[From Rick Marken (931008.1400)]
Bruce Nevin (Fri 93108 14:54:04 EDT) --
I have tried repeatedly over a couple of years to work out the relation
between phonemes and the actual sounds that people pronounce.
A noble (and Nobel) goal.
This relation is not simple and direct.
You're telling me!
It cannot be accounted for by saying
that the appearance of phonemic contrast is a byproduct of controlling a
perception of a particular phonetic output called (for example) the
phoneme p or the phoneme b.
Neither Bill nor I was saying that "the relation between phonemes and
the actual sounds that people pronounce" is a byproduct of controlling
phonetic perceptions. We are saying that "the appearance of phonemic
contrast" is a byproduct of controlling phonemic perceptions.
Your first sentence above suggests that you believe (as I do) that
there are sounds out there (s1,s2, .. sn) that map into perceptions
called phonemes (p1,p2...pn). Your first sentence suggests that
you are trying to figure out the relationship between (s1,s2, .. sn)
and (p1,p2...pn); this mapping (as you note) is not simple and
direct (for example s1 and s2 may map to p3 while s2 maps to p1, etc.
This mapping would be nice to have -- but it has little to do with
the question of whether the appearance of phonemic contrast is a
byproduct of controlling phonemic perceptions. A person controls
phomemic perceptions by setting a reference for the desired phomeme.
If the reference specfies the perception of phoneme p1, phoneme p1
is produced (with whatever sound maps to p1); if the reference is
set to p2 we get phoneme p2 (again, via the appropriate sound). By
controlling for phoneme p1, the speaker is implicitly producing a
result that is NOT any of the other phonemes -- ie. it contrasts
with them. That's all we mean when we say "phonemic contrast is
a byproduct of controlling phonemic perceptions.
But in order to make this case [that the appearance of phonemic
contrast IS NOT a byproduct of controlling a perception of a
particular phonetic output], I have to talk about speech sounds
as perceived below the level of phonemic category perceptions.
The difficulty is that, without phonetic training, one is not aware
of those perceptions, one is aware only of the category.
The consonant after the s in "spin" is a p phoneme of course,
identical to the p in pin and different from the b in bin.
So when I control p1, I am not implicitly contrasting p1 with
all other phonemes? And this is because there are speech sounds
perceived below the phonemic category perceptions? I need some help
with this paragraph.
The aim of
the pair test is to determine what S's category perceptions are--which
phonetic productions (actually, fractions of the phonetic productions of
words) are the same, and which are different phonemic categories. But my
aim in our conversations on this net has been different from T's aim in
the pair test. My aim here has been to figure out a PCT account of
language, and specifically of phonology.
This is a little odd. The pair test tests for controlled variables;
PCT explains how variables are controlled. Once you find out what
variables a person is controlling, then you can use PCT to explain
how he does it. T's aim in the pair test is to discover what "category"
perceptions are controlled; you might want to discover what other
variables are controlled IN ORDER TO control those "category" variables
but this would require doing other versions of the test. It seems like
your aim should be to figure out what language is (ie. what variables
are controlled in producing the behavior we call "language") before
looking for a PCT account of it. If you already know what variables are
controlled when people talk (ie. if linguists have been carrying on a
PCT research program under our noses for years without us knowing about
it) then, please, tell us about it.
To talk about this, I needed to
be able to talk about phonemic category perceptions (or, equivalently,
perceptions of phonemic contrast). But many of my readers identified
their category perceptions so closely with the sounds they produced that
they thought there were no category perceptions--no contrast
perceptions--at all.
So contrast perceptions are category perceptions, the perceptions
determined by the pair test? So the pair test is testing for the
perception of contrast? So I perceive contrast when I hear pin and
then bin and can tell that they are different? I sure hope this
definition of a contrast perception doesn't change again. Is this
what you mean by a contrast perception??
Assuming that it is, what happens when I hear pin and write down
the word "pin" to show that that's what I heard. When I hear pin
ALL BY ITSELF (or when I say pin all by itself) AM I HEARING A
CONTRAST between pin and bin? AM I HEARING A CONTRAST at all?
These concerns become relevant when you are interested in developing a
PCT account of what people do when they talk to each other and understand
what one another is saying. You and Bill have made pronouncements about
what such an account ought to be like without knowing these facts about
what perceptions are being controlled.
How can you know what perceptions are controlled without testing it.
I still don't believe there is ANY evidence that "contrasts" are
controlled (except in the pair test where the person is asked
"did the second sound contrast with the first?").
This has been a source of some considerable frustration to me.
Me too, as you can tell.
Hopefully (I say) things will be better now that we have got past
this hump.
Hopefully. It might also help if you read Bill's last post on the
PCT model of perception. Then maybe you could draw a little
diagram of a perceptual function that produces a "contrast" as
a perceptual output.
Best
Rick