PHONEMIC
ANALYSIS
General assumption:

Speech is composed of phonemes
Whenever a speech sound is produced, it
is possible to identify which phoneme the
sound in question belongs to.

Still, there are various problems!

AFFRICATES



Phonetically, they are composed of a plosive
+ fricative
But, it is possible to treat each affricate as a
single consonant phoneme (one-phoneme
analysis)
They can also be treated as composed of two
phonemes each, all of which are established
as independent phonemes in English (twophoneme analysis)
/t∫з:t∫/ & /dζλdζ/



In the first case they would be considered as
consisting of 3 phonemes, in the second
case of 5 phonemes
Which analysis is preferable?
In the 2-phoneme analysis (no separtion of
affricates) the total number of phonemes is
smaller and should be preferred as more
economical (the most efficient codes do not
use unnecessary symbols)
Still,
1-phoneme analysis is generally chosen by
phonologists as preferable
The arguments for:
1. Phonetic/allophonic argument: phonetic
quality of /t/ and /∫/ in /t∫/ and /dζ/ is
different from realisations of the sounds
mentioned found elsewhere, e.g. Different
quality of /t/ in “watch apes” vs. “what
shapes”
- still, this argument is weak

2.


Distribution
The proposed phonemes have
distributions similar to other consonants,
while other combinations of plosive+
fricative do not: /t∫/ and /dζ/ are found
initially, medially and finally while no
other combination has such a wide
distribution.
However, there are several consonants in
English accepted as phonemes in spite of
not being free to occur in all positions
(think of r, w, j, h, ζ, ŋ/
3.

-
-
Combining with other cons.
Free combining to form clusters would
support the 1-phoneme analysis
Initially they never occur in clusters
Finally, they can be followed by t,d and
preceded by l, n
Another combination: pre-final l,n can
occur with post-final t,d: e.g. squelched,
hindged
So, /t∫/ and /dζ/ do not combine freely
to form clusters, particularly not initially
Two-phoneme analysis

Initial /t∫/ and /dζ/ would have to be
interpreted as initial t,d + post-initial ∫,ζ
(besides l,r,w,j) which can combine with
t,d, only
4.

Intuition of the native speaker
Rather difficult to discover what native
speakers (if untrained in phonetics and
phonology) think or feel
Other problems:


Sounds transcribed as hw, hj
Velar nasal ŋ (should it be treated as a
separate phoneme or an allophone of the
phoneme n occurring before g)
The English vowel system

Treating all long vowels and diphthongs
as composed of two vowel phonemes:
e.g. long vowels can be seen as
containing short vowels twice,
triphthongs would be composed of a
basic vowel + one of ι,υ + ə (which
makes three phonemes altogether)
Another way of treating long vowels
and diphthongs

As composed of a vowel + a consonant (j,
w, h, r), e.g. /eı/ - /ej/, /әυ/ - /әw/,
/υә/ - /υh/, /i:/ - /ıj/. /a:/ - /ah/, /u:/ - /uw/
Thus, inequality of distribution is corrected
for consonants that do not otherwise occur
finally in a syllable.
More about long vowels

Remember NEUTRALISATION of /i:/ and
/ı/ to /i/; i.e. Cases where contrasts
between phonemes which exist in other
places disappear in certain contexts
Syllabic consonants

A possibility is to add new cons.
Phonemes to the existing list: syllabic
l,r,n as in bottle, button, Hungary
Clusters of s + plosive

P, t, k in syllable initial position are
aspirated, but when preceded by s they
become unaspirated and could perhaps
be transcribed as b, d, g because
contrast between these two groups of
consonants become neutralised in this
context
Schwa /ә/

-
/ә/ can be treated as an allophone of
several vowels, not only of /λ/ in
unstressed syllables, e.g.
Economy vs. economic
German vs. Germanic
DISTICTIVE FEATURES



Distinctive feature analysis is one of
many different ways of treating the
notion of phoneme.
The principle: phonemes are not
minimum, independent, indivisible units
but combinations of different features.
In a table showing presence or absence
of features in different consonants there
would be no phonemes with the same
combination of +s and –s; otherwise,
they could not be treated as different
phonemes