From non-uniqueness to the best solution in phonemic analysis: evidence from Chengdu Chinese

Duanmu Lingua Sinica (2017) 3:15 DOI 10.1186/s40655-017-0030-7 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access From non-uniqueness to the best solution in phonemic analysis: evidence from Chengdu Chinese San Duanmu Correspondence: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA Abstract The “non-uniqueness” theory assumes that there is no best solution in phonemic analysis; rather, competing solutions can co-exist, each having its own advantages (Chao, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 4: 363–398, 1934). The theory is based on the assumption that there is no common set of criteria to evaluate alternative solutions. I argue instead that such a set of criteria can be established and it is possible to find the best solution. The criteria include riming properties, rime structure, constraints on syllable gaps, phonemic economy, phonetics, syllable sizes, and feature theory. I illustrate the proposal with Chengdu. Four analyses are compared, the “CGV” segmentation, the “CV” segmentation, the “finest” segmentation, and the “CVX” segmentation, and CVX is shown to be the best. Keywords: Phonemic analysis, Non-uniqueness, Phone segmentation, Syllable gaps, Syllable structure, CVX analysis, Phonological neighborhood density, Chengdu Chinese 1 Introduction: phonemic analysis and the non-uniqueness theory Phonemic analysis is the foundation of phonology. According to Goldsmith (2011: 193), phonemic analysis has been the “greatest achievement” and “the beginning of all work” in phonology. Hockett (1960: 90) proposes that a defining property of human language is the use of two coding systems (the duality of patterning): (i) sentences are made of words (or morphemes) and (ii) words are made of phonemes (consonants and vowels). On this view, the first job in phonemic analysis is to segment words into phones, which are then grouped into phonemes. However, there is no agreement on the granularity of segmentation, and a common view is that it can vary from language to language. For example, Chao (1934: 371) suggests that aspirated stops and affricates, such as [th ts tsh], need not be segmented further, so that they are each a single sound, or we can segment them into two or three parts each, so that they contain seven sounds [t+h t+s t+s+h], where + indicates a segmentation boundary. Pike (1947a) offers a similar view. Given such options, it is hard to decide what the proper granularity of segmentation ought to be, even for well-known languages. For example, for Swadesh (1935: 149), English diphthongs are single phonemes, but for Trager and Bloch (1941: 234) and Pike (1947b: 151), each English diphthong is made of two phonemes. Similarly, for Wiese (1996), the German affricates [pf ts tʃ dʒ] are four phonemes and © The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Duanmu Lingua Sinica (2017) 3:15 no further segmentation is needed, but for Kohler (1999), they are two phonemes each and should be segmented as [p+f t+s t+ʃ d+ʒ]. Aware of such ambiguity, Chao (1934) argues that there is no best solution in phonemic analysis. Instead, phonemic analysis serves multiple functions, and each function may favor a different solution. In other words, there is no unique solution that serves all functions, hence the “non-uniqueness” theory. Chao’s proposal is illustrated by the two approaches in 1, each assuming a different granularity of segmentation. (Here and below, IPA symbols are placed in square brackets throughout). (1) Illustration of the non-uniqueness theory of phonemic analysis: competing solutions may co-exist a. “Fine” segmentation of [pa ta ka ha sa pha tha kha tsa tsha] Segmentation: [p+a t+a k+a h+a s+a p+h+a t+h+a k+h+a t+s+a t+s+h+a] Phonemes: [p t k h s a] Syllable: CV, CCV, CCCV Property: fewer phonemes; more syllable types/sizes b. “Coarse” segmentation of [pa ta ka ha sa pha tha kha tsa tsha] Segmentation: [p+a t+a k+a h+a s+a ph+a th+a kh+a ts+a tsh+a] Phonemes: [p t k h s ph th kh ts tsh] Syllable: CV Property: more phonemes; simpler syllable structure/size In general, finer segmentation yields fewer phonemes, but more complex syllable structure, whereas coarser segmentation yields more phonemes and simpler syllable structure. On the non-uniqueness view, each analysis has its own advantage, each has its own shortcoming, and there is no best solution. Ao (1992) proposes that the ambiguity in segmentation can be solved by reference to morphophonemic alternation. For example, the plural suffix in English creates the alternation between cat-cats; therefore, [ts] ought to be split into two sounds. In contrast, the onset [ts] in Chinese is not based on morphology, and so it should not be split. There are questions for Ao’s proposal though. First, in German, the onset [ts] is not based on morphology, and word-final [ts] is sometimes based on morphology and sometimes not. Should all [ts] be split in German? Should initial [ts] be kept intact and final [ts] be split? Or should final [ts] be split only if there is a morphological boundary in the middle? Similarly, in Beijing Chinese, the “diminutive” suffix creates 袋-袋儿 [tai]-[taɚ] 'bag' and so [ai] ought to be split to [a+i]. However, in Chengdu Chinese, the diminutive alternation creates 袋-袋儿 [tai]-[tɚ] 'bag' instead. Should [ai] be split in Chengdu? Clearly, morphophonemic alternation alone is insufficient to solve the non-uniqueness problem. Given the non-uniqueness theory, all sorts of phonemic solutions become legitimate, and people rarely attempt to find out whether some are demonstrably better than others. An unwanted result is that phonemic analysis seems rather arbitrary and not very useful. Thus, the dominant tradition in phonological descriptions of Chinese dialects still focuses on the syllable, with an inventory of onsets, rimes, and tones, but not an inventory of phonemes. Similarly, some Western scholars begin to doubt the methodology of phonemic analysis, or the concept of the phoneme itself. For example, Ladefoged (2001: 170) says that “consonants Page 2 of 23 Duanmu Lingua Sinica (2017) 3:15 Page 3 of 23 and vowels are largely figments of our good scientific imaginations”. Similarly, Fowler (2015: 40) says that the basic units of phonology are not phonemes but articulatory gestures. I shall argue that there is a fundamental flaw in the non-uniqueness theory, which is the assumption that there is no common set of criteria that all phonemic solutions can be measured against. I shall show that such a set of criteria can be established and it is possible to determine the best solution. To illustrate the proposal, I offer an in-depth analysis of Chengd (...truncated)