Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9p.=20:=20[s]=20Re:=20Do=20phonemes=20=3D=20so?= From: Branka ZEI <Branka.Zei(at)HCUGE.CH> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:47:11 +0200This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__PartEDCE070F.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Richard H. wrote: > I keep seeing phonemes being referred to as if they are real sounds. > However I recollect seeing a discussion in a book which identified phonem= es as being > abstract definitions/notations and NOT representations of actual sounds. >Ithink it was invented in order to detach phonology from phonetics. >For me this separation always seemed artificial. =20 The present discussion shows that the most remarkable theoretical breakthr= oughs in linguistics and phonology ( I am referring to F. de Saussure's con= ceptualisation of language as well as the Prague School - and Trubetzkoy) h= ave unfortunately fallen onto oblivion. They have not been proven wrong! In a nutshel: a phoneme is one the possible ways of knowing speech sounds (= sounds produced by human speech organs). Distinguishing phonemes from each= other is not a NECESSARY consequence of acoustical features of speech soun= ds. Only a naive empiricist would believe that the way in which a speaker = perceives the speech sounds is determined entirely and only by the acoustic= features of the sounds themselves. If this were true the Japanese would he= ar the difference between /l/ and /r/ and the English speakers would hear t= he difference between /u/ in French "roue" and /y/ in French "rue". The con= tribution of Trubetzkoy was essential to the clarification of the distincti= on between phonology and phonetics: He argued that phonology studies the f= orm (contrast, systemic patterning) and phonetics studies the substance (a= coustics, articulation). Perception, as a cogntive act, implies identifica= tion, categorisation and differentiation. The result is a cognitive constru= ct. A phoneme is a cognitive construct. Operating with phonemes involves a= bstraction and retension of only those features that are relevant for disti= nguishing meanings to the exclusion of many other that are present but not = relevant in a given language. Like any cognitive construct it cannot be sa= id to EXIST in measurable terms. Similarly when you operate with a concept = of "animal" it is irrelevant whether it has fur or feathers etc. Obviuously= a phone to be recognised as a phoneme must present certain acoustic featu= res that the listener will choose and recognise as part of the phonological= system he is operating with. This is why speech synthesis can work. =20 I agree with Laszlo Toth when he says:=20 >The problem is that the word "recognition" inherently >contains a mapping of a data item to an abstract class. So it does not >deal with any of the sets but with the mapping between them. =20 Best to all! =20 Branka Zei Pollermann ________________________________________ Branka Zei Pollermann PhD Psychologue Psychiatrie de Liaison H=F4pitaux Universitaires de Gen=E8ve 51 Bvd. De la Cluse, 1205 Gen=E8ve t=E9l. : 0041 22 382 48 81 Portable : 0041 79 203 92 17 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ********************************************************************** --=__PartEDCE070F.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style=3D"MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 12pt Tahoma"> <DIV><BR>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Richard H. wrote:<BR><BR>> I keep seeing ph= onemes being referred to as if they are real sounds.<BR>> However I reco= llect seeing a discussion in a book which identified phonemes as being<BR>&= gt; abstract definitions/notations and NOT representations of actual sounds= .<BR>>Ithink it was invented in order to detach phonology from phonetics= .</DIV> <DIV>>For me this separation always seemed artificial.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The present discussion shows that the most remarkable theoretica= l breakthroughs in linguistics and phonology ( I am referring to F. de Saus= sure's conceptualisation of language as well as the Prague School -&nb= sp;and Trubetzkoy) have unfortunately fallen onto oblivion. They have not b= een proven wrong!</DIV> <DIV>In a nutshel: a phoneme is one the possible ways o= f knowing speech sounds (sounds produced by human speech organs). Dist= inguishing phonemes from each other is not a <STRONG>NECESSARY</= STRONG> consequence of acoustical features of speech sounds. Onl= y a naive empiricist would believe that the way in which a speaker perceive= s the speech sounds is determined entirely and only by the acoustic feature= s of the sounds themselves. If this were true the Japanese would hear = the difference between /l/ and /r/ and the English speakers would hear the = difference between /u/ in French "roue" and /y/ in French "rue". The contri= bution of Trubetzkoy was essential to the clarification of the distinction = between phonology and phonetics:=20 <DIV>He argued that phonology studies the form (contrast, system= ic patterning) and phonetics studies the substance (acoustics, articu= lation). Perception, as a cogntive act, implies identification, = categorisation and differentiation. The result is a cognitive construct.&nb= sp; A phoneme is a cognitive construct. Operating with phonemes involves ab= straction and retension of only those features that are relevant for distin= guishing meanings to the exclusion of many other that are present but not r= elevant in a given language. Like any cognitive construct it cannot&n= bsp;be said to EXIST in measurable terms. Similarly when you operate w= ith a concept of "animal" it is irrelevant whether it has fur or feath= ers etc. Obviuously a phone to be recognised as a phoneme must presen= t certain acoustic features that the listener will choose and recognise as&= nbsp;part of the phonological system he is operating with. This is&nbs= p;why speech synthesis can work.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with Laszlo Toth when he says: <BR><BR>>The problem is that= the word "recognition" inherently<BR>>contains a mapping of a data item= to an abstract class. So it does not<BR>>deal with any of the sets but = with the mapping between them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best to all!<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>Branka Zei Pollermann<BR>________________________________________<= BR> Branka Zei Pollermann PhD<BR>Psychologue<BR>Psychiatrie de Liaison= <BR>H=F4pitaux Universitaires de Gen=E8ve<BR>51 Bvd. De la Cluse, 1205 Gen= =E8ve<BR>t=E9l. : 0041 22 382 48 81<BR>Portable : 0041 79 203 92 17<BR></DI= V><FONT SIZE=3D3><BR> <BR> **********************************************************************<BR> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and<BR> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they<BR> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify<BR> the system manager.<BR> <BR> **********************************************************************<BR> </FONT> </BODY></HTML> --=__PartEDCE070F.0__=--