammar whose
allophones lengthen central vowels, similar to how an palatal
approximant would lengthen the front vowel and how a labio-velar
approximant would lengthen a rounded back vowel. I chose to write
"@" in this and the last post because of the limitations provided by
emailing.

This velar approximant only occurs in syllable-final position. So if
I were to follow an analysis similar to [s-] and [-jh], then one
could say that the unit that is realized as [-@h] in syllable-final
position is the same segmental unit that is realized as [h-] in
syllable-initial position. Similarly, how would such a unit be
represented in IPA?

However, [h-] and [-@h] could also seen as dissimilar due not only
to the lack of an approximant in one of them, but also to the
difference in the types of phonological units involved. The [h] in
the former is segmental while the [h] in the latter is segmental. So
once again, might [h-] and [-@h] be different phonemes altogether
due to their dissimilarity despite their complementary distribution?


-----<snip>-----

>> Comments, please!
>
>My comment is that I very much hope that you *will* study
>linguistics at university.
We'll see about that. I have 'til after summer to make a final
decision. 8-)

Thanks!
-kristian- 8-)