�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #5: We all know them very well but is it all we know about phoneme? No its notta as simple as it looks like there is much to be explored yet
• #8: Like other linguistic notions, such as “sentence,”“syllable,” and “topic,” what starts out as a relatively unproblematic intuitiveconcept inevitably gets caught up in theory-internal considerations. In the caseof the phoneme, three issues have been particularly contentious: (i) what sort ofentity is the phoneme (physical, psychological, other); (ii) what is the contentof the phoneme; and (iii) how does one identify phonemes?
• #9: Representing the underspecified phoneme. The remarks concerning Sapir, Jakobson,and Trubetzkoy above suggest a view of the phoneme as having a single representation,from which other variants, or allophones, are derived. Moreover, ifthe interpretation of these proposals given above is correct, it would appearthat this one representation of the phoneme is underspecified, in the sense that itconsists only of contrastive properties (chapter 7: feature specification andunderspecification). Underspecified phonemic representations were proposedby Jakobson and his colleagues (see, among others, Jakobsonet al. 1952 and Jakobsonand Halle 1956). They proposed that contrastive features are assigned by successivelydividing up an inventory until each phoneme has been assigned a uniquerepresentation. This theory has been taken up within generative phonology underthe name Modified Contrastive Specification (MCS; Dresher et al. 1994; D. C. Hall2007; Dresher 2009).