The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
Ask-A-Linguist Message Details
|Subject:||small difference between phonemes|
|Question:||I wonder whether any fellow panelist could help me track down an article, 40-odd years old now, which refuted the standard idea that small psychological differences between different phonemes don't exist by showing that two phonemes in the dialect of a village in Essex (England) were only marginally distinct for the speakers. Although the data were from England, the article was by Americans – I thought one might have been Labov, another Uriel Weinreich, and there was a third, but searching on this basis hasn't found me the item. Does anyone out there have a clue what I'm thinking of, please? Geoff Sampson|
|Reply:||Hi, Geoff, 40 years ago might be a bit early for what I'm thinking of, but you might be referring to the 'supposed' fusion in the history of English between 'oy' & 'I' (join/jine) and their later separation into almost the original situation. (Geoff Nunberg wrote an article on this, if memory serves, I think a bit more recently.) I think it was some (Northern Irish?) British linguist who studied about then some collapsing phenomenon such as you describe in some British variety, in which he (?they) did acoustic studies showing (btw, Labov et somebody(s) did the same type of studies for some American variety with similar results) that the targets, while quite close in acoustic space, were consistently maintained separate in the different instantiations of the two different (vowel) phonemes. As you said, though, speakers of the variety in question could not (at least not always) reliably distinguish between the two phonemes, although acoustic analysis could. This sort of situation, if it happened as well in the (?Elizabethan) oy/I collapse, with later re- emergence of 'oy', could, as Nunberg postulated, have provided a basis for the apparently-phonemically-impossible re-emergence of 'oy'. Sorry for the paucity of real references, but I haven't got time to look all this up on Google right now. In a couple of days I can try to find more info if you're still in the dark. Jim James L. Fidelholtz Graduate Program in Language Sciences Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades Benem'erita Universidad Aut'onoma de Puebla, M'EXICO|
|Reply From:||James L Fidelholtz click here to access email|