Phonetics Case Essay

essay B
  • Words: 3174
  • Category: Database

  • Pages: 12

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to give a systematic description of some facets of English morphophonemic. The thesis falls into 2 chapters:
The first chapter. which is an debut. presents a short study of the rubric. the job. the intent of the survey. phonological regulations. The 2nd chapter is devoted to some of the basic constructs required in the survey of morphophonemic. It starts with assorted definitions of morpheme. allomorph.

The thesis ends with some decisions. a list of bibliography.

Morphophonemic Analysis designates the analytic processs whereby paradigms with phonological alternations are reduced to implicit in representations and phonological regulations. The term “morphophonemic analysis” has a now vague beginning. In the 1940s and 1950s. many phonologists worked with a theory in which ( approximately ) all neutralizing regulations were assumed to use before all allophonic regulations. This in consequence divided the phonemics into two constituents: a neutralizing constituent. whose units were called “morphophonemes. ” and a non-neutralizing constituent. which dealt with phonemes and allophones. This bifurcated-phonology theory is widely considered indefensible today. but “morphophonemics” remains a utile term for qualifying the survey of neutralizing phonological regulations as they apply in paradigms.

When we conduct morphophonemic analysis. we seek to set up a connexion between informations and theory. The theory in inquiry is that morphemes are stored in the vocabulary in an invariant phonemic signifier. are strung together by morphological and syntactic regulations. and are so converted to their surface signifiers by a sequence of phonological regulations ( frequently neutralizing ) . applied in a peculiar order. The intent of morphophonemic analysis is to detect a set of implicit in signifiers and ordered regulations that are consistent with the informations ; and the final payment is that apparently complex forms are frequently reduced to simpleness.

Morphophonemic analysis may be contrasted with phonemic analysis. Phonemic analysis is a more limited signifier of phonological analysis that seeks merely to detect the non-neutralizing ( allophonic ) regulations of the phonemics. In phonemic analysis. merely the distribution and similarity of the phones is examined. Therefore. the informations need non be grouped in paradigms. but need merely consist a sufficiently big and representative set of words. Like phonemic analysis. morphophonemic analysis can be pursued with a systematic method.

The chief intent of my work consists in doing exact definition of a phoneme and allophone and be able to separate them. To understand what is morphophonemic? Problems of my work are: morphophonemic and morphophonological regulations. types of morphophonological alterations. relation between phonemics and morphophonology. isolation signifiers. regulation telling. morphophonology and writing system.

Morphophonology ( besides morphophonemics. morphonology ) is a subdivision of linguistics which surveies the interaction between morphological and phonological or phonic procedures. Its main focal point is the sound changes that take topographic point in morphemes ( minimum meaningful units ) when they combine to organize words. Morphophonological analysis frequently involves an effort to give a series of formal regulations that successfully predict the regular sound alterations happening in the morphemes of a given linguistic communication. Such a series of regulations converts a theoretical implicit in representation into a surface signifier that is really heard. The units of which the underlying representations of morphemes are composed are sometimes called morphophonemes. The surface signifier produced by the morphophonological regulations may dwell of phonemes ( which are so capable to ordinary phonological regulations to bring forth speech sounds or phones ) . or else the morphophonological analysis may short-circuit the phoneme phase and bring forth the phones itself. Morphophonemes and morphophonological regulations

When morphemes combine. they influence each other’s sound construction ( whether analyzed at a phonic or phonemic degree ) . ensuing in different variant pronunciations for the same morpheme. Morphophonology efforts to analyse these procedures. A language’s morphophonological construction is by and large described with a series of regulations which. ideally. can foretell every morphophonological alternation that takes topographic point in the linguistic communication. An illustration of a morphophonological alternation in English is provided by the plural morpheme. written as “-s” or “-es” . Its pronunciation surrogates between [ s ] . [ omega ] . and [ ?z ] . as in cats. Canis familiariss. and horses severally. A strictly phonological analysis would most likely assign to these three terminations the phonemic representations /s/ . /z/ . /?z/ .

On a morphophonological degree. nevertheless. they may all be considered to be signifiers of the underlying object //z// . which is a morphophoneme. The different signifiers it takes are dependent on the section at the terminal of the morpheme to which it attaches – these dependences are described by morphophonological regulations. ( The behavior of the English past tense stoping “-ed” is similar – it can be pronounced [ t ] . [ 500 ] or [ ?d ] . as in hoped. bobbed and added. ) Note that the plural suffix “-s” can besides act upon the signifier taken by the predating morpheme. as in the instance of the words foliage and knife. which end with [ f ] in the singular. but have [ 5 ] in the plural ( foliages. knives ) .

On a morphophonological degree these morphemes may be analyzed as stoping in a morphophoneme //F// . which becomes voiced when a voiced consonant ( in this instance the //z// of the plural stoping ) is attached to it. This regulation may be written symbolically as: /F/ – & gt ; [ ?voice ] / __ [ ?voice ] . In the International Phonetic Alphabet. pipes ( | | ) are frequently used to bespeak a morphophonemic instead than phonemic representation. Another common convention is dual cuts ( // // ) . as above. connoting that the written text is ‘more phonemic than merely phonemic’ . Other conventions sometimes seen are dual pipes ( || || ) and curly brackets ( { } ) . Types of morphophonological alterations

Inflected and agglutinating linguistic communications may hold highly complicated systems of morphophonemics. Examples of complex morphophonological systems include: 1. Sandhi. the phenomenon behind the English illustrations of plural and past tense above. is found in virtually all linguistic communications to some grade. Even Mandarin. which is sometimes said to expose no morphology. nonetheless displays tone sandhi. a morphophonemic alternation. 2. Consonant step. found in some Uralic linguistic communications such as Finnish. Estonian. Northern Sami. and Nganasan. 3. Vowel harmoniousness. which occurs in changing grades in linguistic communications all around the universe. notably Turkic linguistic communications. 3. Ablaut. found in English and other Germanic linguistic communications. Ablaut is the phenomenon wherein root vowels change signifier depending on context. as in English sing. American ginseng. Sung. Relation between phonemics and morphophonology

Until the fiftiess. many phonologists assumed that neutralizing regulations by and large applied before allophonic regulations. Therefore phonological analysis was split into two parts: a morphophonological portion. where neutralizing regulations were developed to deduce phonemes from morphophonemes ; and a strictly phonological portion. where phones were derived from the phonemes. Since the 1960s ( in specific with the work of the productive school. such as Chomsky and Halle’s The Sound Pattern of English ) many linguists have moved off from doing such a split. alternatively sing the surface phones as being derived from the underlying morphophonemes ( which may be referred to utilizing assorted nomenclature ) through a individual system of ( morpho ) phonological regulations.

The intent of both phonemic and morphophonemic analysis is to bring forth simpler implicit in descriptions for what appear on the surface to be complicated forms. In strictly phonemic analysis the information is merely a set of words in a linguistic communication. while for the intents of morphophonemic analysis the words must be considered in grammatical paradigms to take history of the implicit in morphemes. It is postulated that morphemes are recorded in the speaker’s “lexicon” in an invariant ( morphophonemic ) signifier. which. in a given environment. is converted by regulations into a surface signifier. The analyst efforts to show every bit wholly as possible a system of underlying units ( morphophonemes ) and a series of regulations that act on them. so as to bring forth surface signifiers consistent with the lingual informations.

Isolation signifiers

The isolation signifier of a morpheme is the signifier in which that morpheme appears in isolation ( when non capable to the effects of any other morpheme ) . In the instance of a edge morpheme. such as the English past tense stoping “-ed” . it will by and large non be possible to place an isolation signifier. since such a morpheme does non happen in isolation. It is frequently sensible to presume that the isolation signifier of a morpheme provides its implicit in representation. For illustration. in some American English. works is pronounced [ pl?nt ] . while seting is [ ?pl?n?? ] . where the morpheme “plant-” appears in the signifier [ pl?n ] . Here the implicit in signifier can be assumed to be //pl?nt// . matching to the isolation signifier. since regulations can be set up to deduce the decreased signifier [ pl?n ] from this ( while it would be hard or impossible to put up regulations that would deduce the isolation signifier [ pl?nt ] from an underlying //pl?n// ) .

This is non ever the instance. nevertheless ; sometimes the isolation signifier itself is capable to neutralisation that does non use to some other cases of the morpheme. For illustration. the Gallic word petit ( “small” ) is pronounced in isolation without the concluding [ T ] sound. although in certain derived signifiers ( such as the feminine petite ) the [ T ] is heard. If the isolation signifier were adopted as the implicit in signifier. the information that there is a concluding “t” would be lost. and it would be difficult to explicate the visual aspect of the “t” in the inflected signifiers.

Rule telling

Morphophonological regulations are by and large considered to use in a set order. This means that the application of one regulation may sometimes either prevent or enable the application of another regulation provided the regulations are suitably ordered. If the ordination of two regulations is such that the application of the first regulation can hold the consequence of doing it possible to use the 2nd. so the regulations are said to be in feeding order. For illustration. if a linguistic communication has an apocope regulation ( A ) which deletes a concluding vowel. and a bunch decrease regulation ( CR ) that reduces a concluding consonant bunch. so the regulations are in feeding order if A precedes CR. since the application of A can enable application of CR ( for illustration. a word stoping /-rpa/ is non itself capable to CR. since the consonant bunch is non concluding. but if A is applied to it foremost. go forthing /-rp/ . so CR can use ) . Here govern A is said to feed regulation CR. If the regulations are ordered such as to avoid possible eating ( in this instance. if CR applies before A ) so they are said to be in counter-feeding order. On the other manus. if regulations are ordered such that the application of the first regulation can hold the consequence of forestalling application of the 2nd. so the regulations are said to be in shed blooding order.

For illustration. if a linguistic communication has an epenthesis regulation ( E ) that inserts a /w/ before certain vowels. and a vowel omission regulation ( D ) that deletes one of two back-to-back vowels. so the regulations are in shed blooding order if E precedes D. since the application of E can forestall application of D ( for illustration. a word incorporating /-iu-/ would be capable to D. but if E is applied to it foremost. go forthing /-iwu-/ . so D can no longer use ) . Here rule E is said to shed blood regulation D. If the regulations are ordered such as to avoid possible hemorrhage ( in this instance. if D applies before E ) so they are said to be in counter-bleeding order. The nomenclature of eating and hemorrhage is besides applied to other lingual regulations. such as those of historical sound alterations.

Morphophonology and writing system

The rule behind alphabetic composing systems is that the letters ( characters ) represent phonemes. However in many writing systems based on such systems the correspondences between characters and phonemes are non exact. and it is sometimes the instance that certain spellings better represent a word’s morphophonological construction instead than the strictly phonological. An illustration of this is that the English plural morpheme is written -s irrespective of whether it is pronounced as /s/ or /z/ ; we write cats and Canis familiariss. non dogz. The above illustration involves active morphology ( inflexion ) . and morphophonemic spellings are common in this context in many linguistic communications. Another type of spelling that can be described as morphophonemic is the sort that reflects the etymology of words. Such spellings are peculiarly common in English ; illustrations include scientific discipline /sa?/ vs. unconscious /?/ . bias /pr?/ vs. prequel /pri?/ . mark /sa?n/ signature /s??n/ . state /ne?/ vs. patriotism /n?/ . and particular /sp?/ vs. species /spi?/ .

Decisions harmonizing to this chapter

Morphophonology ( besides morphophonemics. morphonology ) is a subdivision of linguistics which surveies: 1. The phonological construction of morphemes.

2. The combinatory phonic alterations of morphemes which happen when they are combined. 3. The alternate series which serve a morphological map. Examples of a morphophonological options in English include these differentiations: Plurals “-es” and “-s” . as in “bus. buses” . vs. “bun. buns” . Plural of “-f” is “-ves” . as in “leaf. leaves” .

Different pronunciations for the past tense marker “-ed” .

English. holding lost its inflexion. does non hold much morphophonology. Inflected and agglutinating linguistic communications may hold highly complicated systems. e. g. . harmonic step. A morphophonemic regulation has the signifier of a phonological regulation. but is restricted to a peculiar morphological environment. Morphophonemic regulations are sensitive to their environment. unlike phonological regulations. Whenever morphological information is required to stipulate the environment for an allophonic regulation. the regulation is morphophonemic. The prefix /in-/ has the allomorphs [ Illinois ] and [ ir ] :

/in-/ + responsible irresponsible
/in-/ + logical illogical

Therefore. there must be a morphophonemic regulation which determines the allomorphs [ Illinois ] and [ ir ] of the prefix /in-/ . The intent of both phonemic and morphophonemic analysis is to bring forth simpler implicit in descriptions for what appear on the surface to be complicated forms. When morphemes are clustered or grouped in words than alterations in the phonological constructions of these words occur. Such alterations are called morphophonemic alterations. Assuming that we allow phonological regulations to use in sequence. we can rhythm through them utilizing the end product of the first regulation as the input to the 2nd. For many instances in the information set. at most one phonological regulation introduces a structural alteration. But in cog. tail. or comb we see a individual derivation that involves both regulations. Furthermore. such instances are non rare in English. Any word that begins with a voiceless halt and contains a vowel that precedes a sonant consonant will necessitate the application of both regulations. We use cog as an exemplifying illustration:

Allophone

Central to the construct of the phoneme is the thought that it may be pronounced in many different ways. In English ( BBC pronunciation ) we take it for granted that the R sounds in ‘ray’ and ‘tray’ are “the same sound” ( i. e. the same phoneme ) . but in world the two sounds are really different – the R in ‘ray’ is voiced and non-fricative. while the R sound in ‘tray’ is unvoiced and continuant. In phonemic written text we use the same symbol R for both. but we know that the allophones of R include the sonant nonfricative sound ? and the voiceless continuant one. In theory a phoneme can hold an infinite figure of allophones. but in pattern for descriptive intents we tend to concentrate on a little figure that occur most on a regular basis.

Phoneme

This is the cardinal unit of phonemics. which has been defined and used in many different ways. Virtually all theories of phonemics hold that spoken linguistic communication can be broken down into a twine of sound units ( phonemes ) . and that each linguistic communication has a little. comparatively fixed set of these phonemes. Most phonemes can be put into groups ; for illustration. in English we can place a group of plosive phonemes p. t. k. b. d a group of voiceless spirants f. ?. s. ?. h. and so on. An of import inquiry in phoneme theory is how the analyst can set up what the phonemes of a linguistic communication are. The most widely recognized position is that phonemes are incompatible and one must happen instances where the difference between two words is dependent on the difference between two phonemes: for illustration. we can turn out that the difference between ‘pin’ and ‘pan’ depends on the vowel and that I and are different phonemes.

Pairs of words that differ in merely one phoneme are known as minimum braces. We can set up the same fact about P and B by mentioning ‘pin’ and ‘bin’ . Of class. you can merely get down making commuting trials like this when you have a probationary list of possible phonemes to prove. so some basic phonic analysis must predate this phase. Other cardinal constructs used in phonemic analysis of this kind are complementary distribution. free fluctuation. typical characteristic and allophone. Different analyses of a linguistic communication are possible: in the instance of English some phonologists claim that there are merely six vowel phonemes. others that there are twenty or more ( it depends on whether you count diphthongs and long vowels as individual phonemes or as combinations of two phonemes ) . It used to be said that larning the pronunciation of a linguistic communication depended on larning the single phonemes of the linguistic communication. but this “building-block” position of pronunciation is looked on presents as an unhelpful simplism.

Phonologies

When the importance of the phoneme became widely accepted. in the 1930s and 40s. many efforts were made to develop scientific ways of set uping the phonemes of a linguistic communication and naming each phoneme’s allophones ; this was known as phonologies. Nowadays small importance is given to this type of analysis. and it is considered a minor subdivision of phonemics. except for the practical intent of inventing composing systems for antecedently unwritten linguistic communications.

Decision:

An allophone is a phonic discrepancy of a phoneme in a peculiar linguistic communication.
A phoneme is the smallest incompatible unit in the sound system of a linguistic communication.
A phone is one of many possible sounds in the linguistic communications of the universe.
Phonologies a subdivision of lingual analysis affecting the survey of phonemes. the construction of a linguistic communication in footings of phonemes.


General decision

Morphophonemicss. in linguistics. survey of the relationship between morphology and phonemics. Morphophonemics involves an probe of the phonological fluctuations within morphemes. normally taging different grammatical maps ; e. g. . the vowel alterations in “sleep” and “slept. ” “bind” and “bound. ” “vain” and “vanity. ” and the harmonic alternations in “knife” and “knives. ” “loaf” and “loaves. ”

The ways in which the morphemes of a linguistic communication are diversely represented by phonemic forms can be regarded as a sort of codification. This codification is the morphophonemic system of the linguistic communication. The morphophonemics of English is ne’er so simple. There are ever many cases of two or more morphemes represented by the same phonemic form. and there are ever instances in which a individual morpheme is represented now by one phonemic form. now by another. Therefore the morphophonemics of English is ne’er fiddling.

Literature:
1. Hayes. Bruce ( 2009 ) . “Morphophonemic Analysis” Introductory Phonology.
pp. 161–185. Blackwell. 2. R. Jakobson. C. G. Fant. and M. Halle. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Fundamentalss of Language ( Mouton and Company. The Hague. 1956 ) . 3. P. Roach ( 2004 ) . “English Phonetics and Phonology” . Cambridge. 4. World Wide Web. wikipedia. Ru

5. World Wide Web. sil. org
6. World Wide Web. msu. edu

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member
unlock