PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

PHONEMIC ANALYSIS: SOLUTIONS

- R. H. Mannell

1) Artificial

Phonetic Chart
(nb. line up the sounds logically, and make sure that potentially phonetically similar sounds
are adjacent to each other).

p t k
b d g
m n

i u
O
{ a

= (ie. stress)

Compare [pb] [td] [kg] [{a] [aO] stress

Sounds not compared [m] [n] [i] [u]

Comparisons and Conclusions

[pb] CD [p] only word-initial [b] only word-medial

[td] CD [t] only word-initial [d] only word-medial
[kg] CD [k] only word-initial [g] only word-medial
[{a] CAE 6 versus 8; 11 versus 13; 9 versus 10
[aO] CIE 12 versus 13
stress - contrastive 2 versus 3

Phonemes (You must include the following list in any answer)

/p/ [b] word-medial
[p] word-initial
/t/ [d] word-medial
[t] word-initial
/k/ [g] word-medial
[k] word-initial
/m/ [m]
/n/ [n]
/i/ [i]
/{/ [{]
/a/ [a]
/O/ [O]
/u/ [u]
/=/ [=]

1
2) Artificial

Phonetic Chart
p t i u
b d e o
m n
l a
R

Suspicious pairs
[p/b], [t/d], [l/R], [i/e], [u/o], (and perhaps [e/a], [o/a])

Non-suspicious sounds
[m], [n]

a) Stress is always on first syllable, therefore non-contrasting

b) Vowels
Minimal pairs (CIE)
[a] vs [o] 2 [=diRa] vs 3 [=diRo]
[a] vs [e] 10 [=nata] vs 11 [=nate]
no minimal pairs (or CAE) for [i] vs [e] and [u] vs [o]
Complementary distribution
[i] vs [e] [i] always syllable 1 (stressed), [e] always syllable 2 (unstressed)
[u] vs [o] [u] always syllable 1 (stressed), [o] always syllable 2 (unstressed)
c) Consonants
Minimal pairs (CIE)
[p] vs [b] 7 [=libo] vs 8 [=lipo]
CAE
[t] vs [d] 1 [=bito] vs 6 [=lido] (and also symmetrical cf p/b)
Complementary distribution
[l] vs [R] [l] always initial (ie. syllable 1), [R] always medial (ie. syllable 2)
d) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i] in (stressed) syllable 1
[e] in (unstressed) syllable 2
/u/ ---> [u] in (stressed) syllable 1
[o] in (unstressed) syllable 2
/a/ ---> [a]
/p/ ---> [p]
/b/ ---> [b]
/t/ ---> [t]
/d/ ---> [d]
/l/ ---> [l] initial position (syllable 1)
[R] medial or VCV position (syllable 2)
/m/ ---> [m]
/n/ ---> [n]

2
3) Artificial

Phonetic Chart
s S i u
z Z
n J N a

Suspicious pairs
[s/S], [z/Z], [s/z], [S,Z], [n/J/N]

Non-suspicious sounds
[i], [a], [u]

a) Stress is always on the first syllable, therefore non-contrasting

b) Vowels
[i], [a] and [u] are phonetically dissimilar
c) Consonants
No minimal pairs or CAE
Complementary distribution
[s] vs [z] [s] always initial (ie. stressed syllable 1), [z] medial (VCV)
[S] vs [Z] [S] always initial (ie. stressed syllable 1), [Z] medial (VCV)
[s] vs [S] 1 & 2 [=su ...], 9 & 10 [=sa ...], 5 & 6 [=Si ...]
ie. [s] preceding [u] and [a], [S] preceding [i]
[z] vs [Z] 2 [... zu], 7 & 11 [... za], 4 & 8 [... Zi]
ie. [z] preceding [u] and [a], [Z] preceding [i]
[n] vs [J] vs [N] 3,4,7 & 9 [... na ...], 1,3 & 5 [... Ji ...], 6.8.10 & 11 [... Nu ...]

d) Some general rules

[alveolar] ---> [post-alveolar] /_ [i]
[-voice] ---> [+voice] / V_V
[n] ---> [N] / _ [u]

e) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i]
/a/ ---> [a]
/u/ ---> [u]
/s/ ---> [s] / #_ {[u] | [a]}
---> [z] / V_ {[u] | [a]}
---> [S] / #_ [i]
---> [Z] / V_ [i]
/n/ ---> [n] / _ [a]
---> [J] / _ [i]
---> [N] / _ [u]

3
4. Spanish (simplified)

Phonetic Chart
p t k i u
b d g e o
T s x
B D G a
m n J
l º

Suspicious Pairs
[i/e], [e/a], [a/o], [o/u], [p/b], [t/d], [k/g], [T/D], [x/G], [b/B], [t/T], [d/D], [k/x], [g/G],
[n/J], [l/º]

Non-suspicious sounds
[m], [s]

a) Stress is not specified

b) Vowels
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
[u] vs [o] 22 [muDo] vs 21 [moDo]
CAE
[i] vs [e] 20 [Tima] vs 29 [Tena]
[a] vs [e] 16 [ºama] vs 17 [Jame]
[a] vs [o] 2 [donaDa] vs 24 [TeJiDo]
c) Consonants
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
a) Voice contrasts
[p] vs [b] 9 [baxa] vs 10 [paxa]
[t] vs [d] 6 [tonaDa] vs 2 [donaDa]
[k] vs [g] 4 [kama] vs 3 [gama]
[T] vs [D] 20 [moTo] vs 22 [moDo]
[x] vs [G] 10 [paxa] vs 11[paGa]
b) Place contrasts
[l] vs [º] 25 [solo] vs 26 [soºo]
c) Manner (stop/fricative) contrasts
[t] vs [T] 7 [tapa] vs 19 [Tapa]
[k] vs [x] 30 [paka] vs 10 [paxa]
CAE
b) Place contrasts
[n] vs [J] 23 [TeniTa] vs [TeJiDa]
Complementary Distribution
c) Manner (stop/fricative) contrasts
[b] vs [B] [b] always initial, [B] always medial (VCV)
[d] vs [D] [d] always initial, [D] always medial (VCV)
[g] vs [G] [g] always initial, [G] always medial (VCV)

d) Some general rules

{[+voice] | [stop]} ---> [fricative] / V_V

4
e) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i]
/e/ ---> [e]
/a/ ---> [a]
/o/ ---> [o]
/u/ ---> [u]
/p/ ---> [p]
/b/ ---> [b] initially
---> [B] medially (VCV)
/t/ ---> [t]
/d/ ---> [d] initially
---> [D] medially (VCV)
/T/ ---> [T]
/k/ ---> [k]
/g/ ---> [g] initially
---> [G] medially (VCV)
/x/ ---> [x]
/s/ ---> [s]
/m/ ---> [m]
/n/ ---> [n]
/J/ ---> [J]
/l/ ---> [l]
/º/ ---> [º]

5
5) Artificial

Phonetic Chart
p t k i u
b d g e o
s V
z a
m n N

Suspicious pairs
[p/b], [t/d], [k/g], [s/z], [n/N], [i/e], [u/o], [V,a], [e,V], [o,V]

Non-suspicious sounds
[m]

a) Stress is not specified

b) Vowels
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
None
Contrast in Analogous Environment (CAE)
Nothing that is immediately obvious
Complementary Distribution
i) Adjacent phone context
Preceding context Following Context
/i/ p, b, t, k, n n, #, g, z, m
/e/ k, t, z, g n, s, k, p, t, N
/a/ s, d, m ,p, k, s b, #, z, d
/V/ n, p, d, m, k, s, t N, s, t, n
/u/ n, k, d, z, t, p #, d, b, g
/o/ s, b, m, p, k n, p, s, N
The clearest trend evident in this table is that /i, a, u/ can be word
final (#), whilst /e, V, o/ are never seen to be word final. A second
(but much less readily seen) pattern is that when /i, a, u/ are followed
by a stop or fricative, that stop or fricative is voiced, whilst when /e, V,
o/ are followed by a stop or fricative, that stop or fricative is voiceless.
Further, /N/ only follows /e, V, o/ whilst /n/ can be seen to follow
vowels of either group. This data suggests two classes of vowel and
most likely implies three vowel phonemes each with two allophones.
At this point, however, the analysis is inconclusive. Whilst
following /N/, stop/fricative-voicing or word boundary (#) contexts are
consistently related to vowel groups, /n/ can follow vowels of either
group and so following phone and word-boundary contexts will not
consistently predict the choice of vowels. It may be that both vowel
identity and consonant distribution are conditioned by some other
aspect of word structure.

6
 ii) Position in word
There are four word structures:- CVCV, CVCCV, CVCVC, CVCCVC
The following table shows the vowels in the position marked "*"

C*CV CVC* C*CCV CVCC* C*CVC CVC*C C*CCVC CVCC*C

i, a, u i, a, u e, V, o i, a, u i, a, u e, V, o e, V, o e, V, o

When examining the distribution of the vowels, it is found that [i], [u],
[a] occur in the word positions marked in the following list by "*",
whilst the vowels [e], [V], [o] only occur in the word positions marked
by "@":-
C*C*, C@CC*, C*C@C, C@CC@C
This is a clear example of the conditioning of vowel phone selection
by word position. At present, however, the rules would be rather
cumbersome as they would require the specification of four word
contexts for each vowel class. The rules may, however, be simplified
by reference to syllable structure.

iii) Syllable structure ("$" has been used here to mark syllable boundaries)
Since we cannot be 100% sure of the position of syllable boundaries
word medially, it is only possible to unambiguously determine legal
syllable onsets word initially and syllable rhymes word finally. Such
patterns can be said to be the unambiguously attested syllable onset
and rhyme forms for the language being examined and are a very
reliable guide to possible word medial syllable structures.
The only unambiguously attested syllable onset that can be seen word
initially is #CV..., whilst two types of syllable rhyme can be seen word
finally, ...V# and ...VC#. A combination of the one legal onset with
the two legal rhymes gives two possible syllable structures:- $CV$
and $CVC$ (ie. an open and a closed syllable, both with an initial
consonant). The only syllable boundary analysis of the above four
word types that results in unambiguously attested syllable structures
are as follows:-
$CV$CV$, $CVC$CV$, $CV$CVC$, $CVC$CVC$
and the resulting vowel distributions (see above) are:-
$C*$C*$, $C@C$C*$, $C*$C@C$, $C@C$C@C$
It can be readily seen from this diagram that [i, a, u] always occur in
CV syllables whilst [e, V, o] always occur in CVC syllables. (This
result further confirms the syllable analysis as the two solutions
combine to form the simplest analysis of this language).
iv) Conclusions
It is clear from the above that there are two classes of vowels that are
in complementary distribution based on syllable structure. Based on
considerations of phonetic similarity, it is clear which pairs of sounds
belong to the same phonemes (ie. [i,e], [a,V], [u,o] ). As there is no
clear indication in each case as to which allophone is the most widely
distributed (they both appear in the same number of contexts) then
the selection of which symbol to use for the phoneme has to be based
upon some other criterion. It is common in such cases as this to

7
 select to most peripheral of each pair and use its symbol as the
phoneme symbol. eg. [i] is more peripheral than [e] being higher
and generally more fronted. Similarly [u] is more peripheral than [o]
being higher and more retracted. [a] is not as clearly more peripheral
than [V] but is chosen as the phoneme symbol because it belongs to
the same class as the previously chosen "i" and "u" symbols. This
gives:-
/i/ = [i,e], /a/ = [a,V], /u/ = [u,o]
v) [e, V], [o, V] ?
It was suggested above that these two pairs might be sufficiently
phonetically similar to allow the possibility the they might form
allophonic pairs. There are a number of reasons why this is not so for
the present language. Firstly, they are each much more phonetically
similar to the sounds they are paired with in section iv, above, and the
evidence very strongly indicates their being in the allophonic
relationships shown in that section. Is it possible for the conclusions
indicated in iv, above, to be correct and at the same time for there to
be a possibility that the pairs [e, V] and [o, V] also be allophones of
the same phoneme? The answer is NO. This would place all of the
vowels into the same phoneme or alternatively some phones would
simultaneously be allophones of more than one phoneme. Neither of
these two conclusions is possible (or at least they are extremely
unlikely). In any case, since we now have determined the syllable
structure of the language we can now identify two CAEs:-
[e] vs [V] 8 [kenpa] vs 16 [moskVn] ($ken$ vs $kVn$)
[o] vs [V] 15 [timVs] vs 16 [moskVn] ($mVs$ vs $mos$)
These two CAEs confirm the conclusion that [e, V] and [o, V] do not
constitute allophonic pairs, but it must be noted that these two CAEs
are not essential to that conclusion.
c) Consonants
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
None
Contrast in Analogous Environment (CAE)
None
Complementary Distribution
i) Consonant voicing [p, b], [t, d], [k, g], [s, z]
It was noted in section b)i) above that stop and fricative voicing
seemed to be related in some way to the preceding vowel, with the
stop or fricative always being voiced when the preceding vowel was
from the [i, a, u] class. It was shown later that the selection of
alternative vowel classes depended upon the syllable type, so it is
likely that the selection of stop and fricative voicing is related in some
way to syllable type. Since the vowels [i, a, u] are only found in CV
syllables then the following stop or fricative must be the onset of the
following syllable. When the other three vowels [e, V, o] precede the
stop or fricative word-medially there is a CC cluster. An examination
of the contexts in which the voiced ("*") and voiceless ("@") stops and
fricatives occur in the words results in the following distribution:-
$@V$*V$, $@V@$@V@, $@V$*V@$, $@V@$@V@$
It is clear that the voiced stops and fricatives can occur in the initial
position of both CV and CVC syllables for certain word structures and

8
 not for others. It appears that syllable structure is not the key to this
structure. If the syllable boundaries are moved then it can more
clearly be seen that the voiced stops and fricatives only occur in a
VCV context. The general rule is:-
[-voice] --> [+voice] / V_V
ii) [n, N]
It was noted in section b)i) above that [N] seemed to be conditioned in
some way by the preceding vowel, only occurring when the preceding
vowel was from the [e, V, o] class (ie. in a CVC syllable). It can also
readily be seen that [N] only ever occurs in an initial CVC syllable.
However, [n] can also occur in that position (eg. [kenpa]) so if
complementary distribution is to be demonstrated then it must be
conditioned by the adjacent sounds. As [N] can occur following any of
the three possible preceding sounds [e, V, o] then it must be
conditioned by the following sound. It can be readily seen that the
following sound is always [k]. The general rule is therefore:-
{[nasal] [consonantal] [alveolar]} --> [velar] / _ [velar]
and the specific rule is
[n] --> [N] / _ [k] or [n] --> [N] / _ [velar]
d) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i] / $C_$
---> [e] / $C_C$
/a/ ---> [a] / $C_$
---> [V] / $C_C$
/u/ ---> [u] / $C_$
---> [o] / $C_C$
/p/ ---> [b] / V_V
---> [p] elsewhere
/t/ ---> [d] / V_V
---> [t] elsewhere
/k/ ---> [g] / V_V
---> [k] elsewhere
/s/ ---> [z] / V_V
---> [s] elsewhere
/m/ ---> [m]
/n/ ---> [N] / _ [velar]
[n] elsewhere

9
6) Artificial

Phonetic Chart
b d g i u
p t k e o
P T x E O
s
l
R

Suspicious Pairs
[p/b], [p/P], [t/d], [t/T], [k/g], [k/x], [l/R], [i/e], [e/E], [u/o], [o/O]

Non-suspicious Sounds
[s]

a) Stress is not specified

b) Vowels
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
[i] vs [e] 1 [pige] vs 13 [pege]
[e] vs [E] 20 [steRi] vs 5 [stERi]
[u] vs [o] 14 [kuPsi] vs 4 [koPsi]
[o] vs [O] 17 [skopse] vs 6 [skOpse]
c) Consonants
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
None
Contrast in Analogous Environment (CAE)
None
Complementary Environment
i) Syllable analysis
There are two unambiguously attested syllable onsets #CV.. and
#CCV... but there is only one unambiguously attested syllable rhyme
...V#, and so the attested syllable types are CV and CCV.
ii) Word types
There are four word types derivable from the attested syllable types
and all four (and no more) are found in the data:-
CVCV, CVCCV, CCVCV, CCVCCV
This results in the following consonant locations
#CV, #CCV, VCV, VCCV
The consonant phones that can be found in the various word
positions are:-
#CV #*V p, t, k, l
#CCV #*CV s
#C*V p, t, k
VCV V*V b, d, g, R
VCCV V*CV s, P, T, x
VC*V p, t, k, s
It is clear that [b, d, g, R] are conditioned by a V_V context. The
phones that they are paired with allophonically are determined by
considerations of phonetic similarity (shown in the list of "suspicious

10
 pairs"). The fricatives [P, T, x] are also shown to be in
complementary distribution with [p, t, k] but the rule:-
[stop] ---> [fricative] / V_CV does not make much sense phonetically.
What would cause a stop to become a fricative in this context? It is
desirable to examine the detailed context more closely.
iii) Adjacent phone context
The three fricatives [P, T, x] are even further restricted to the following
context:- V_sV
The general rule can now be restated as:-
[stop] ---> [fricative] / _ [fricative]
which is a simple manner of articulation assimilation.
iv) General rules
[-voice] ---> [+voice] / V_V
or even more generally,
[-voice] ---> [+voice] / [+voice] _ [+voice]

[stop] ---> [fricative] / _ [fricative]

d) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i]
/e/ ---> [e]
/E/ ---> [E]
/u/ ---> [u]
/o/ ---> [o]
/O/ ---> [O]
/p/ ---> [b] / V_V
---> [P] / _ s
---> [p] elsewhere
/t/ ---> [d] / V_V
---> [T] / _ s
---> [t] elsewhere
/k/ ---> [g] / V_V
---> [x] / _ s
---> [k] elsewhere
/l/ ---> [R] / V_V
---> [l] elsewhere
/s/ ---> [s]

11
7) Korean (simplified)

Phonetic Chart
p t k i u
s S e @ o
m n N E
l a
R

Suspicious Pairs
[s/S], [n/N], [l/R], [i/e], [e/E], [E/a], [a/o], [u/o], [i/@], [e/@], [E/@], [a/@], [o/@], [u/@]

Non-suspicious sounds
[p], [t], [k], [m]

a) Stress is not specified

b) Vowels
Minimal Pairs
There is an almost complete paradigm of vowels in a single environment
1 [sun], 2 [son], 3 [san], 4 [s@n], 5 [sen], 7 [sEn]
This proves that the vowels [u, o, a, @, e, E] belong to different phonemes.
There are neither minimal pairs nor obvious CAEs separating [i] from [e] or
[@]. We already know that [e] and [@] belong to separate phonemes and so
[i] cannot be in allophonic variation with both [e] and [@] as that would place
them in the same phoneme. The three possible hypotheses are:-
1) /i/ = [i], /e/ = [e], /@/ = [@]
2) /i/ = [i,e], /@/ = [@]
3) /i/ = [i,@], /e/ = [e]
Contrast in Analogous Environment (CAE)
None are presently obvious (wait for results of consonant analysis)
c) Consonants
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
[n] vs [N] 23 [man] vs 24 [maN]
Contrast in Analogous Environment (CAE)
None
Complementary Distribution
i. [l] vs [R] It is easily seen that [R] only occurs in V_V context whilst [l]
occurs in all other contexts.
ii. [s] vs [S] [S] can be clearly seen to only occur when the following vowel
is an [i] whilst [s] occurs in all other contexts.
d) [i] revisited
[i] can be found in numerous consonantal contexts and so it is not conditioned by
[S] but on the contrary, /s/ ---> [S] / _ i
Since it is quite clear that [S] is an allophone of /s/ then it is reasonable to treat the
pairs:-
6 [Sin] vs 5 [sen] and 6 [Sin] vs 4 [s@n]

as contrasts in analogous environment (CAE) and so accept the hypothesis that

/i/ = [i], /e/ = [e], /@/ = [@] (ie. 3 phonemes)

12
e) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i]
/e/ ---> [e]
/E/ ---> [E]
/a/ ---> [a]
/o/ ---> [o]
/u/ ---> [u]
/@/ ---> [@]
/p/ ---> [p]
/t/ ---> [t]
/k/ ---> [k]
/s/ ---> [S] / _ [i]
---> [s] elsewhere
/m/ ---> [m]
/n/ ---> [n]
/N/ ---> [N]
/l/ ---> [R] / V_V
---> [l] elsewhere

13
8) Artificial
Phonetic Chart
p t k i u
b d g
B D G a
s
z Z
n N
l
R
Suspicious Pairs
[p/b], [b/B], [t/d], [d/D], [k/g], [g/G], [s/z], [z/Z], [n/N], [l/R]
Non-suspicious sounds
[i], [a], [u]

a) Stress is always on the first syllable, therefore non-contrasting.

b) Vowels
All three are phonetically dissimilar and therefore are separate phonemes.
c) Consonants
Minimal Pairs (CIE)
[b] vs [B] 16 [=labup] vs 1 [=laBup]
[d] vs [D] 28 [=sadal] vs 3 [=saDal]
[g] vs [G] 18 [=dugik] vs 5 [=duGik]
Contrast in Analogous Environment (CAE)
None
Complementary Distribution
i. Word and syllable types.
There are only two word types:- CVCVC and CVCCVC
There is only one kind of unambiguously attested syllable onset #CV...
and only one unambiguously attested syllable offset ...VC# which
when combined result in only one syllable type, CVC. The word type
CVCVC is clearly not analysable as consisting of two CVC syllables
and so either CV$CVC or CVC$VC would result. The maximum onset
principle is invoked to select the CV$CVC form and to therefore
hypothesise the existence of a word initial CV syllable (generally far
more common in the world=s languages than VC). This is an example
of a language in which a word onset and offset analysis does not
result in a syllable structure hypothesis which accounts for all word
types.
ii. Consonant positions.
There are five possible consonant positions with actual consonant
distribution listed alongside:-
#CV b, d, g s l n
VCV b, d, g B, D, G
VCCV b, d, g B, D, G Z n, N
VCCV b, d, g z R
VC# p, t, k s l n

The above consonant position analysis results in clear complementary

distributions (CD) for [b, d, g] vs [p, t, k], and for [s] vs [z] vs [Z].

14
 These results do not give a clear CD for [n] vs [N] an so further
analysis is required here.
iii. Adjacent phone context
It is readily clear from the data that [N] always precedes [g] and that
the familiar velar assimilation of an alveolar nasal has occurred.
{[nasal] [alveolar]} ---> [velar] / _ [velar]

d) Conclusions
/i/ ---> [i]
/a/ ---> [a]
/u/ ---> [u]
/b/ ---> [p] / _#
---> [b] elsewhere
/B/ ---> [B]
/d/ ---> [t] / _#
---> [d] elsewhere
/D/ ---> [D]
/g/ ---> [k] / _#
---> [g] elsewhere
/G/ ---> [G]
/s/ ---> [Z] / V_C (or [Z] / V_ [r], see notes below)
---> [z] / C_V
---> [s] elsewhere
/l/ ---> [R] / C_V
---> [l] elsewhere
/n/ ---> [N] / _ [N]
---> [n] elsewhere

Notes:
1) The voiced stop allophones are less restricted in their distribution than are the
voiceless allophones and so the phoneme has been given the voiced symbol.
2) The rules for the stops, /s/ and /l/ appear to be idiosyncratic language-specific
positional rules. The following rules are nevertheless evident:-
{[stop] [-voice]} ---> [+voice] / _ [+voice]
This explains voicing both word initially and medially (where all consonants are voiced).
{[fricative] [-voice]} ---> [+voice] / [+voice] _ [+voice]
This prevents voicing both word initially and word finally.
The phonetic conditioning that selects [Z] or [z] is not immediately obvious until it is
realised that [Z] only ever occurs preceding [R] (unfortunately there is no [z] in the same
word position but with some other consonantal context). It seems likely, however, that the
following rule may more reasonably determine the selection of [Z]:-
{[fricative] [alveolar]} ---> [post-alveolar] / _ [post-alveolar]
Which translates to the more specific
[s] ---> [Z] / V_ [R]
This, of course, assumes that [R] is pronounced as a post-alveolar in this language.

15