Bonded Phonemes or How Phonemic are the Phonemes?

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 08 October 2014, At: 20:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Quantitative LinguisticsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/njql20

Bonded Phonemes or HowPhonemic are the Phonemes?Göran KjellmerPublished online: 09 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Göran Kjellmer (2001) Bonded Phonemes or How Phonemic are thePhonemes?, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8:3, 203-212

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/jqul.8.3.203.4099

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/njql20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/jqul.8.3.203.4099

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Bonded Phonemes or How Phonemic are the Phonemes?*

GoÈran KjellmerGoÈteborg University, Sweden

ABSTRACT

It is a well-known fact that the members of a set of traditional phonemes, which by de®nitionserve to distinguish the two members of a minimal pair (such as aw/i: in bite/beat), mayoccasionally be used interchangeably without any semantic consequences (as aw/i: in either).Phonemes that can alternate in this way are arguably more closely related to each other than toother phonemes. The present paper is an attempt to chart such relations in British English in aquantitative fashion in order to see how systematic they are and to draw some theoretical andpractical conclusions from the results.

The ®nal sound of the English noun spouse and the English verb grease can beeither voiced or voiceless, according to a fairly recent pronouncing dictionary(Wells, 1990). This may at ®rst seem mildly surprising as s and z aretraditionally regarded as two different English phonemes and as there is nosemantic difference between the two types of pronunciation. In conventionalphoneme theory, two sounds that can distinguish between two different wordson their own belong to different phonemes, like s and z, which distinguishbetween e.g. seal and zeal, whereas two sounds that cannot do so belong to thesame phoneme and are called allophones.1 Therefore s and z are differentphonemes in English, as si:l and zi:l mean different things, while, for instance,clear l and dark l belong to the same phoneme as allophones, since the use ofone instead of the other in, e.g., milk or lick does not bring about a differencein meaning. However, it happens, as we just saw, that the same word with the

*Address correspondence to: GoÈran Kjellmer, GoÈteborg University, English Department, Box200, SE 40530 GoÈteborg, Sweden.1Jones, 1950, §§21ff.; Harms, 1968, p. 2; Hyman, 1975, p.7f.: `Distinctive sound units, that is,those which are capable of distinguishing words of different meanings, are termed phonemes,whereas redundant sounds, that is, those which are predictable from a given environment, aretermed contextual variants or allophones'.

Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 0929-6174/01/0803-203$16.002001, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 203±212 # Swets & Zeitlinger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

same meaning can alternate between two different phonemes in the sameplace. The Prague School of Linguistics used the term `neutralisation' for arelated situation, a term that will be avoided here because of the varying usesthat word has been put to in different types of linguistics. We will instead usethe term `bonding', which will refer to the phenomenon that one phoneme isso closely related, `bonded', to another that it sometimes or frequently doesduty for this second phoneme. In our spouse and grease, s can thus stand in forz, and vice versa. No other phoneme can replace s or z in those words withoutchanging their meaning. This would suggest that either one of the twophonemes s and z is closer to the other than to other phonemes. The morefrequent such bonding between a pair of phonemes is, the more closely theirinterrelation will resemble that of the allophonic members of one phoneme; inother words, the more often bonding occurs, the less distinctive, or `phonemic',the phoneme will be with respect to its partner. This view of the phonemetherefore suggests a gradient where some of the items of the phonologicalsystem are more distinctive or independent and others are less so. It wouldthen be interesting to see to what extent there are systematic bonds in thephonological system, in other words how much phonemes vary with regard totheir `phonemic status'. It might even be possible to rank phonemes withregard to their `phonemicity'.

In order to look into these matters, I searched the Longman Pronunciation

Dictionary (Wells, 1990) for instances of variant pronunciations in the (RP)Received Pronunciation variety of British English. The variants recorded byWells were accepted as such irrespective of why or where they could havearisen, whether or not they were the result of `lexical' or possibly `postlexical'processes, etc. (Booij & Rubach, 1992). (For certain reservations, see below.)It is obvious that this procedure could only take account of such pronunciationvariants as were possible for words when seen in isolation and not for instanceof transition phenomena like z///�� for <s> in is she. Nor did I distinguishbetween variations occurring in different positions in the words, although thisfactor is certainly relevant for the rise of certain types of variants, such as ±///®.in spinach. The fact that variation could take place at all between those twophonemes was considered signi®cant in itself. It soon became apparent thatsome other limitations and restrictions had to be imposed. The following typesof words were not included:

� Words where the variation affects unstressed vowels. Unstressed vowelsregularly show variation throughout the repertoire of the English lexicon,

204 GOÈ RAN KJELLMER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and as such variation does not bring about a change in meaning, except veryrarely, it is not on a par with that in stressed syllables. For instance, Wellsgives the pronunciation of equilibration as: 1i+kwwlaw(brew��bn, ek-, -wc-, lw(-;Bkwwlw-, w-,-c(-| | w1kwwlc-.

� `Un-English' words. This is a tricky and somewhat indeterminate category.On the one hand, we do not want to include in this little investigation wordsthat are so clearly foreign that one could expect to ®nd them written initalics or with inverted commas round them. In such cases some kind ofimitation of the foreign pronunciation is often attempted, which results invariation that is hardly relevant to the English phonological system. Wordsof this type are concierge, congeÂ, ctenoid. On the other hand, the Englishlexicon is very largely made up of loanwords, from Old English timesonwards, so the fact that a word is a loanword should not in itself disqualifyit from inclusion.2 Some kind of balance evidently has to be struck, anoperation where an element of subjective judgment is inevitable. In the end,those foreign words were excluded which could not be assumed to be at allfrequent or familiar to the general public. This principle leaves among thoseincluded fairly frequent words with one `continental' and one `English'pronunciation variant, e.g., data, where both ew and Y+ occur with nodifference in meaning.

� Proper nouns (place and personal). As in the previous category, thevariation found in the pronunciation of proper nouns, often characterised byapparent capriciousness, is hardly relevant to the English phonologicalsystem. As an example of such variation, consider Congresbury (kZEEEz-/ku:mz-).

� Words related by compounding or derivation to a word already noted. Thus,croft is included but not crofting, crofts, and crofter; enthuse is included butnot enthusiasm, enthusiast, and enthusiastic; supra is included but notsuprarenal, supraglottal, supralapsarian, supranational and suprasegmen-tal. The compounds and derivatives do not contribute any new informationrelevant to the question of bonding.

� Words where the variant pronunciation is given as non-RP or incorrect. Asthis study is intended as an investigation of the phonological system of onevariant of English, the RP variety, items included by Wells but marked byhim as non-RP or incorrect have been excluded. This concerns, e.g., the

ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ2It could even be debated whether some native words, infrequent words like geat orwitenagemot that occasionally occur in modern English, should be included.

BONDED PHONEMES OR HOW PHONEMIC ARE THE PHONEMES? 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

following words: enmity (the variant 'emncti is not included), evolve (thevariant w0vc�lv is not included), gather (the variant 0gY+�c is not included),height (the variant hawt� is not included) and loath (the variant lc�� is notincluded).

� Words where variation is due to assimilation of nasals. This type ofvariation is allophonic and arguably more predictable than in other kinds ofassimilatory variation; cf. concrete (n/EEE), downgrade (n/EEE), pinprick (n/m).

� Words where variation affects several adjacent phonemes. The object of thispaper is to ®nd examples of bonding of individual phonemes. Words whereseveral adjacent phonemes show variation would not be appropriate in thiscontext. Examples are palmate (ñl/Y+) and sough (a�/�f), and also wordslike white (w/wh). Note that dj and tj are regarded as affricates here, on apar with ± and ®, and that ju: is seen as a rising diphthong.

� Words with variant stress. This is a variation of the preceding restriction.Stress can be seen as a suprasegmental phoneme, capable of semanticallydistinguishing words on its own. Cf. 'export (noun): ex'port (verb).Variation in a segmental phoneme resulting from, or cooccurring with, achange of stress is therefore considered irrelevant in this context. Anexample is variation in the ®rst syllable of sequestrate: (0si:-/sw0-) and in thesecond syllable of doctrinal (dZk0trawnbl/0dZktrwnbl). Exclusively supra-segmental variation (as in 'export: ex'port) has not been considered here.

Finally, with such a vast material as this (a rough estimate suggests there aremore than 60,000 entries), where the search had to be done manually, it ispossible and even probable that I have inadvertently missed some relevantcases. However, it is also probable that such oversights are randomly distributedover the different categories and so will not affect the conclusions materially.

As a result of the above restrictions, the number of words with phonologicalvariation is drastically reduced, but nevertheless 923 cases of bonding or`bonded phonemes' were found, which should give a reasonably accuratepicture, from the present point of view, of interrelations between the differentphonemes of the Received Pronunciation of British English.

All the words where variation is recorded in Wells (1990) and which werenot excluded under the limitation principles were classi®ed according to thephonemes involved in the variation. The outcome of this operation can be seenin Table 1. For each pair of phonemes are given ®rst the frequency of bondingin Wells, then an example of bonding and ®nally a minimal pair, whereconsequently bonding has not taken place.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. Frequency of Bonded Phoneme Pairs.

Bonded n pair1. s/z 85 desist, cf. seal: zeal2. ju:/u: 83 allude, cf. use: ooze3. tj/± 68 factual, cf. Tue: chew4. Y:/ñ 64 alas, cf. heart: hat5. ]:/Z 63 broth, cf. cord: cod6. b�/Z 58 extol, cf. code: cod7. i:/e 56 zebra, cf. lead: lead8. �c/]: 39 boor, cf. dour: door9. ew/ñ 33 patriot, cf. pasty: pasty10. aw/w 32 privacy, cf. ®le: ®ll11. u:/� 31 room, cf. fool: full12. ew/Y: 26 data, cf. make: mark13. dj/® 25 during, cf. dew: Jew14. Z/� 21 constable, cf. cot: cut15. s/� 19 issue, cf. sin: shin16. �/� 14 bequeath, cf. teeth: teethe17. aw/i: 14 either, cf. bite: beat18. �/� 14 Muslim, cf. put: putt19. ew/i: 13 inveigle, cf. say: see20. i:/w 12 prestigious, cf. seat: sit21. ®/¥ 12 siege, cf. ledger: leisure22. ±/� 10 picture, cf. witch: wish23. e/wc 9 stereo, cf. bed: beard24. Z/ñ 9 falcon, cf. follow: fallow25. �/¥ 8 decision, cf. dilution: delusion26. g/® 6 pedagogic, cf. gill: gill27. ]:/ñ 6 alto, cf. sought: sat28. ec/ñ 5 scarify, cf. laird: lad29. ec/Y: 5 garish, cf. laird: lard30. ]:/a� 5 sauna, cf. dawn: down31. f/p 4 diphthong, cf. differ: dipper32. d/t 4 midst, cf. mid: mitt33. c�/a� 4 rowan, cf. row: row34. wc/ec 4 really, cf. tear: tear35. Y:/]: 4 qualm, cf. cart: caught36. z/¥ 3 osier, cf. bays: beige37. ±/® 3 spinach, cf. batch: badge38. f/v 3 nephew, cf. ®ne: vine39. ew/aw 3 eyot, cf. lay: lie40. e/ew 3 again, cf. bet: bate41. c�/u: 3 proven, cf. toe: too42. ñ/� 2 mantra, cf. cat: cut43. �/u: 2 luxe, cf. come: coomb44. �/e 2 threepence, cf. hull: hell


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

A general observation that can be made is that in practically no pair are thephonemes that make it up randomly linked. In the great majority of cases, aphoneme involved in bonding is paired with one out of a small group whoseexistence can be predicted on historical grounds. To take an example: Y+ isbonded with ñ as in chaff and askance, with ew as in amen and data, with eb asin garish and Aryan, with ]+ as in alto and quark, and with a�c as in our. All ofthose linkings are predictable from a historical point of view, and an analogousargument can be put forward for most, if not all, of the others. At the sametime, the table makes it clear that there is a continuum in the bonding ofdifferent phonemes, so that some pairs, like Y:/ñ, are strongly bonded (64cases), whereas others, at the other end of the scale, show weak or very weakbonding, like Y:/a�c with only one case (our). To put it differently, theboundaries between different phonemes vary in strength: strong bondingimplies weak boundaries, weak bonding implies strong boundaries. Table 1lists the boundaries from weak to strong. It should perhaps be pointed out thatin addition there are pairs of phonemes, such as t/p, which have no bonding atall. Those pairs, where consequently the inter-phoneme boundary is strong,

Table 1. (continued)

45. v/w 2 wildebeest, cf. vine: wine46. t/± 2 poteen, cf. catty: catchy47. k/± 2 conch, cf. bunk: bunch48. k/s 2 Celt, cf. cap: sap49. ju:/� 2 culinary, cf. newt: nut50. ec/ew 2 mayoral, cf. hare: hay51. ec/f: 2 concerto, cf. spare: spur52. a�/u: 2 route, cf. fowl: fool53. f+/�c 2 bourbon, cf. burr: boor54. f+/]: 2 courteous, cf. fur: fore55. w/wc 2 zero, cf. bid: beard56. ]:/c� 1 baud, cf. door: doe57. �/�c 1 guru, cf. pulley: poorly58. ñ/e 1 catsup, cf. sat: set59. �/t 1 potheen, cf. thin: tin60. t/� 1 otiose, cf. to: shoe61. k/� 1 machinate, cf. cut: shut62. ec/aw 1 eyrie, cf. bare: buy63. ewc/ec 1 faerie, cf. prayer (concr.): prayer (abstr.)64. a�c/Y: 1 our, cf. bower: bar65. c�/� 1 covert, cf. coat: cut66. wc/aw 1 eyrie, cf. beer: buy67. ]:/c�c 1 Boer, cf. law: lower


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

are naturally not included here. Figure 1, that adheres to the same numberingof the phoneme pairs as given in Table 1, presents a con®guration familiar inlinguistic contexts, that shows a rapid drop in frequency from the ®rst fewpairs down to a level of slower and slower decrease until the curve ispractically horizontal. Although the problem of bonding is of considerableinterest in theory, it is therefore serious, in numerical terms, in only arelatively small part of the phonological ®eld.

It is obvious that the degree of bonding has communicative consequences.The speaker who is not aware of, or who consistently neglects, the phonemicdistinction between, say, c� and � is more likely to produce misunderstand-ings than the one who similarly neglects the phonemic distinction between c�and Z. The degree of phoneme bonding is, therefore, of no small interest insecond- and foreign-language learning contexts.

A slightly different aspect of the question of phonemic bonding is that ofstability. Depending on the rate at which a phoneme takes part in bonding wecan get a measure of its stability in the phonological system: the more often itcan be replaced by another phoneme, the less stable it is. This is then a more

Fig. 1. Frequency of bonded phoneme pairs.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 2. Frequency of Bonded Phonemes.

Phoneme n

1. Z 1522. ]: 1213. u: 1214. ñ 1205. s 1066. Y: 1007. i: 958. z 889. ± 8510. ju: 8511. ew 8012. e 7113. tj 6814. c� 6715. aw 5116. w 4617. ® 4618. � 4619. � 4420. �c 4221. � 3922. dj 2523. ¥ 2324. ec 2025. wc 1626. � 1527. � 1428. a� 1229. t 830. f 731. g 632. f+ 633. v 534. k 535. p 436. d 437. w 238. ewc 139. a�c 1

Total 1847


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

general approach than the one discussed above, where we focussed onindividual phonemic relations. Table 2 presents a list in order of frequencyof the 39 phonemes that were found to participate in bonding in our study.

The table shows one striking fact: vowels (including diphthongs andtriphthongs) take part in bonding much more frequently than consonants.There is some predominance of vowels in the list (21 vowels as against 18consonants), but what is more important is that while the consonants answerfor 550 cases of bonding, the vowels represent 1296, more than twice asmany. In other words, vowels are much less stable components of the phono-logical system than consonants are. This lack of stability is also apparent fromFigure 2, where again the ®gures at the bottom refer to the numbering in thecorresponding table, Table 2. Generally speaking, the vowels are crowdedtowards the left side of the diagram and the consonants towards the right. It isthus clear that vowels are less stable than consonants.

This need not come as a surprise if once again we apply a historical outlook.While the English consonant system has remained fairly constant from OldEnglish times up to the present day, the vowel system has changed beyond

Fig. 2. Frequency of bonded phonemes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

recognition during that period. It is interesting to note that this lack of stability,so characteristic of the present-day vowel system of English, can make usexpect sound changes in English in the not too distant future, changes that willconsequently affect the vowels more than the consonants.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am very grateful to Mats MobaÈrg, who read an earlier version of this paperand made a number of valuable comments.

REFERENCES

Booij, G., & Rubach, J. (1992). Lexical phonology. In W. Bright (Ed.), 2, 327±330.Bright, W. (Ed.) (1992). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Harms, R.T. (1968). Introduction to Phonological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hyman, L.M. (1975). Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Jones, D. (1950). The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use. Cambridge: Heffer.Wells, J.C. (1990). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. London: Longman.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Bonded Phonemes or How Phonemic are the Phonemes?