Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!eskimo!rickw
From: rickw@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik)
Subject: Re: Russian vowel  bI
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Message-ID: <D6DAv9.n24@eskimo.com>
Sender: usenet@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
References: <1995Mar31.164904.9015@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> <3ljtaq$erc@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 17:49:56 GMT
Lines: 74

In article <3ljtaq$erc@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
David J. Birnbaum <djbpitt+@pitt.edu> wrote:
>>BTW, I don't believe that you are arguing against linking orthography to
>>phonology, which would be silly.
>
>No, I am not arguing that orthography and phonology are not related, only 
>that the relationship need not be one-to-one, because orthography that was
>developed to represent one phonological system may then be pressed into 
>service to represent a different phonological system, and may not be adjusted 
>significantly in the process.

In fact, we are probably agreed that the present cyrillic system is
superior to a purely one-to-one correspondence for Russian, which would
require more symbols to represent the palatalized/nonpalatalized split in
the consonantal system.  Orthographies can take advantage of symmetries in
the phonemic inventory, and the Slavs are lucky that the alphabet makers
got to them before thelost the jers.  :-)

>>The issue here is whether [i] and [y] can be said to represent
>>distinct phonemes in modern Russian, and I would be interested in your
>>opinion. 
>
>Actually, I don't have a strong opinion. There are two relevant sets of data:
>the names of the letters of the alphabet and non-Russian placenames. Both of 
>these are real, and the letters of the alphabet even constitute a true 
>minimal pair. But I think it would be silly not to acknowledge that both are
>somewhat peripheral to the Russian language. An argument about the existence 
>of an /y/ phoneme then becomes an argument about a priori definitions of 
>"phoneme" more than about the Russian sound system.

An argument about the status of any phoneme can become an argument about
definitions of "phoneme".  My view is that we can't know very much about
the Russian sound system without having a sound theory of phonology.  I
would also extend your sets of data considerably.  You cannot study the
living phonology of a language if you just limit yourself to common nouns
of native origin.  To place names, you should add all proper nouns
(including personal names), acronyms, loan words, mispronunciations of
foreign languages, and so forth.  There is an extremely rich amount of data
upon which to base phonemic analyses, but its usefulness depends on what
assumptions you are willing to make about the nature of phonemes.  I don't
think that we lack for data, just a willingness to use it.

>I don't think that we can reach agreement on the phonemic status of [y] (/y/) 
>unless we first agree on what constitutes relevant evidence. And I am not 
>strongly persuaded either to include or to exclude the two sets of data noted 
>above. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to explore further in this forum how we 
>determine whether to include or exclude such data from our phonemic 
>analysis of Russian.

Fair enough.  You have suggested that it might be necessary to treat proper
nouns (I am extrapolating from "place names") differently from common nouns
when doing phonemic analysis.  On what basis?  It is precisely this set of
data that would tend to challenge Russian pronunciation the most, since the
speaker is confronted with novel sounds and combinations of phonemes.
Since phonology is all about pronunciation, you need that data to see what
Russians find pronounceable and what they do not.  By excluding it, you cut
yourself off from the very information that you need to decide the issue.

For the record, let me elaborate a little further on what I think a phoneme
is.  Basically, it is a speech sound that speakers of a language can use to
encode morphemes (or lexemes) in memory.  Its basic properties follow from
this functional definition.  It is a distinctive sound, because it must
serve as a key for retrieving words from memory.  It must be perceivably
distinct from other sounds, because it must be heard.  It must be
pronounceable, because it must be spoken.  (Baudouin referred to the twin
properties of perceivability and pronounceability as the "janus-like"
nature of phonemes.)  To say that Russians have /y/ and /i/ phonemes is to
say that the can store and retrieve distinct words with those sounds in
memory.  That is why you need to look at Russian names, acronyms, foreign
mispronunciations, etc.  Traditional common nouns do not provide Russians
with an opportunity to use these two sounds as distinct phonemes.
-- 
Rick Wojcik  rickw@eskimo.com     Seattle (for locals: Bellevue), WA
             http://www.eskimo.com/~rickw/
