The different by examining a few interesting question that

The analysis on the Greenlandic
Eskimo dialect

1.     
i) The Place and manner of articulation for the
four sounds are as follows:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Uvular

Fricative

/?/ ?r?

Stop

/q/ ?q?

Trill

/R/

Trill

/RR/

 

ii) All of these sounds
represented are part of the same natural class because they are all uvular.

2.     
i) When looking at the data provided on
Greenlandic Eskimo dialect there doesn’t appear to be any minimal pairs,
therefore in regards to that it is not contrastive that leads me to conclude
that it’s in complimentary distribution.

ii) The decision I made basing on the
analysis of the data provided it is clear that the status of the aforementioned
two sounds are non-phonemic, being a bit tricky to analyse the real reason
minimal pairs indicate that 2 sounds are meaningfully different is because they
show that there’s no way to always consistently predict the distribution of the
two sounds, that’s why it’s in complimentary distribution for example: (In
Inuktitut, ani ~ ini illustrate

That you can’t foresee where a vs. i
occur.)

 

Therefore approaching at it from the other
direction we can also investigate whether sounds are phonemically or
allophonically different by examining a few interesting question that occurs: is
their distribution predictable? If the distribution of any pair of sounds is
predictable, that pair is allophonically different; if the distribution between
any pair is not predictable, that pair is phonemically different.

 

3.     
Analysing through the data provided on the Greenlandic
Eskimo language there seems to be four places of articulation that are in
contrast for plosives, the aforementioned are as follows: p which is a bilabial
plosive, t is alveolar plosive, and the final ones being the voiceless k as well
as the voiced g representing velars, the information that has been gathered was
found through the international phonetic alphabet in the consonants

(Pulmonic) section of the table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.     
i) Looking closely at the information provided here
are all the distribution of the sounds that can precede and follow each of
these 5 vowels in the data given by the assignment:

4.

__a

a__

 

__i

i__

 

__u

u__

 

__e

e__

 

__o

o__

i

t

 

p

a

 

t

g

 

p

q

 

k

q

g

k

 

t

p

 

k

v

 

s

?

 

n

?

q

q

 

k

t

 

n

s

 

m

#

 

l

#

?

?

 

q

k

 

l

m

 

n

 

 

#

 

v

v

 

s

g

 

#

n

 

 

 

 

 

 

s

s

 

#

v

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

l

 

 

s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n

#

 

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii) Quite assuredly there are
inconsistencies indicating that the underlying vowel system appears to be
different in regards from that evident on the surface. These tables provided exemplifies
that, based on immediate neighbouring sounds (being that the relevant conditioning
environment here), each other vowel and the difference between a is never predictable.
a and i can both follow q and s, and they can both come before t,
k, v, s, and l.

iii) The phonological rules that
describe the environments in which the surface form of the vowel is derived
from the underlying one are certainly complex while there are some sounds that
only precede a (e.g. g, n), or only follow i (e.g. p, m), the fact
that there are some environments (e.g. after s, or before t) where it is
impossible to predict whether a or i should occur means that there’s no way
to always consistently predict which sound appears where, so the difference
between these 2 sounds must be meaningful, so phonemic. By similar logic, the
differences between a and u, a and e, and a and o must also be
phonemic; make sure you understand why. Okay, so a is a phonemically unique
vowel. What about the rest? Well, i and u occur in lots of the same
contexts: after t, k, and # (word edge), and before g, v, s, m,
n, l. Since you can’t ever predict the occurrence of i vs. u – since i
and u aren’t in perfectly complementary distribution – they must also be
meaningfully different. The difference between e and o is meaningful, too –
both show up after n, and before exactly the same set of sounds – q and
?, and at the ends of words. These contexts are, finally, predictably
different from those where i and u show up: e and o occur only before
q, ?, and #, while i and u never occur in these contexts. This suggests
that e/o are allophones of i/u, or vice versa.

Now we have to sort out the
complicated relationship between these four sounds. In the diagram below, solid
lines represent meaningful differences, while dashed lines represent predictable
differences. It looks at this point like there are two phonemic vowels here,
and the other two are predictable allophones of these variants. But which are
the underlying representations, i-u or e-o? And are the allophonic
pairs i-e and u-o or i-o and u-e?

 

The underlying representations
are i and u. These high vowels show up in lots and lots of contexts, while
e and o show up in extremely specific contexts: before uvulars and
wordfinally. Rule (a) below is much simpler than (b); it’s much easier to
imagine i-u becoming e-o in these few contexts than e-o almost
always changing their forms. (a) The real rule (almost): i and u become e
and o when they occur before uvulars or word-finally. (b) Too complex to be
the right rule: e and o become i and u when they occur before labials,
labiodentals, alveolars, velars, and vowels. Finally, does the underlying
representation i become the allophone e or o? Well, think about the
features: i: high, front, unrounded u:high, back, unrounded e:mid, front,
unrounded o: mid, back, unrounded Again towards the goal of writing a simple
rule (as simple rules are most often phonologically correct), if i changes to
e before uvulars and word-finally, it only needs to change its height feature;
if i ? o, it needs to change both height and backness. So the real,
complete rule looks like this: The whole real rule: i becomes e, and u
becomes o, when they occur before uvulars or word-finally.

iv) The words provided from
Inuktitut another dialect of the Inuit language are as follows:

ani female’s brother                    ini
place

aiviq walrus                                    iglu (snow) house

aivuq she goes home                   ukiuq winter

 

Basing of the data provided I can
conclude that Inuktitut has 3 phonemic vowels: i, a, u. We know that i
and a are phonemically different because of the minimal pair ini ~ ani,
i and u are phonemically different because of iglumit ~ iglumut, and
finally u and a are phonemically different because of ukiaq ~

ukiuq.

After care

x

Hi!
I'm Dianna!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out