LING 101: PhonologyLING 101: PhonologyThis page was prepared by William Idsardi as a study resource for his LING 101 course at UDel. You may find it useful when preparing for exams. Note that the material covered by these notes may not exactly match the topics covered in LING 101 when taught by other instructors. To return to the "Study notes" page use the navigation bar at the left.
Speaker's Listener's Mind -----> Mouth ---------> Ear ----> Mind | | | | \ / \ / Phonology Phonetics
The amazing discovery is that people systematically ignore certain properties of sounds. They perceive two different sounds as the same sound. We call the stored versions of speech sounds phonemes. Thus phonemes are the phonetic alphabet of the mind. That is, phonemes are how we mentally represent speech; how we store the sounds of words in our memory.
Though the phonetic alphabet is universal (we can write down
the speech sounds actually uttered in any language), the phonemic
alphabet varies from language to language.
For example, English has no front rounded vowels like German or French,
and French has no
How do we find out what's in someone's mind?
How do we figure out how people store the sounds of words in
their memories?
One trick that we can use is to look for minimal pairs of words.
A minimal pair is a pair of words that have different meanings
and which differ in only one sound.
Since the difference between the two sounds is meaningful, the
words must be stored differently in memory.
Since the words differ in only one sound, this difference must
be stored in memory.
Thus the difference in sounds is significant, and so the two
sounds must both be phonemes.
Here is an example from English:
Another example from English:
are all distinct words of English.
Therefore, the speech sounds (in the mouth)
are all significant to the mind.
And therefore, English includes the phonemes:
Sometimes it isn't possible to find minimal pairs for all words.
But speakers can also tell when a contrast would yield a
distinct possible word, even if this is not an actual word.
The phonetic context (or frame) [b__t] can be used to find
minimal pairs for many English vowels:
This minimal set establishes all these vowels as mentally
distinct, and therefore phonemic.
Near minimal cases can be found for the other
two vowels:
Since other minimal pairs can be found (look/Luke),
(cot/caught), these vowels are also mentally significant,
and are therefore phonemes.
If a sound has the feature in question, the value of the
feature for that sound is "+".
For example, [m] is [+nasal], because it is nasal.
If a sound doesn't have the feature, then it's value is "-".
For example, [m] is [-continuant] because no air comes out
of the mouth during the production of [m].
Most important, however, is that English speakers perceive that
both "man" and "bat" have the same vowel.
That is, English speakers are ignoring the difference
in nasality between the two words.
English speakers feel that this difference in nasality is
unimportant for recognizing a word in their memory.
We can understand this behavior through understanding that
speakers memorize vowels without the feature [+nasal].
English speakers believe that there are no nasal vowels in
English, at least for the purpose of memorizing words.
The reason for this is that nasality in vowels is predictable.
In English, nasal vowels only occur before nasal consonants.
Everywhere else English speakers use oral vowels.
Therefore [ nasal] is predictable for English vowels, and is
governed by a rule of pronunciation:
We can contrast the situations in the Memory and in the Mouth:
We call the mental representation a phoneme, and
we call the distinct pronunciations allophones.
The predictable aspects of pronunciation (here [+nasal]
in vowels) are added by the rules in the phonology of
the language.
Rules of pronunciation determines the variants in speech sounds.
This particular rules makes one sound (the vowel) more similar
to an adjacent sound (the following nasal consonant), by making
the vowel nasal.
Rules that make sounds more similar are called assimilation rules.
Rules that make sounds less similar are called
dissimilation rules.
Assimilation rules are much more common than dissimilation rules.
There are two possible responses a language can make to
an unwanted sequence.
One is to change one of the sounds, through a rule.
This is what we observed with English nasal vowels.
Oral vowels are not allowed to be followed by nasal
consonants, so the vowel is changed to be nasal.
The other possible response is to simply ban the sequence
from words as they are stored in memory. In English there
is a general ban on words beginning with *[tl] and *[dl],
even though words starting with [pl], [bl], [kl] and [gl]
are fine.
It is also possible to have the situation where sound that
are memorized differently are nevertheless pronounced
identically under certain circumstances.
Consider the pronuncation of the vowels in these two words:
But since both of these words involve the same morpheme, meaning
"telegraph", this morpheme must have the same memorized
representation, namely,
The rules is very simple, unstressed vowels reduce to schwa
in English.
This means that in this case we have two different sounds
as far as the mind goes, and yet when unstressed, only one
pronunciation:
The choice of zero or [en] is handled in the Morphology, because
it is not predictable from the speech sounds.
The choice of [s], [z] or [@z] is handled in the Phonology, because
it is predictable from the speech sounds.
So we need to figure out what conditions the appearance of
the various pronunciations of the plural.
Where do we get which pronunciations?
Now we need to write rules to get the other pronunciations.
What is similar about all the stems in the first column, the
ones that take [s] in the plural? They are end in voiceless
sounds! So the rule for these must be:
What is the characteristic shared by the words in the third
column, where they say [@z] for the plural?
All of these words end in sibilant sounds.
So we can write the rule:
The use of the zero here for "no sound" or "nothing" is similar
to the zero morphemes.
For insertion, 0 --> something; for deletion something --> 0.
Are [r] and [l] allophones of one or two phonemes?
(That is, are these sounds stored differently in the
memory of Korean speakers?)
State your reasons, and give the rule to derive the surface
phones if you conclude that they are allophonic.
Does the "before" environment predict which sound?
NO!
Does the "after" environment predict [r] versus [l]?
What is the difference between the two environments?
[r], "vowel" is simpler than "consonant or nothing".
Can we do better? What's the difference between [l] and [r]?
.
Finding Phonemes
and
are different words of English.
But they differ only in their initial sound.
Therefore, the [s]/[z] difference is significant for English speakers.
Therefore both [s] and [z] are stored in the memory.
Thus, [s] and [z] are part of the English mental alphabet.
We notate elements in the memory by putting them in-between slashes / /.
In this case /s/ and /z/ are part of an English speaker's alphabet
for memorizing words.
and
and
,
,
and
,
,
and
.
beat 
bit
bait 
bet 
bat
boot 
boat 
but 
bought 
(not all dialects have this vowel)
put 
pot 
.
Features for Speech Sounds
(all and only [+alveolar] and [+palatal] sounds are [+coronal])
Rules of pronunciation
The fact that speakers have a mental representation of what
they say, and that this can be different from what they
actually do when they speak, shows us that speakers do not
memorize every aspect of speech sound production.
Only the essential (contrastive, phonemic) features
are stored in memory.
Other features (specifics of pronunciation) are added during
speech planning and production.
Predictable information about speech (predictable features)
are not memorized.
Predictable features are added by rules of pronunciation
(phonological rules).
A Rule of English
English speakers pronounce vowels either with the velum
closed (non-nasal, [-nasal]) or with the velum open (nasal, [+nasal]).
By careful listening or experimental investigation, we can determine
that the velum is open during the entire production of the word "man":
In contrast, speakers do not have the velum open at all in the
production of the word "bat":
.
Vowels become nasal when a nasal consonant immediately follows.
Vowels become [+nasal] when they are before a [+consonantal +nasal]
V --> [+nasal] / __ [+consonantal +nasal]
Memory:
Mouth:
only before nasal consonants
Everywhere else (Elsewhere)
Language variation
Which features are predictable varies from language to language.
In French speakers must memorize [+nasal] for vowels because in
French this is important for the meaning of the word. That is,
French has minimal pairs for nasality in vowels.
Feature redundancies
Within a single sound some of the aspects of speech sound
production (features) may be predictable from the
other features.
Here are some examples from English:
These particular rules are rules of English.
Other languages may or may not have these rules.
So, for instance French has frount rounded vowels, but
no high back unround vowels. Russian has the reverse:
high back unround vowels but no front round vowels.
Turkish has both front round vowels and high back unround
vowels.
[-consonantal +back +high] --> [+round]
[-consonantal -back] --> [-round]
Changes in context
All languages impose certain restrictions on the sequences
of sounds in the language.
Some languages like to alternate consonants and vowels.
These language do not allow sequences of consonants nor
sequences of vowels.
Neutralization
We have seen the case of one mental sound having two mouth
pronunciations, repeated here:
Mind:
Mouth:
only before nasal consonants
Everywhere else (Elsewhere)
Therefore the changes in pronunciation are insignificant for
memory here, and must be due to a rule of pronunciation.
Mind:
Mouth:
when unstressed
The pronunciation of the English plural
The plural morphmeme in English has several different
pronuncations. We will use @ for schwa in this example,
and only show phonetic detail where necessary.
Mind: Plural
Mouth: [0] (zero): deer
[en] : oxen
[s] : cat[s]
[z] : dog[z]
[@z] : bush[@z], ros[@z]
Pronunciations: [s] [z] [@z]
Examples: cats dads bushes
beliefs sleeves roses
cups cabs kisses
tacks tags churches
paths wreathes judges
dams
cans
songs
fears
peels
bees
bays
boos
bows
boys
We want to predict the pronunciations, so we need to pick one
of the pronunciations to be stored in memory.
We should pick the least predictable one to store in
memory, here [z].
Therefore, the memorized representation for the plural morpheme
is /z/.
/z/ becomes [s] when it comes after a voiceless sound
But we can do better than this. What is the difference between
/z/ and [s]? /z/ is [+voiced] and [s] is [-voiced].
So we can write the rule as:
/z/ becomes [-voice] when it comes after a [-voice] sound
/z/ --> [-voice] / [-voice] __
Thus, this is a rule of assimilation.
Insert [@] inbetween a sibilant and /z/
Again, we can ask if we can do better. Is /z/ sibilant?
Yes! So we can write the rule:
Insert [@] inbetween two sibilants
0 --> [@] / [+sibilant] __ [+sibilant]
Doing Phonology Problems
The basic steps in doing phonology problems are:
(If yes, then both sounds are phonemes)
(in words, then in symbols)
Exercise 6.1: Korean
Question
Consider the distribution of [r] and [l] in Korean in
the following words:
(Note, @ is used for schwa, # for a high back unrounded vowel.
The features of the vowels ([high low back round tense])
are not significant in this problem.)
rupi 'ruby'
kiri 'road'
saram 'person'
ir#mi 'name'
ratio 'radio'
mul 'water'
pal 'big'
s@ul 'Seoul'
ilkop 'seven'
ipalsa 'barber'
Answer
There are none.
Therefore, probably allophones of one phoneme.
Two sounds in the mouth, one sound in the mind.
There are none.
(Zoom in on the things of interest.
Get rid of extraneous information.)
Work from the things closest to the sounds of interest.
The sounds [i] and [a] occur before both [r] and [l].
Therefore we cannot predict [r] versus [l] on the basis
of the immediately preceding sound.
In the case of [i] or [a] both [r] and [l] can occur.
YES! The "after" environments do not overlap!
[r] occurs only when a vowel follows;
[l] occurs when either a consonant follows or when nothing follows.
Which is the simpler one to predict?
Therefore the [r] is predictable, and /l/ (the unpredictable
one) must be the phoneme.
Mind: /l/
/ \
Mouth: [r] [l]
__ V Elsewhere
(in words, then in symbols)
Koreans pronounce /l/ as [r] when a vowel immediately follows.
/l/ --> [r] / __ [-consonantal]
[l] is [+lateral]; [r] is [-lateral]
/l/ --> [-lateral] / __ [-consonantal]
Exercise 6.9: Finnish
Consider the following data from Finnish:
a. [ku:zi] 'six'
b. [kudot] 'failures'
c. [kate] 'cover'
d. [katot] 'roofs'
e. [kade] 'envious'
f. [ku:si] 'six'
g. [li:sa] 'Lisa'
h. [maton] 'of a worm'
i. [madon] 'of a rug'
j. [ratas] 'wheel'
k. [li:za] 'Lisa'
l. [radan] 'of a track'
(Do Finnish speakers use both /s/ and /z/ to store
words in their memories?)
(If yes, then both sounds are phonemes)
a. [ku:zi] and f. [ku:si] differ minimally in pronunciation
in the right way: a. has [z] and f. has [s].
BUT they both have the same meaning: 'six'.
Because the difference in pronunciation does NOT
cause a change in meaning, this is not a minimal pair.
Therefore these two words do not establish a mental memorized
distinction between [s] and [z].
We already found one:
a. [ku:zi] or f. [ku:si] 'six'
and there's another:
g. [li:sa] or k. [li:za] 'Lisa'
Can we predict [s] versus [z] from the "before" environment?
NO! The "before" environments overlap, both [s] and [z]
can occur when the immediately preceding sound is [u:] or [i:].
Therefore, knowing the immediately preceding sound won't
predict which of [s] or [z] we get.
Can we predict [s] versus [z] from the "after" environment?
NO! The "after" environments overlap, both [s] and [z]
can occur when the immediately following sound is [i] or [a].
Therefore, knowing the immediately following sound won't
predict which of [s] or [z] we get.
Moreover, in the cases of the false minimal pairs,
a. [ku:zi] and f. [ku:si] 'six'
g. [li:sa] and k. [li:za] 'Lisa'
the environments are exactly the same.
(They look like minimal pairs, but they aren't because the
change in pronunciation doesn't cause a change in meaning.)
Since the environments are exactly the same in these
alternative pronunciations of 'Lisa' and 'six', nothing in
the speech sounds themselves can predict which one of [s] or
[z] will be used.
This case is not phonologically predictable.
It might be the case that looking at social or dialect
factors would tell us how Finnish speakers choose between
[s] and [z].
At this point all we know is that they don't make the choice
between [s] and [z] based on the surrounding sounds.
However, we can notice that [s] occurs in more environments
than [z] does.
For example, j. [ratas] 'whell' has an [s] at the end of the
word. We don't see any words ending in [z]. So it would be
best to memorize the sound as /s/, and then sometimes pronounce
/s/ as [z]. For this case we just can't predict exactly
when /s/ is pronounced as [z].
Mind: /s/
/ \
Mouth: [s] [z]
Overlapping environments--unpredictable
(First in words, then in symbols)
/s/ becomes [z] unpredictably
/s/ --> [z] unpredictably
/s/ --> [+continuant] unpredictably
[s] and [z] are in free variation
(Do Finnish speakers use both /d/ and /t/ to store
words in their memories?)
(If yes, then both sounds are phonemes)
There are minimal pairs:
h. [madon] 'of a worm'
i. [maton] 'of a rug'
differ minimally in their pronounciation, with h. having
[d] and i. having [t].
AND this change in pronunciation goes along with a
change in meaning: h. means 'of a worm' and i. means
'of a rug'.
Because we found minimal pairs, both sounds are phonemes.
There are no alternations for [t] and [d].
Because they are both phonemes (both used in memory)
and there are no alternations, we do not need to calculate
the environment, because there is nothing to predict.
In Finnish, /t/ is pronounced as [t] and /d/ is pronounced
as [d].
There is nothing to predict here. Both /t/ and /d/ are
phonemes, and they maintain separate pronunciations (there
are no alternations).
Mind: /t/ /d/
| |
Mouth: [t] [d]
No rule here, they're both phonemes with no alternations.
Exercise 6.12: Hebrew
Consider the phonetic forms of Hebrew words:
(We will use [?] for glottal stop,
and [S] for the voiceless alveo-palatal fricative.)
[v]-[b]
bika 'lamented'
mugbal 'limited'
Savar 'broke masculine'
Savra 'broke feminine'
?ikev 'delayed'
bara 'created'
[f]-[p]
litef 'stroked'
sefer 'book'
sataf 'washed'
para 'cow'
mitpaxat 'handkerchief'
ha?alpim 'the Alps'
Assume that these words and their phonetic sequences are
representative of what may occur in Hebrew.
In your answers below, consider classes of sounds
rather than individual sounds.
(Are [b] and [v] memorized as separate sounds, or are
they stored in memory as the same sound?)
(Hint: Are they in complementary distribution?
Do the environments overlap?
Can you predict which will occur?)
(If yes, then both sounds are phonemes)
There are no minimal pairs for [b]-[v].
The morpheme for 'broke' shows different pronunciations
for the masculine and the feminine: [Savar] 'broke masculine'
and [Savra] 'broke feminine'. But these two forms do not
illustrate a [b]-[v] change. Therefore they don't immediately
let us figure out what causes either [b] or [v] to occur.
So we have to go on to listing the environments.
The "after" environments overlap.
The sound [a] can come immediately after both [v] and [b].
Therefore we cannot predict which of [v] or [b] would occur
just given the information about what sound comes immediately after.
The "before" environments do not overlap.
Therefore the before environment is sufficient to predict which
of [b] or [v] will occur.
Therefore for speakers of Hebrew, [b] and [v] are stored as
one sound.
But which sound do you store in memory?
We figure this out by asking which environment is harder
to predict.
In this data, [v] only occurs after vowels.
[b] never occurs after vowels.
[b] only occurs after consonants, or at the beginning of the word.
The environment "after vowels" is simpler than
"after consonants or at the beginning of the word",
so the environment for [b] is harder to predict.
Therefore, for Hebrew speakers [b] and [v] are different
pronunciations of the memorized sound /b/.
Mind: /b/
/ \
Mouth: [b] [v]
[-consonantal] __
(when there is a vowel
immediately preceding)
(in words, then in symbols)
/b/ becomes [v] when there is a vowel immediately before it
/b/ --> [v] / [-consonantal] __
/b/ --> [+continuant] / [-consonantal] __
What do we want to compare? [b] with [p] or [b] with [f]?
We want to compare stops with stops and fricatives
with fricatives.
Therefore, we want to compare [b] with [p].
Therefore, we are considering whether the rule should be
extended to include:
/p/ --> [f] / [-consonantal] __
How would we know?
The rule says that we get [f] if and only if it is
preceded by a vowel.
Therefore, there can be two kinds of counterexamples:
So we look. All [f]'s are immediately preceded by vowels.
No [p] is immediately preceded by a vowel.
Therefore the rule works here too.
(consonant or at the beginning of the word)
(the undergeneration case)
(the overgeneration case)
Now we need to write one rule that covers both cases.
What characteristics do [p] and [b] share?
They're both labial stops.
Therefore the rule must be:
A Labial stop becomes a fricative
when a vowel comes immediately before it
[-continuant +labial] --> [+continuant] / [-consonantal] __
What determines the choice of [b, p] versus [v, f]?
The sound immediately before.
What sound is immediately before the blank?
[d]. What kind of sound is [d]?
A consonant. So fricatives cannot appear here,
because fricatives only appear when there is
a vowel immediately before them.
So "(1) [b] but not [v] could occur in the empty slot"
is the only correct statement.
No vowel preceding, so fricatives cannot occur in
this position.
So "(2) [p] but not [f] could occur in the empty slot"
is the only correct statement.
laval
surva
labal
palar
falu
razif
If these words actually occured in Hebrew would they:
Let's check to see if we need to rethink anything.
(If yes, then both sounds are phonemes)
The new data introduces a minimal pair:
[laval] versus [labal]
This would lead us to conclude that the distinction
between [b] and [v] is significant, because it goes
along with a change in meaning.
Then we would conclude that Hebrew speakers memorize
both [b] and [v], giving two phonemes /b/ and /v/.
This is clearly a different conclusion than what
we came up with, so the right answer is (1), we would
be forced to revise our conclusions.