Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.mathworks.com!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!rickw
From: rickw@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik)
Subject: Re: Russian vowel  bI
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Message-ID: <D6LDwF.AB3@eskimo.com>
Sender: usenet@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
References: <3kcq7c$167k@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <1995Mar29.145311.11345@news.cs.indiana.edu> <D68CGy.8F3@eskimo.com> <1995Apr1.174759.4546@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 02:36:15 GMT
Lines: 107

In article <1995Apr1.174759.4546@news.cs.indiana.edu>,
Vladimir Menkov <vmenkov@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <D68CGy.8F3@eskimo.com>, Richard Wojcik <rickw@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>...
>>Alexis nor I am a native speaker of Russian.  You are.  So tell me, do you
>>find the articulation of an initial /y/ (vs. /i/) to be in any way
>>artificial or unnatural?  
>
>Somewhat less "natural" then articulation of cardinal vowels, and
>about as "artificial" as pronouncing an _isolated_ consonant (such as
>"k" or "z") or, say, a specific allophone of the phoneme /a/. 
>
>I.e. a textbook may tell you that /a/ is realized as a more backed
>vowel in front of /l/, or a more fronted in front of a palatalized
>consonant, or even more fronted between two palatalized vowels; after
>you realize what this means, it is not that difficult to pronounce
>the vowel in isolation; but this requires some conscious action,
>and so does articulation of an isolated or word-initial /y/.

Thanks for the comments, Vladimir.  Based on what you said, it could be
that you retain an allophonic perception of these sounds.  It is really
hard to tell, given the vagueness in our terminology and the lack of any
objective methodology.  

Here is something to ponder.  My guess would be that you have a rough time
pronouncing words with initial /y/ that follow a word ending in a
palatalized consonant--e.g. "Tovarishch Ybo" would be difficult to contrast
with "Tovarishch Ibo", and likewise "Gospodin Ybo" vs. "Gospodin Ibo".  But
you should find it easier to say "Ego familija--Ybo" vs. "Ego
familija--Ibo".  The final vowel in "familija" should allow you to preserve
the distinct pronunciation of the two vowels more easily.  It would be
interesting to experiment with Russians who are less influenced by
spelling--e.g. illiterate or blind subjects.

A similar phenomenon can occur in English.  (This example comes from a
lecture by David Stampe many years ago.)  Consider the two last names
"Vetter" and "Vedder", both of which would be pronounced with an
intervocalic flap by most American speakers.  So in many contexts the names
would be virtually indistinguishable.  Now suppose that you had to
introduce the two gentlemen to each other.  In American speakers, this
would cause something of a dilemma, and, more likely than not, you would
override the flapping process.  Quite unnatural for an American, but one of
the few cases where you would be likely to hear /t/ and /d/ contrasting in
that phonological context.  :-)  I suspect that "Gospodin Ybo" and
"Gospodin Ibo" would produce a similar dilemma for Russian speakers.  Am I
right?  You would need to override the natural affect of a hard consonant
on a following vowel.

>>...
>> Do the words beginning with /y/ sound like a kind of foreign
>>accent to you?  
>
>Definitely.

Hmm.  That doesn't necessarily help.  The names "Jacques" and "Zhenya"
sound foreign, although palatal "zh" is a natural phoneme of English.
We just don't have any traditional names beginning with those sounds.  Such
holes in phonemic patterns are not unusual, having more to do with
diachronic conditions rather than synchronic ones.

>>...
>>How natural is it to use the name of the letter in a sentence?
>
>Of course one can do this, and listeners probably will understand.  It
>even appeared once (for the comic effect, I think) in the title of a
>movie back in the 1970's.

Interesting.  But it must occur in speech a lot.  Every Russian has to
discuss the letter at one time or another.  When the letter was called
"yerih", the preceding consonant helped preserve the nature of the vowel.
Now it is potentially exposed to every consonant in the language.

>>...
>>  Prounounceability is a cardinal property of phonemes.  
>
>Yes; and the other property is that in some contexts it contrasts
>with other phonemes. 

Yes, but that contrast is not necessarily about physical sounds.  The words
"can't" and "cat" could arguably be said to form a minimal pair for manny
speakers of English.  Physically, "can't" may contain just a nasalized
bowel between two stops.  However, most adult speakers perceive the
nasalized vowel as an oral vowel followed by a nasal consonant.  The
contrast has to do with the sounds that we attach to the word in our minds,
not the superficial physical properties.  We drop the [n] when we try to
pronounce /kaent/, and we put it back in when we hear the nasal vowel.  I
suspect that French and Portuguese speakers hear English speakers saying
something quite different than what English speakers perceive themselves
to be saying.  That is what phonology is all about--the sounds that attach
to words in memory.

>...
>I am not a linguist, and don't want to argue against opinions which
>are results of significant study and research. I just find it curious
>how small the amount of evidence that is sufficient to make a sound a
>phoneme is; how strongly extra-linguistic factors may influence a
>sound's status as a phoneme; and how precarious, therefore, this
>status can be.

We haven't really solved anything here.  You really need a >lot< of
evidence to make a convincing case, preferably evidence from different
sources.  I do think that the question of the psychological reality of
phonemes is still one of the most interesting unresolved issues in
linguistic theory.
-- 
Rick Wojcik  rickw@eskimo.com     Seattle (for locals: Bellevue), WA
             http://www.eskimo.com/~rickw/
