complementary distribution

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
txmmj
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:13 pm
Location: NOVA

complementary distribution

Post by txmmj »

Could two separate phonemes be in complementary distribution? From everything I've read or heard in classes, phonological complementary distribution is brought up when talking about two allophones belonging to one phoneme. But would two distinct phonemes be able to be in complementary distribution? Is it a simple yes/no or is there another term for this occurance?

For example, from what I know (anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) about Mongolian phonology, both /g/ and /ɢ/ are separate phonemes written with the same letter in Mongolian's cyrillic alphabet. The former only occurs in words containing +ATR/"front" vowels and the latter only occurs in words contaiming -ATR/"back" vowels. If I saw this in a corpus, I would assume both are allophones of most likely /g/ in complementary distribution, but apparently both sounds are distinct.

If anyone could clear this up for me, it'd be greatly appreciated!
井の中の蛙大海を知らず

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by zompist »

Sure. The classic example is /h/ and /ŋ/ in English.

From your description it sounds like Mongolian /g ɢ/ could be allophonic, but I don't know the language and there may be good reasons they're not.

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: complementary distribution

Post by gach »

The Mongolian (Khalkha) phonemes /g ɢ/ are distinct and their distribution isn't fully determined by the ATR feature of the surrounding vocalism. Svantesson gives the minimal pairs /bag/ "team" vs. /baɢ/ "small" and /dzʊrga/ "picture-REFL.POSS" vs. /dzʊrɢa/ "six" (p. 226) and further examples under Ex. (10) not all of which have a predictable choice between velar and uvular stops.

Mostly it all looks historically very transparent still which fits the picture that the velar-uvular opposition is a young one. From the previous minimal pairs /baɢ/ is a case of /g/ > /ɢ/ before a word final /a/ that later got dropped while /bag/ preserves the stop as velar as it's an originally consonant final word. In /dzʊrɢa/ the final /a/ following /ɢ/ is still present while in /dzʊrga/ it's a separate morpheme that's suffixed on an originally consonant final word putting there /g/ before an /a/. I don't know Mongolian too well but I presume that all this is only possible in -ATR words since in +ATR words there isn't anything that could have caused the /g/ > /ɢ/ backing.

A small side note on notation. I'm going by the convention of writing the weak stops and affricates with "voiced" symbols (<b dz> etc.) despite the fact that the labial and coronal members of this series are pretty much always pronounced unvoiced. The corresponding "unvoiced" symbols are reserved for the strong series witch has an aspiration feature.

User avatar
vec
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by vec »

zompist wrote:Sure. The classic example is /h/ and /ŋ/ in English.
Are there no places where /h/ and /ŋ/ contrast? Does this mean they could be analyzed as the same phoneme?
vec

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: complementary distribution

Post by gach »

vec wrote:Are there no places where /h/ and /ŋ/ contrast? Does this mean they could be analyzed as the same phoneme?
I'm sure there are no minimal pairs but doesn't behind the singers have both intervocalic /h/ and /ŋ/ in most dialects at least putting them into the same environment.

But even if the distribution of /h/ and /ŋ/ were absolutely complementary with no exceptions, it would be silly to think of them as one and the same phoneme. There aren't any special functional connections between the two sounds that would support such an analysis.

Here's another similar situation to think about. In a language that has both word final /ʔ/ and empty onsets alternating freely between a phonetic [ʔ] and a fully vocalic onset, are these two different [ʔ] better to be analysed as phonemically identical or not? An example from Finnish (additionally marking the normally unwritten glottal stop) would be

syöʔ eväät ("eat the skacks") = [syøʔ:evæ:t]
ne eväät ("those snacks") = [neʔevæ:t] ~ [ne.evæ:t]

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: complementary distribution

Post by KathTheDragon »

gach wrote:but doesn't behind the singers have both intervocalic /h/ and /ŋ/
Eh, /h/ is unambiguously the onset of the second syllable, while /ŋ/ wants to be the coda of the first syllable, causing it to geminate. So, for me /h/ and /ŋ/ are still in complimentary distribution (as /h/ can't ever be geminated)

User avatar
din
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: Brussels

Re: complementary distribution

Post by din »

You have geminate consonants in your dialect? Aren't you sure it's not just [Ng]?
— o noth sidiritt Tormiott

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Salmoneus »

I assume she'd know if that were the case - /Ng/ in 'singers' is very marked and dialectical. But like you I'm surprised by the idea of a geminate /N/ there. English does have geminates (/long consonants/etc), but normally only at morpheme boundaries - 'pennines' and 'pen-nines' would normally be different, but if she geminates intervocalic nasals they would merge (and the /n/ is in the coda there just as much as the /N/ is in /singer/).
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
Grunnen
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Ultra Traiectum

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Grunnen »

KathAveara wrote:
gach wrote:but doesn't behind the singers have both intervocalic /h/ and /ŋ/
Eh, /h/ is unambiguously the onset of the second syllable, while /ŋ/ wants to be the coda of the first syllable, causing it to geminate. So, for me /h/ and /ŋ/ are still in complimentary distribution (as /h/ can't ever be geminated)
But wouldn't /h/ normally precede the stressed vowel, while /ŋ/ would follow it? If that's so, they'd still be in complementary distribution. So would anyone know it this is indeed the case?
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: complementary distribution

Post by KathTheDragon »

Salmoneus wrote:I assume she'd know if that were the case - /Ng/ in 'singers' is very marked and dialectical. But like you I'm surprised by the idea of a geminate /N/ there. English does have geminates (/long consonants/etc), but normally only at morpheme boundaries - 'pennines' and 'pen-nines' would normally be different, but if she geminates intervocalic nasals they would merge (and the /n/ is in the coda there just as much as the /N/ is in /singer/).
Well, I'm sure it's not /ŋg/ - I can deliberately produce that, and it's not how I normally talk. What I think is happening is that the sequence /sɪŋəz/ is first being syllabified as /sɪŋ.əz/ due to the general principle that /ŋ/ isn't a valid onset, then the /ŋ/ is being geminated so that we don't have a closed syllable followed by an onsetless syllable, giving /sɪŋ.ŋəz/.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Salmoneus »

Interesting! That would violate what's normally a fairly basic rule, that /N/ can never be syllable-initial. Do you also do this gemination with other consonants? Eg does 'sinner' have the gemination? 'Setter'? 'Sizzle'? 'Talon'?

'Closed syllable followed by an onsetless syllable' is a very common condition in English - I'm curious how far you've gone to avoid it.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: complementary distribution

Post by KathTheDragon »

I think 'sinner' has it, 'sizzle' and 'talon' might, but I'm not sure (less sure that 'talon' has gemination), and 'setter' probably doesn't.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: complementary distribution

Post by finlay »

vec wrote:
zompist wrote:Sure. The classic example is /h/ and /ŋ/ in English.
Are there no places where /h/ and /ŋ/ contrast? Does this mean they could be analyzed as the same phoneme?
I would say that when they occur medially, h only occurs before a stressed syllable (behind, sahara), and ng only after (singer, etc). But I'm pretty sure that this only happens because there just isn't a word that fits the other pattern, not because it's impossible. A marginal case might be names like Dogherty, which is sometimes pronounced with an h sound, post stress.

This, I would say, is the downfall of the whole idea of phonemes - linguists had to add in a third condition that two sounds, if no minimal pairs could be found and they are nominally in complementary distribution, would be considered separate phonemes if they were not "phonetically similar", pretty much just to disclude the idea of h and ng in English being one phoneme. This to me looks like a copout. I think to some extent something like a phoneme must exist, because we know instinctively that two sounds are different, but I don't think this idea is exactly right. However, it beats optimality theory in my opinion.

Zju
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 11:10 am

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Zju »

finlay wrote:This, I would say, is the downfall of the whole idea of phonemes - linguists had to add in a third condition that two sounds, if no minimal pairs could be found and they are nominally in complementary distribution, would be considered separate phonemes if they were not "phonetically similar", pretty much just to disclude the idea of h and ng in English being one phoneme. This to me looks like a copout. I think to some extent something like a phoneme must exist, because we know instinctively that two sounds are different, but I don't think this idea is exactly right. However, it beats optimality theory in my opinion.
Interesting. What do you propose?

User avatar
Pabappa
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: the Peyron Apartments
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Pabappa »

Hmm? there's plenty of English words with post-tonic /h/, even if they are all loans and/or compounds. "Freehand" is typical of compounds and "Baja" of loans. Surely no one would take you seriously if you argued they should be "freengand" and "banga"? Loans are as much a part of English as any other word so you cant just say "well that doesnt count because it's a loan". New Zealand English probably has some words with pre-tonic /ŋ/, but Im not sure if any of them are common nouns as opposed to names.
And now Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey with our weather report:
Image

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by zompist »

Pre/post stress doesn't work; an example with ŋ would be "include". (the AHD insists there's an /n/ there, but that's a clear spelling bias to me— they don't claim there's an /n/ in "improper".)

Just to show that this isn't just a quirk of English— another classic phonological puzzle is Mandarin, where the palatals /j q/ are in complementary distribution to three sets of consonants: /z c/, /zh ch/, and /g k/ (using pinyin representations throughout). The palatals occur only before /i ü/; the others occur everywhere else.

User avatar
Herr Dunkel
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1088
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: In this multiverse or another

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Herr Dunkel »

I'm not sure I've read this correctly (plus it's late) but if I have... are you people seriously proposing that /h ŋ/ are actually one phoneme?
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano

User avatar
Grunnen
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Ultra Traiectum

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Grunnen »

Herr Dunkel wrote:I'm not sure I've read this correctly (plus it's late) but if I have... are you people seriously proposing that /h ŋ/ are actually one phoneme?
I didn't have the impression anyone here is trying to argue they are.
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃

User avatar
Herr Dunkel
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1088
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: In this multiverse or another

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Herr Dunkel »

Vecfaranti introduced the idea (albeit in the form of a question) and I kinda took that the rest was about that. Heh sorry
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by zompist »

Herr Dunkel wrote:I'm not sure I've read this correctly (plus it's late) but if I have... are you people seriously proposing that /h ŋ/ are actually one phoneme?
No, that strikes everyone as absurd; the problem is, as finlay said, that there's really no principled reason why that is. I don't think we have to throw away the idea of phonemes, but it's just kind of an embarrassing discrepancy.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: complementary distribution

Post by finlay »

Another problem with phonemes is that field linguists often use them for pissing contests, like "my language has fewer phonemes than your language". Or you get people describing languages (e.g. Rotokas, Pirahã) as lacking nasals, when in fact they do nothing of the sort, it's just that they've noted a complementary distribution with voiced plosives and theorized the nasals out of existence. It's a bit more of a prosaic point I guess, but it ties into a wider point that tribes like the Pirahã have been exploited a lot by the European linguists and missionaries that they've dealt with.

User avatar
vec
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by vec »

It's interesting; almost no Icelandic grammar book lists only the minimal phoneme inventory of Icelandic. Several sounds which only occur in complimentary distribution with other sounds are always listed in Icelandic sound tables, such as the one on Wikipedia. The table seen there is half-way between phonemic and phonetic. It lists more sounds than just the "phonemes" but it certainly doesn't list all the allophones. I don't know why this is, but it's become convention.
vec

User avatar
Herr Dunkel
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1088
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: In this multiverse or another

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Herr Dunkel »

Isn't it supposed to be sth. like:

/p pp b bb t tt d dd k kk g gɡ/
/f v θ (ð) s ss h/
/m mm n nn ŋ/
/r rr l ll j/

/i ɪ ʏ u/
/ɛ œ ɔ/
/a/

/aɪ aʊ ɔʊ ɔʏ ɛɪ/

The allophony is sick tho

Edit: added /ð/ in brackets to account for several compounds, not sure if that works but hey <Alþingi> has a medial /θ/. Does vowel length count as minimally/potentially phonemic as there are things like <alltaf> and <Alþingi> that both have [ɬ] but the first element differs in length as: [a] vs [a:] (according to a certain Ölvir well at least)
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: complementary distribution

Post by Zaarin »

zompist wrote:Pre/post stress doesn't work; an example with ŋ would be "include". (the AHD insists there's an /n/ there, but that's a clear spelling bias to me— they don't claim there's an /n/ in "improper".)

Just to show that this isn't just a quirk of English— another classic phonological puzzle is Mandarin, where the palatals /j q/ are in complementary distribution to three sets of consonants: /z c/, /zh ch/, and /g k/ (using pinyin representations throughout). The palatals occur only before /i ü/; the others occur everywhere else.
Maybe it's dialectal. I definitely have /n/ in "include" with a strong syllable break between the prefix and the root; but I have occasionally heard /ŋ/.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

User avatar
vec
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Contact:

Re: complementary distribution

Post by vec »

Herr Dunkel wrote:Isn't it supposed to be sth. like:

/p pp b bb t tt d dd k kk g gɡ/
/f v θ (ð) s ss h/
/m mm n nn ŋ/
/r rr l ll j/

/i ɪ ʏ u/
/ɛ œ ɔ/
/a/

/aɪ aʊ ɔʊ ɔʏ ɛɪ/

The allophony is sick tho

Edit: added /ð/ in brackets to account for several compounds, not sure if that works but hey <Alþingi> has a medial /θ/. Does vowel length count as minimally/potentially phonemic as there are things like <alltaf> and <Alþingi> that both have [ɬ] but the first element differs in length as: [a] vs [a:] (according to a certain Ölvir well at least)
Hm, I wonder if its necessary for the geminates to be phonemic, but if they are /ff/ is also phonemic. Unvoiced n, /n̥/ is certainly phonemic, and so are unvoiced r /r̥/, unvoiced l /l̥/ or /ɬ/ and unvoiced j /ç/. In my idiolect, unvoiced /ŋ̊/ contrasts with /n̥/ before /tʰ/ so I guess in some cases that is also phonemic. The velar fricatives /x~ɣ/ are definitely phonemic, but they are probably only one phoneme. They might also be allophones of /g/, but it depends on how you analyze the stop system. The non-geminated stops don't contrast intervocalically, but I guess they are phonemic initially. The diphthong <au> is [œy], not [ɔʏ].

I think /þ/ and /ð/ are probably phonemic, with words like Aþena, Maraþon, as well as words like maðkur [maθkʏr̥] 'worm', which could contrast with a word like maðgur [maðkʏr̥] (if one existed). The closest near minimal pair is mæðgur [maiðkʏr̥] 'mother and daughters'. There's no 100% minimal pair though. [ð] might also be an allophone of /d/.
vec

Post Reply