concept of phoneme. p>
The fact that our speech can be divided into separate sounds, which we distinguishfrom each other, it seems self razumeeschimsya. It seems quiteevident that all can hear the difference between the vowels in the words of the house - I think, orconsonants in the words of weight - all cancer - lacquer and distinguish plaque from simply poursounding. p>
However, in fact, the selection of individual sounds in speech is notdetermined only by the sound. The same sound speakers of differentlanguage is assessed in terms of sound structure in different ways: Koreans notnotice the difference r of l, the Arabs of on y, for the French in the words of weight and as a wholeDifferent vowel sounds will be evaluated, rather than final consonants, and carriersvery many languages can not hear the difference between the plaque and pour. p>
Consequently, the selection of individual sounds and score them as identical ordifferent depending on the characteristics of the linguistic system. p>
To determine how many different sound units used in languageto solve two problems: 1) divide the stream of speech into individual sounds --minimal sound segments, and 2) to determine which sounds needregarded as identical, and which are distinguished. p>
Language mechanisms for such linear segmentation andidentification of segments of the speech circuit, first showed LV Scerba in 1912g. p>
Lev Scherba was a founder of the Leningrad phonologicalschool, was at the forefront of science education such as phonology *. QuestionsPhonetics interested LV Scherba throughout his scientificactivities. The most important works on phonetics Shcherba
(pre-revolutionary period) were "subjective and objective method in the phonetic"
(1909) and "n vowels in qualitative and quantitative terms"
(1912). LV Scherba supported the idea of Baudouin de Courtenay on the existence oflanguage of phonetic units, which do not coincide with the acoustic orphysiological units. These units, according to Shcherba, areresult of mental activity. Adhering to the early stages of theirexplain the essence of mental phonetic units, and the task Shcherba phonetics as a science, sees the study of sound representationsspeech. But unlike B.de Courtenay Shcherba brings semantic point indefinition of the phoneme. It defines the phoneme as the shortest commonphonetic representation of the language that can be associated withsemantic representations and to differentiate words, and phoneme canallocated in the speech without distortion of the phonetic composition of words. p>
basis of linguistic philosophy Shcherba in pre-revolutionaryperiod was subjective psychology. He considered the language of psychic phenomena,one of the products of our psyche. Only phoneticHe admitted using a subjective method, because we always haveaccess to the consciousness of the speaker for this language of the individual. Later, inSoviet era Shcherba become increasingly inclined to the materialisticphilosophy of language, to dialectical materialism. This was manifested ininterpretation of the phoneme, which in 1937 considered as Shcherbadialectical unity of general and private. During this period he realized as a phoneme sound type that can differentiate between words and their forms.
Hue phonemes - as actually spoken by different sounds that are soprivate, in which the phoneme is realized. That LV Scerba unitedstudy of his predecessors, structured knowledge about this languagephenomenon as a phoneme and became osnovopologatelem phonemic analysis.
Sound material is formed and used by each language in a special way, inaccordance with the rules of its phonological system, which includessegment of the subsystem and subsystem supersegmentnyh (prosodic)funds.
Minimum (the shortest in the linear terms) structural and functionalsound unit in most languages are phonemes. They themselvesnot have values, but potentially related to the meaning of the elementscommon symbol system. In conjunction with each other and often individuallythey form the exponent of words and morphemes, and provide recognition
(identification) and differentiation (differentiation) of linguistic signs as meaningfulunits. p>
Thus, due to different composition of phonemes, namely, the use of different phonemes inthe same position in the exponents of n words genus / rot / and I'm glad / rat /are possible identification of each of these words and their distinction betweenthemselves. Similarly, various phonemes appear in identical positions,distinguishing exponential, and thus in general: p>
. English words but / bVt / 'but' and boot / bu: t / 'shoe, shoe', p>
. German words liegen / li: g & n / 'lie' and legen / le: g & n / 'put, put', p>
. French words mais / mE / 'but' and mes / me / 'my'.
In most cases, the exponent words are mnogofonemnymi.
Odnofonemnymi exhibitors have, for example, the n words and / a /, and
/ i /, y / u /, a / v /, a / k /, morpheme-l / l / in a spa-l-Th / t '/ in a spa-Th, s / s /in table-u, y / u / in the Id-u, in-/ v / in in-lez-Th,-a-/ a /,-j-and-y / u / in a step-and -j-y (spelling: step). In one phoneme contain p>
. exponent of English words o / @ U / 'zero', A / eI / ' "excellent" (in the American school)', e / i: / 'number e (in mathematics)', I / aI / 'I', p>
. exponent of German words A / a: / 'To (music)', E / e: / 'mi (music)', o! p>
/ o: / 'oh, oh!', p>
. exponent of French words and / a / 'a', eau / o / 'water', ou / u / p>
Odnofonemnymi are exponential many morphemes in these languages. P>
Exhibitor linguistic sign can not consist of less than one phoneme.
Sounding it represents in terms of acoustic and from the pointarticulation of the continuum, ie nechlenimoe whole. Language isunits in general and in particular phonemes are discrete nature, ie theyquite clearly distinguished from each other in the syntagmatic andparadigmatic relations. Vydelimost phonemes in the speech does not rely onacoustic or articulatory features, and the signs of structuralfunctional, ie own language. Phoneme segmentation is givenlanguage system itself. Chain of discrete phonemes from the phonemesegmentation is associated with a series of sounds (background). p>
Von individually, a single representative (of representative)certain phonemes in speech. Each phoneme corresponds to the infinitemany backgrounds.
In accordance with the morphological (semiotic in nature)principle, which is formulated in the school LV Scherba, the boundaries between phonemesplace where the boundaries between morphemes. For example, the syllable in yesword (word-form), water-and is divided into two phonemes: / d / and / a /, reflectingpresence of morphemic joint: treatment-a. Similarly setThinking the boundary between the phonemes / v / and / a / in the word-form grass-abetween / u / and / p / in word-form in-pad-y.
Repeated application separately, the phoneme gain autonomy inphonological system of language, so that in the exponential expression, yes, where theremorphemic division, is there the boundary between the phonemes / d / and / a /.
Using morphological criteria can determine whether we are dealing withlong consonants, long vowels, diphthongs as a single phonemes orboth combinations of phonemes (monofonematicheskaya and bifonematicheskaya treatment). p>
Thus, in the word input begins phonetically long [v:], identifies twophoneme / v /, one of which is the exponent of a morpheme in-and anotheris the primary exponent of the root morpheme-water-. Morphologicalcriterion makes it possible to prove that n does notdiphthongs as single phonemes, but in German and English diphthongsmonofonematichny. p>
the boundary between phonemes can signal also meaningless alternation
(eg, alternation of Ablaut in English word forms find ~ found
([aI] ~] aU]), the German word forms find-en ~ fand-en ([I] ~ [a ]). p>
Thus, the boundaries between phonemes are possible both at the interface between words and morphemes ,and within morphemes. They do not necessarily coincide with the boundariessyllables. p>
A different situation appears in syllabic languages. They syllable, as a rule,morpheme is an indivisible exhibitor and / or words. Terms of functions suchstyle is similar to the phoneme. Therefore, on the syllable in such cases, referred to asshortest phonological unit - sillabeme.
Phonological opposition and distinctive features
Each language phonemic (neslogovogo) system consists of a smallnumber, the closed set of phonemes. They may exercise theiridentifying and differentiating feature because theydiffer, as against his paradigmatic.
Paradigmatic characteristics of phonemes are identified on the basis of phonologicaloppositions, ie such oppositions between phonemes, which are distinguishednot simply different sets of phonemes, but also using these sets astheir exponents are different words (and morphemes).
New typology of phonological oppositions was developed NS Trubetskoy. P>
In this paper we will use the following characteristics of oppositions: p>
. cited against the number of members: o opposition dvuhchlennye (binary), for example: / d /: / t / - House: Volume; o Triplex (ternary), for example: / p /: / t /: / k / - sweat: that: cat, etc.; p>
. the number of distinctive features, distinguishing employees cited against phonemes: o opposition odnopriznakovye (eg: / g /: / k /, are opposed on the grounds voiced: voiceless (nezvonkost) p>
- Year: cat), and o mnogopriznakovye, For example: / t /: / z /, are opposed on the grounds voiced: voiceless and smychnost: schelinnost p>
(nesmychnost) - TNT: ills; p>
. to the system of phonemes: o opposition isolated (for example, it. / l /: / r / - lassen: Rassen, and o are proportional, for example: in n. / l /: / r / = / l '/: / r' / - fishing: pit = p>
Leo (Tests on the part of the phoneme in phonological oppositions allowestablish a set of simultaneous differential features. p>
Thus, for the n phonemes / d / opposition through the analysis, ieComparison / d / from other phonemes (/ d /: / t /, / d /: / n /, / d /: / d '/, / d /: b /,
/ d /: / g /, / d /: / z /, phonemic content / d / appears as a setsigns p>
. sonority (house: Volume), p>
. rtovost (ladies: we), p>
. nepalatalizovannost (DOT: is), p>
. linguality (given: the ball), p>
. forelingual (dol: goal), p>
. smychnost (given: Hall).
Trubetskoi classified distinctive features, highlighting three groups: p>
1. Privative = when contrasted with the absence of signs of the trait, such as sonority (the work of the vocal cords during articulation) p>
= is the presence of the trait, and voiceless (vocal cords do not work) = this is the absence of the trait. P>
2. Gradual, or stepwise, in the n FA = there are almost none. In morphology stepwise vary positive, comparative and superlative adjectives (big, bigger, biggest). P>
3. Ekvipolentnye, or equivalent, signs, where one sign in opposition of one member is replaced by another in another Member State. Thus, the phoneme and q is privative opposition in voicing / voicelessness and ekvipolentnym = the place of education. P>
Added to this is opposed to the entire class of consonants classvowels (opposition group) and add the above listdistinctive feature compatibility.
Actually, many of the opposition have a group character: for example, the class of obstruentsopposed to the class gap and the class of trembling, class prepalatalopposed classes and dorsal velar, class nepalatalizovannyhpalatalized class, class unrounded vowel class labial
(labialized), etc. Such phonological opposition (after NS
Trubetskoy) classified as phonological correlation.
Most are selected for contrasting minimal pairs, ie differentwords that differ with respect to sound is minimal, only onepositions, for example: bar: steam; ball: the fever. p>
But if you is not minimal pairs, allowed two contrastingdifferent sounds that are in identical phonetic environments,For example, the contrast between the words cat: weaves enough asindication of n language in two different stops deaf phonemes: / k /and / k '/.
Among the distinctive features n phonemes / ts /, / tS /, / g / nosign sonority, as they are not opposed to the correspondingringing and ringing in the position to act as a sounding combinatorialoptions [dz], [dZ], [G]; example: otets_by, lech_by, leg_by.
Sound differences, which are not detected at different contrastsphonemes are classified as nefonematicheskie (excess). They accountedwhen describing the phonemes of the language is not at the system level (aggregateoppositions), and at the level of standards and at the level of Language Usage, and sometimes at the level ofindividual speech act.
Number of phonological oppositions (due to the fact that many of them areproportional) and, accordingly, the number of distinctive featuresphonemes themselves less than the number of phonemes. Phonological opposition act as thoserelations that streamline inventory of phonemes, making it a system. Otherwisespeaking, a set of phonological oppositions and the structure isphonemic system.
NS Trubetskoy and RO Jacobson thought it possible to include definitions of the phonemeattribute its qualification as a "bundle", "bundle" of distinctive features.
RO Jacobson generally inclined to consider phonological differentialsign (DP), by E. Benvenisti merizm, the basic unit of phonologicalsystem. He proposed a universal list of phonological features (inacoustic terms), of which is constructed or that of any phonemelanguage.
Scherbovskaya school comes from the fact that phonological DP allocated for
"splitting" of phonemes and, therefore, are secondary in relation to the phonemes,are no special elements, but only features of phonemes. Moreoverexperimental phonetic research in this school have shown that DPrepresent abstract, invariant features, which articulatoryand acoustically differently implemented by different classes of phonemes.
Opposition analysis makes it possible: p>
. not only to identify significant phonological features of phonemes, p>
. but also to establish stock (inventory) of phonemes, p>
. distribute these phonemes by correlative classes, p>
. build on this basis a model phonemic system of the language p>
. and determine the place in it each of the phonemes. This place is characterized by a set of DP given phoneme. This set remains unchanged, invariant under all realizations of a phoneme in speech. P>
phonemes and allophones. Distributive analysis
Each phoneme in the flow of speech is subject to various modifications
(modified) as a result: p>
. koartikulyatsii (overlay articulations adjacent sounds), p>
. combinatory sound changes the type of accommodation and assimilation * *, p>
. positional sound changes such as reduction * due to its implementation in shock or unstressed syllable.
There are phonetically due to (specific) combinatorial andpositional options p>
of the phonemes (allophones). As part of a single morpheme, but in its differentmorph observed p>
allophones alternation, for example: different [a] in the da-da-l and m ([a] ~ [a ~]);mat-to-well and the mother ([a] ~ [a. ]); p>
different [d] in the garden and garden-and-y; wad and wad-a-nd ([d] ~ [do]).
Representatives of descriptive linguistics (Yale School in the United States, created by L.
developed the so-called distribution method as the arsenal of techniques
"discover" a linguistic system in question, divide the whole procedure of analysis atthree stages: segmentation of the speech p>
(setting backgrounds), phonemic identification backgrounds (the identification of phonemicAmenities p>
of the background) and the classification of phonemes.
Especially effective distribution analysis of the second stage. Its rulesread as follows: p>
? If two different backgrounds do not occur in identical phonetic environments, they are in a relation of complementary distribution and are allophones of one phoneme. p>
Such, for example, the relationship between unaspirated and aspiratedocclusive [p] and p>
[ph], [t] and [th], [k] and [kh] in English and German languages, betweenunrounded and p>
labialized consonants [p] and [po] in the n language.
In this approach, perhaps one more definition of the phoneme: a phoneme is a class
(family, a lot) sounds that are for additionaldistribution. One of allophones, which is the least dependent onphonetic environment, recognized as the major. Others arespecific: their features are determined by either combinatorial orpositional factors. p>
. If two different backgrounds meet in identical phonetically and in doing so can serve?? Th distinguish different words, they are in contrast to the distribution * and represent two different phonemes. p>
. If two different backgrounds meet in identical environments and thus do not distinguish between two different words, then between them there is a ratio of free variation and they are optional variants of one phoneme. These relations between different p>
(mnogoudarnymi and single-hit, forelingual and reed) variants of the German phoneme / r /, between the plosive and fricative realizations of n phonemes / g /. P>
Distribution analysis enables: p>
- set the inventory of phonemes (specifying the result of the opposition analysis); p>
- identify the phonetic terms of distribution of phonemes in speech; p>
- represent each phoneme in a class of its binding and elective options (which, p>
way, connects the phonemic analysis of a defined set of perceptual units).
Thus, a complete characterization of the phoneme is a multidimensional, as phoneme be p>
characterized by: p>
. to linguistic signs (morphemes and words), in the construction of the exhibitors who participated phoneme (constitutive function), providing the distinction and recognition of these signs p>
(differentiating and identifying features); p>
. in relation to the linguistic system as a whole and to the phonological system, where each phoneme is a definite area, participating in a variety of phonological oppositions, and unlike any other phoneme as a unit-invariant with its stereotypical set of phonological distinctive features; p>
. with respect to speech, where each phoneme appears in an infinite number of different sounds (background), reducible to a single phoneme as it is phonetically conditioned variants (allophones), and optionally on the basis of distributive criteria.
Phonemic analysis typically aims to establish the inventory of phonemes and detection set p>
correlative oppositions that underlie the system of phonemes. Inventory phonemes is finite, it p>
counts from 20 to 80 or 100 elements. Finite and the set of phonological correlations (about p>
dozen). The result of this analysis is the representation of phonemes in as their classification.
On the system of phonemes can speak only in relation to a particular particular language. p>
Phonematical system of a language is unique. p>
Classification of vowels and consonants of a language based on general phonetics p>
signs and repeat to a certain extent, universal classification, but they can be built p>
more economical, taking into account only used in this language distinctive features. p>
Phonemic of the words: the traditional school and phonological system phonology p>
Currently, there are several phonological schools with own definition of the phoneme, and therefore in different ways appropriate to the the problem of establishing the composition of individual phonemes of words.
The ultimate goal of practical application of methods of analysis of these schools - and precisely definitely establish the phonological status of the segment of speech sounds.
However, we know that the existing theories do not always allow unequivocal achieve this goal.
In this article we examine how this problem is solved in the concepts
Leningrad phonological School (LFSH), the Moscow School of phonological
(MFSH) and functional phonology (PF), and then analyze it from the position system phonology (SF).
Owner LFSH L. Scerba believed that all the sounds of language "are united in relatively small number of sound types, capable of differentiating words and their forms. "These types of audio LV Scerba and defined as a phoneme.
His followers regard the phoneme as a class of sounds presented in Speeches different shades. The existence of two definitions of the phoneme (phoneme
- Zvukotip and phonemes - the class of sounds) is a consequence of the development of the theory of the phoneme as a phonetic phenomenon, the language used for differentiation of words and morphemes.
Phoneme LFSH - relatively independent autonomous material unit, which has no direct connection with the morphemes to which it belongs.
Professor LR Zinder, a follower of L. Shcherba, pointed out that
"Phoneme, which has certain positive features can always be identified for these traits. "Naturally, the representatives LFSH always considering sound as a representative of the phoneme, for example, the sound [t] (in word garden) as a representative of the phoneme "t", and the sound [d] (in words gardens) as representative of the phoneme "d".
This approach makes it easy to determine the composition of phonemes in the word forms.
However, and as it writes LR Zinder, "... if the word form characterized by well defined composition of phonemes, then it can not said of the lexeme and morpheme. "It turns out that a morpheme may have different of phonemes in different word forms, while there is an alternation of phonemes. For example, in the words of the garden - gardens alternate "t" and "d". Other cases, such as in the words cat and the code, it turns out that the root morpheme different in meaning and spelling of words in different positions may include As a final phonemes, or "t", or "d" (compare: the cat runs, codes, cat, code difficult, etc.). Thus, one can notice that, although such cases, morphemes, and endowed with self-importance and are not homonymous, phonemic structure does not allow to differentiate them from each other.
Here are some examples of phonemes in words in the designation LFSH.
| | Cat | code | dog |
| LFSH | / kot / | / kot / | / sabbka / | p>
As we see, the concept LFSH in determining the phonological status of sounds Speech crucial role played by their physical properties. But in today linguistics, there is another view of the nature of sound units - in account is taken in the first place their functional load in the language.
AA Reformatsky pointed out that "... the distinction of phonemes and the identity of one phoneme itself is determined by functional, rather than concrete sound
(articulatory and acoustic) the difference or identity of expressing their sounds. "Therefore, unlike LFSH, representatives of the Moscow Phonological Schools consider phoneme functional unit, the main purpose of which -- identify morphemes and words (constitutive function). Analysis MFSH implies the identification of phonemes on the morphemic level and relies on provision of specialty phonemic composition of morphemes. By definition
M. Panova phoneme - "... it is a functional phonetic unit submitted by a number of positional alternating sounds. "Therefore phoneme MFSH combines the sounds found in different positions within the same morpheme even in the absence of organic connection between them. For example, in the word cat phonemic structure can be represented as follows: . However some cases, such analysis can not detect all phonemes, comprising the word. For example, the word dog is the first vowel sound is always bezudaren and not included in the number of alternations. Can not with certainty say that is: the representative of phonemes [o] or [a]. In such cases, supporters
MFSH say giperfoneme. For example, MV Panov wrote that giperfonema -
"This is a phoneme at the level of incomplete language identifying" and defines it as a common part of two or more neutralized phonemes. Thus, of MFSH of the word dog is composed of several phonemes and one giperfonema.
Included in our table of examples of phonemes in words MFSH:
| | Cat | code | dog |
| LFSH | / kot / | / kot / | / sabbka / |
| MFSH | | | p>
It can be concluded that the method of analysis of the Moscow School does not researchers an opportunity in any case to determine the full composition of the phonemes of the word.
In the functional phonology, the creator of which is the NS Troubetzkoy, a phoneme is also seen as a functional unit, but its main function is to distinguish morphemes and words. Phoneme is defined as a set of distinctive features. "Phoneme - a collection phonologically significant characteristic of this sound Education ..."< br> Based on the definitions of PF, we can conclude that the word / morpheme consists of combinations complexes nerazlichitelnyh (irrelevant) features and complexes of distinguishing (relevant) features (ie, phonemes). However There are many words, where certain distinctive features can not perform its function. Take the example of the n language with a stun consonants at the end of words: in the words cat and the code signs and voicing voicelessness not opposed, as voiced vowels at the end of words are replaced by deaf. In such situations PF associated with the concepts of containment and archiphoneme.
By Trubetskoy, in such positions are defonologizatsiya and replacement of two phonemes (in this example, / t / and / d /) on one archiphoneme (/ T /), a unit which includes only the general features of two phonemes, while the opposition sign-voiced voiceless neutralized. Consequently, PF, words cat, and each code consists of two phonemes and one archiphoneme.
Analysis of examples of the table by PF gives the following picture:
| | Cat | code | dog |
| LFSH | / kot / | / kot / | / sabbka / |
| MFSH | | |
| PF | / cat / | / cat / | / sAbbka / | p>
As you can see, none of the traditional phonological schools do not have perfect problem of establishing the composition of phonemes of the word. Supporters LFSH reject the functional approach to the definition of the phoneme, which violates integrity of the morpheme; supporters MFSH and PF recognize the impossibility determining the phonological status of certain sounds and use more broad concepts giperfonemy or archiphoneme.
From this it follows that it is necessary to continue to seek new ways to fully solving the problem under discussion.
An attempt to solve it in a different way was made in the concept of systemic phonology. Her basic provisions have been formulated and substantiated LN Cherkasov in work "Theory of linguistic systems and systemic phonology".
In SF phoneme is considered as a functional system of differential
(distinctive features). Phonemes represent in speech sounds.
Relevance is determined by the signs to the presence of functional between them and the value of morphemes. For example, if the word cat in the first sound change sign velyarizovannosti to sign palatalizovannosti ([a]
> [K ']), the word / cat / turn into / k'ot. The resulting combination of sounds not correspond to a word of n. Therefore, we can do concluded that the feature is velyarizovannosti functional semantic relationship with the meaning of the morpheme is the distinguishing factors -- differemoy. When conducting a full analysis of speech and the allocation of all its constituent phonemes to determine which attributes of each sound in the exponential expression supports the functional semantic connection phoneme (pronounced that sound) with the morpheme, in which she included, ie, to determine all of representative differential. Determination of differentiation leads to the identification of each phoneme. This method of analysis gives researchers to identify specific phonemes and in those cases considered as other phonologists giperfonemnye or arhifonemnye situation. For example, if a morpheme-code-replace at the end
[t] voiceless to voiced, as in codes, the value of a morpheme does not change, it does not turn into another and do not cease to exist. So sign voicing stores here a functional link with the meaning of the morpheme.
However, if we replace the word codes in [d] voiced to voiceless, we get a completely different word - cats. Hence, in this morpheme voicelessness has no functional connection with the value and is not differemoy. In SF, in such cases, the sounds [t] and [d] are the representative items of the phoneme / d /.
However, its implementation affects the rule language. The norm is defined as
"mechanism for the implementation of units of language in speech." As the LN Cherkasov, norm is "an intermediate position between the abstract system of language and specific speech "and" includes not only the rules of implementation inventory items, but also their own unit, occupying an intermediate position between the abstract units of language and specific forms of implementation ". p>
Value of language, norms and speech in the implementation of linguistic units can be represented as:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| language-| phonemes - | differemy |
| v | v | v |
| norm-|-pronemy | Kenema |
| v | v | v |
| it-|-speech sounds | phonetic features | p>
Unit standards - pronemy consisting Let's have a (phonetic features). Norma
- A kind of mediator between language and speech. Depending on the position of the phoneme in the word norm may be differentially regulate its realization in the speech.
In some cases, all differemy realized in speech freely. Such position of phonemes defined in SF as a strong system and differ in that they "differemy given phoneme fully manifested (through kinds of opposition), so that the phoneme as if provided directly to observation ".
In other cases, the rule blocks certain differemy, replacing them related Kenema, do not support, however, the functional semantic relationship with the value of morphemes. For example, in the n language rule does not allow presence on the end of words sounding vowel sounds. Therefore, in SF, in such positions differema voicing is blocked and replaced by kinemu voicelessness.
This is the kine expressed in the speech as a component of the clunk. However during differemnogo analysis (as in our example with the cat - code) can establish a locked differential, and sonority to determine "calls" phoneme provided "hollow" sound. In the speech code is the phoneme / d /, but it stands in asistemnoy position, ie, in such a position, where certain differemy not represented in the speech altogether and replaced by allied Kenema.
On the contrary, in the word cat, we can set the phoneme / t /, because voiceless here - differema (with its replacement by voicing exponential words destroyed).
In SF, phonemes in these cases are in the weak position of the system, because
"Phonemes are manifested through opposition, through active relationships to difference, but such a relationship here is not ... because of the lack of those phonemes, which could enter into relations with cash phonemes.
Determination of the weak position of the system helps us in a different address giperfonemnye situation, spoken by MFSH. In words dog, sheep, etc., the phoneme following the first consonant, can not join in opposition to other phonemes because of lack of language relevant morphemes and words. However, this does not make it impossible to procedures for determining the differentiation of these phonemes, and establish their phonemic status (in this case we are dealing with unstressed phoneme / a /). Thus, in such situations may be defined all the phonemes of speech.
Finish our table with examples using the method of analysis of SF
| | Cat | code | dog |
| LFSH | / kot / | / kot / | / sabbka / |
| MFSH | | |
| PF | / cat / | / cat / | / sAbbka / |
| SF | / cat / | / code / | / sabbka / | p>
As you can see, the approach proposed in the system of phonology, allows a deeper analysis of phonemic composition of morphemes / words and identify specific phoneme, and in those cases where this is impossible from the standpoint traditional phonological schools. In addition, the basis for analysis is taken detect functional semantic connection between the features of phonemes and meaning of the word, in which it is exponential. Thus, to the fore functional rather than physical properties of the phoneme. p>
phonological science does not stand still. Each year the world's knowledge about the luggage phoneme updated with new research. In annually international conferences, formed to take all the new issues about phonological problems. p>
Currently, there are two views of the phoneme: one would look like
"Outside", when the phoneme is considered in terms of its sale to another - a look
"Inside", when it is viewed through the grounds of oppositions in the system. p>
In both cases, a phoneme is treated as a set, but in the first case -
"How many demonstrations in the second - how many signs?.
(Vinogradov), however, no less justified, is the point of view Jacobson and Halle: "distinctive features are combined into bundles, called phonemes "," Phoneme - a bundle of distinctive features. (Jacobson,
is well known that in the second definition, there are many comments and objections: "Reduction of phonemes to a set of differential saw no signs of a qualitative distinction between phonemic features and most phoneme. Indeed phoneme - is not the sum of individual signs, and a qualitatively new phenomenon. It is abouttimes, and like any image, phoneme indivisible into separate signs as the basic elements. She composed on the basis of individual characteristics and taking into account a number of other internal and external factors, including higher levels of language. " (Dukel'skiy) p>
with the opinion of the author's opinion intersects MI Matuyavicha and Kasevich, who rightly believe that "in reality, each phoneme of a a language is a complex unity of traits that, when combined, give a new quality of language "and that" something different from mechanical set of features present in its definition. With described point of view agrees Jacobson: "phoneme is also impossible seen as the result of a simple combination of its member distinctive features. Phoneme is also a structure with some combinatorial properties. p>
quite serious and quite rightly are many objections linguists entered against Jacobson in the phonology of the term "distinctive sign. Name corresponding to the status of a linguistic unit, because such is not by definition: the essence of language, capable of forming linear sequence, called units, in contrast grounds lacking syntagmatic property. Dissatisfaction term
"Distinctive sign" expresses Leningrad phonological School:
"It seems clear that the definition of" phoneme is a bundle of distinctive signs of "use of the term" sign "inadequate. An indication of what is was a "sign" in the definition? Clearly, the sign of the phoneme.
Enough to put in the definition of "sign of the phoneme" instead of "sign" to see, at least, the strangeness of the definition, because we get: "phoneme is bundle of distinctive features of the phoneme. There are many proposals name for the discussion of the term. However, they all contain an indication distinctiveness either indicative of, and therefore unacceptable: p>
?merizm" (Benveniste) p>
?differentor (Shaumian) p>
? distanktor "(Plotkin) p>
?fononema? (Grucza) p>
?subfonema" (Panov) p>
has another more acceptable term "kinokema" proposed
Baudouin de Courtenay, which contains a direct reference to the two conjugate the scope of this unit - zvukoproizvodstvo (in the section entitled "kin") and zvukovospriyatie (in the element "ac"), thus clearly otgranichivaya it from adjacent units - phonemes, whose sphere of action (sound) lies between the two areas and combines them into the twin field articulatory-perceptual activities. Affixed marker "-senting" common to both terms, indicates their equality as a designation. The term "kinokema" ( "kine") actively operate VY Plotkin, LN Cherkassy. Many linguists agree Dukelskaya with the opinion that, in contrast to the theory of distinctive features,
"Existing theories of the phoneme are empirical and do not allow describe the system of phonemes of the language or to compare different phonological systems based on objective, internally Preece