4
   

underlying phoneme

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:43 pm
@InfraBlue,
You miss the point that the orthography is a theoretical substrate for the phonology. We need an orthographic representation of the abstract phoneme which reflects the segmental syntax. Since the orthographic symbol "s" remains syntactically unchanged, that is why the symbol phoneme /s/ is utilized as "underlying" rather than symbol phoneme /z/.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 12:35 pm
@fresco,
I don't agree with your assertion that the orthography acts as a theoretical substrate for the phonology. Linguistics tries to avoid the orthography of a language. This is precisely why the International Phonetic Alphabet was developed.

But we'll indulge your contention. Orthographically speaking, if the plural were to be written as "z," it would remain syntactically--and also semantically--unchanged as well. So, what's to say "z" shouldn't be underlying?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 01:06 am
@InfraBlue,
(Sorry, earlier reply lost)

Only the history of "grammar" of the language decides that.

Phonology is to phonetics as economic theory is to accountancy. It is an abstraction. Some sort of orthographic representation is required to reflect the concept of sequential morphemes and traditional orthography is historically functional in that respect. The IPA has nothing to do with phonology. It is a phonetic convention.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 03:06 pm
@fresco,
Your assertion would limit phonology to languages that have an orthography. Many languages do not, or had not had an orthography, such as the Native American languages.

The history of grammar of the English language has shown that both /s/ and /z/ are allophones of the morpheme for plural. English orthography cannot decide which is the underlying phoneme because the plural morphemes /s/ and /z/ existed in the language long before it came to be written.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2012 04:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Your assertion would limit phonology to languages that have an orthography


No. It would not. Unless you understand that phonology is abstract and representation is often historical we are talking past each other.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2012 12:41 am
@fresco,
I realized since your first response when you did not address my question concerning phonology, but instead went off on a tangent about representation that we were talking past each other.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2012 07:57 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
... that we were talking past each other.


Then let's do try to focus, Gents, for this is very interesting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 07:00:17