Phoneme and Allophone - Speech Resource Pages

Phoneme and Allophone 

The nexus between 

phonetics and phonology 

Robert Mannell

Discriminative Elements (1) 

� Trubetzkoy (1939) wrote:- 

"It is the task of phonology to study which 

differences in sound are related to 

differences in meaning in a given language, 

in which way the discriminative elements ... 

are related to each other, and the rules 

according to which they may be combined 

into words and sentences."


� Linguistic units which cannot be substituted 

for each other without a change in meaning 

can be referred to as linguistically contrastive 

or significant units. 

� Such units may be phonological, 

morphological, syntactic, semantic etc.


Logically, this takes the form:- 

IF unit X in context A GIVES meaning 1 

AND IF unit Y in context A GIVES meaning 2 

THEN unit X AND unit Y belong to separate linguistic units 

e.g. 

IF sound [k] in context [ _ æt] GIVES meaning “cat” 

AND IF sound [m] in context [ _ æt] GIVES meaning “mat” 

THEN sound [k] and sound [m] belong to separate linguistic units

What is a phoneme? (1) 

� Its not true to say that a phoneme is a sound, 

or even that it’s a class of sounds 

� Phonemes exist in human brains 

� They are abstract cognitive (linguistic) entities 

� They are conventions shared by a speech 

community but vary, sometimes very 

significantly, between speech communities


� You might well ask … but surely they have 

something to do with speech sounds? 

� Well, yes, but indirectly … 

� When we speak we intend our listeners to 

understand what words we have uttered. 

� A word in the brain is represented as a 

sequence of phonemes (or graphemes for the 

written word)


� To communicate a sequence of words we must 

utter a sequence of sounds (or write the words 

or use sign language …) 

� A spoken word results from the production of a 

sequence of vocal tract gestures 

� These gestures result in a sequence of sounds. 

� We interpret this sequence of sounds as a 

sequence of phonemes


� When we learn a language we learn to 

associate sequences of sounds in the 

physical world with sequences of phonemes 

(and therefore words) in the mental world. 

� The same sound may belong to a different 

phoneme in a different speech community or 

even in a different phonetic context.


� OK … doesn’t that mean that a phoneme is 

realised as a class (or set) of physical sounds? 

� Yes, well almost … as some sounds can, in 

different contexts, belong to (or represent) 

different phonemes 

� This means that the phonemes are represented 

in the physical world by potentially overlapping 

sets of sounds


� The set of sounds (in the external acoustic 

world) that represent a phoneme can be 

referred to as a set of allophones. 

� “allo-” indicates “difference, alternation or 

divergence” (Macquarie Dictionary)


� An allophone is a sound that can represent a 

particular phoneme. 

� A phoneme can be said to have a huge 

number of slightly different allophones. 

� This is too complex to work with so we break 

this down into a much smaller set of discrete 

sounds that we can transcribe phonetically or 

measure in some other way.


� One of the reasons for a phoneme having 

different allophones is coarticulation. 

That is, in different contexts the effect of 

adjacent phonemes can affect a phoneme’s 

physical realisation. 

� Another reason is convention. A speech 

community has an implicit (unconscious) 

agreement that certain allophones be used in 

certain contexts.


Classical phonology took a simple view of the 

relationship between phonemes and allophones:- 

� phonemes are contrastive, allophones are not 

� an allophone belongs to a single phoneme 

� allophones of the same phoneme are in 

complementary distribution 

� allophones are phonetically similar 

We will examine the last three points in more detail 

later, but first we will examine phonemic analysis.

Phonemic Analysis 

� Phonemic analysis uses a narrow transcription 

of the speech of a language to determine what 

are the phonemes (the their allophones) for 

that language. 

� The phonemic analysis relies on the 

assumption that (a) the transcribed words have 

different meanings and (b) the transcription 

reliably captures the language’s sound system.

Minimal pairs (1) 

� Phonemes are the linguistically contrastive or 

significant sounds (or sets of sounds) of a 

language. 

� Such a contrast is usually demonstrated by 

the existence of minimal pairs or contrast in 

identical environment (CIE). 

� The search for minimal pairs is the most 

important strategy in phonemic analysis.


� Minimal pairs are pairs of words which vary 

only by the identity of the segment 1 at a single 

location in the word (eg. [mæt] and [kæt]). 

� If two segments contrast in identical 

environment then they must belong to different 

phonemes. That is, if we change one sound to 

another and it changes the meaning then the 

sounds belong to different phonemes. 

(1) “segment” is another word for “single speech sound”


� A paradigm of minimal phonological 

contrasts is a set of words differing only by 

one speech sound. 

� In most languages it is rare to find a 

paradigm that contrasts a complete class of 

phonemes (eg. all vowels OR all consonants 

OR all stops, etc.).


e.g. English oral stops 

� the English oral stop consonants could be defined by the 

following set (paradigm) of minimally contrasting words:i) 

/pIn/ vs /bIn/ vs /tIn/ vs /dIn/ vs /kIn/ 

� Only /ɡ/ does not occur in this paradigm and at least one 

minimal pair must be found with each of the other 5 stops to 

prove conclusively that it is not a variant form of one of them. 

ii) /ɡɐn/ vs /pɐn/ vs /bɐn/ vs /tɐn/ vs /dɐn/ 

� Again, only five stops belong to this paradigm. A single minimal 

pair contrasting /ɡ/ and /k/ is required now to fully demonstrate 

the set of English stop consonants. 

iii) /ɡ{In/ vs /k{In/

Contrast in Analogous Environment (1) 

� Sometimes it is not possible to find a minimal 

pair which would support the contrastiveness 

of two phonemes and it is necessary to resort 

to examples of contrast in analogous 

environment (CAE). 

� CAE is almost a minimal pair, however the 

pair of words differs by more than just the 

pair of sounds in question.


� Preferably, in CAE, the other points of 

variation in the pair of words are as remote 

as possible (i.e. not adjacent and preferably 

not in the same syllable) from the pair of 

sounds being tested. 

� The further away the other contrast is, the 

more unlikely it is to have any conditioning 

effect on the selection of pair phones of 

interest.


� eg. /ʃ/ vs /ʒ/ in English are usually supported 

by examples of CAE pairs such as 

"pressure" [preʃə] vs "treasure" [treʒə]. 

� The only true minimal pairs for these two 

sounds in English involve at least one word 

(often a proper noun) that has been borrowed 

from another language (eg. "Confucian" 

[kənfjʉːʃən] vs "confusion" [kənfjʉːʒən], and 

"Aleutian" [əlʉːʃən] vs "allusion" [əlʉːʒən]).

Minimal pairs versus CAE 

� Even one example of a minimal pair might be 

considered good evidence that two sounds 

are allophones of different phonemes. 

� Minimal pairs are reliable evidence in 

phonemic analysis. 

� CAE is poorer evidence in phonemic analysis 

and ideally requires other supporting 

evidence (eg. similar patterns for similar 

pairs of sounds confirmed to contrast by CIE)

Syntagmatic analysis (1) 

� A syntagmatic analysis of a speech sound 

identifies all of the locations or contexts within 

the words of a particular language where the 

sound can be found. 

� Note that in the following examples (next 

page), "#" is used to represent a word or 

syllable boundary, "V" represents any vowel, 

and "C" represents any other consonant.


For example, English [n] and [ŋ] :- 

� a syntagm of the phone [n] in English could be 

in the form:- 

( #CnV..., #nV..., ...Vn#, ...VnC#, ...VnV..., etc.) 

� whilst [ŋ] in English would be:- 

(...Vŋ#, ...VŋC#, ...VŋV..., etc) 

but would not include the word initial forms.


� For example, sequences of the type 

"#CnV..." would include "snow" [snəʉ], 

"snort" [sno:t] and "snooker" [snʉ:kə]. 

� In this case, the only consonant (for English) 

that can occupy the initial "C" slot is the 

phoneme /s/, and so the generalised pattern 

could be rewritten as "#snV...".


� A syntagmatic analysis can provide information 

about different restricted distributions of two 

allophones of the same phoneme (always found in 

different locations). 

� A syntagmatic analysis might help to strengthen a 

case based on a CAE analysis. For example, we 

might find CAE for [p, b] and we find that all other 

oral stop pairs (e.g. [t, d] and [k, g]) have minimal 

pairs in the same syllable location. So this would 

strengthen the case for [p, b] being separate 

phonemes.

Complementary Distribution (1) 

� A phoneme may be realised by more than 

one speech sound and the selection of each 

variant is usually conditioned by the phonetic 

environment of the phoneme. 

� This is known as mutually exclusive or 

complementary distribution (CD)


� The CD of two phonemes means that the two 

phonemes can never be found in the same 

environment (ie. the same environment in the 

senses of position in the word and the 

identity of adjacent phonemes). 

� If two sounds are phonetically similar and 

they are in CD then they can be assumed to 

be allophones of the same phoneme.


� eg. in many languages voiced and voiceless stops 

with the same place of articulation do not contrast 

linguistically but are rather two phonetic realisations 

of a single phoneme (ie. /p/=[p,b], /t/=[t,d], and 

/k/=[k,ɡ]). 

� Whether the voiced or voiceless allophone is chosen 

depends upon syntagmatic distribution (e.g. where in 

the word) or phonetic context (e.g. whether the 

adjacent sounds are voiced or voiceless)


� In some Australian Aboriginal languages word medial 

oral stops are voiced if both adjacent phonemes are 

voiced (e.g. between two vowels) and are voiceless if 

at least one of the adjacent sounds is voiceless. 

� For initial stops the patterns varies from language to 

language and even between dialects within a single 

language. In some dialects of a language the 

voiceless allophone is preferred, in others the voiced 

allophone is preferred, and in others the choice of 

allophone is a matter of individual choice.

Contrastive Distribution 

� Contrastive distribution is the opposite of 

complementary distribution. 

� Sounds in contrastive distribution can occur 

in the same location and when exchanged 

change the meaning of the word. 

� Sounds in contrastive distribution belong to 

different phonemes.

Free Variation 

� Occasionally speakers of a language are free 

to choose whether they use one or another of 

two possible allophones. The choice may be 

word-specific (often a sign of language change 

in progress). The choice may be pragmatic 

(discourse context) or sociolinguistic 

(e.g. Some French speakers choose to use the 

alveolar trill [r] when in the village and the more 

prestigious uvular trill [ʀ] when in Paris.)

Phonetic similarity (1) 

� Allophones must be phonetically similar to 

each other. 

� In analysis, this means you can assume that 

highly dissimilar sounds are separate 

phonemes (even if they are in complementary 

distribution). 

� For this reason no attempt is made to find 

minimal pairs which contrast vowels with 

consonants. BUT…


� Even the distinction between vowel and 

consonants isn’t totally unproblematic. 

� For example, a sequence in one language 

which is perceived as a diphthong might in 

another language be perceived as a semivowel 

(approximant) and a vowel 

e.g. /ja/ ~ /ia/ OR /aj/ ~ /aI/ 

� What happens when the speakers of one of 

these languages learns the other language? 

What is the interlanguage phonology?


� Exactly what can be considered phonetically 

similar may vary somewhat from language to 

language and so the notion of phonetic 

similarity can seem to be quite unclear at times. 

� Sounds can be phonetically similar from both 

articulatory and auditory points of view. One 

finds pairs of sounds that vary greatly in their 

place of articulation but are sufficiently similar 

auditorily to be considered phonetically similar.


� According to Hockett (1942), "...if a and b are 

members of one phoneme, they share one or 

more features". 

� Phonetic similarity is therefore based on the 

notion of shared features. 

� Such judgments of similarity will vary from 

language to language and there are no 

universal criteria for similarity.


� Example 1. Glottal [h] and palatal [ç] are 

voiceless fricatives which are distant in terms 

of places of articulation, but they share 

features and are sufficiently similar auditorily 

(both weak sounding, voiceless, non-tonguetip, 

non-labial, fricatives) to be allophones of 

a single phoneme in some languages such 

as Japanese.


� Example 2. In English, /h/ and /ŋ/ are in 

complementary distribution. /h/ only ever occurs 

at the beginning of a syllable (head, heart, 

enhance, perhaps) whilst /ŋ/ only ever occurs at 

the end of a syllable (sing, singer, finger). 

� The differ in place, manner and voicing and in 

tongue body, velum and laryngeal gestures. 

They are so different that no one regards them 

as allophones of the one phoneme.


� So, if phonetic similarity is so difficult to pin 

down, then is it a useful tool in phonemic 

analysis. 

� Yes, it is. What we need to be aware of are 

the common patterns of phonetic similarity 

across languages. What follows are some of 

the common (but in no case universal) 

patterns…


� i) two sounds differing only in voicing: 

[pb] [td] [kɡ] [ɸβ] [θð] [sz] [ʃʒ] [xɣ] etc... 

� ii) two sounds differing in manner of 

articulation only as oral stop vs fricative. The 

sibilant or grooved fricatives [s,z,ʃ,ʒ] are 

excluded from this category as they are quite 

different auditorily from the other fricatives. 

[pɸ] [kx] [bβ] [ɡɣ] etc...


� iii) Any pairs of consonants close in place of 

articulation and differing in no other 

contrastive feature: 

[sʃ] [zʒ] [nɲŋ] [lɭ] [lʎ] [mɱ], etc... 

� iv) Any other pairs of consonants which are 

close in articulation and differ by one other 

feature but are nevertheless frequently 

members of the same phoneme 

[lɹ] [cɡ] [tθ] [dð]


� In languages where voicing is noncontrastive, 

two phones differing in voicing 

and only slightly in place of articulation might 

be considered similar e.g. [cɡ] etc. 

� Further, for the purposes of this type of 

analysis, the place of articulation of the 

apicodental fricatives [θ,ð] is considered to 

be close enough to that of the alveolar stops 

[t,d] to be considered phonetically similar.


� v) Any two vowels differing in only one 

feature or articulated with adjacent tongue 

positions 

[æ ɐ] [i I] [ɐ: ɐ] [i y] [ɑ ɑ̃]


� Although it is implied above that the notion of 

"phonetic similarity" is in some way less 

linguistically abstract (more phonetic?) than 

the notion of complementary distribution, it is, 

nevertheless, a quite abstract concept. 

� The are no obvious and consistent acoustic, 

auditory or articulatory criteria for phonetic 

similarity.


� There are many examples of very similar phones 

which are perceived by native speakers to belong to 

separate phonemes. 

� In English, for example, a word terminal voiceless stop 

may be either released and aspirated or unreleased. 

The homorganic (same place of articulation) voiced 

stop may also be released or unreleased. 

� Often the unreleased voiced and voiceless stops may 

actually be identical in every way except that the 

preceding vowel is lengthened before the 

phonologically voiced stop.


� In terms of phonetic similarity, the two 

unreleased stops may actually be identical 

and yet be perceived by native speakers to 

belong to different phonemes because of 

their different effect on the preceding vowel. 

� /kɐp/→[kɐpʰ] ... [kɐp̚ ] 

/kɐb/→[kɐˑb] ... [kɐˑb̚ ] ... [kɐˑp̚ ] 

(nb. " ̚ " means unreleased stop and " ˑ " 

means partially lengthened vowel)


� Conversely, phones which are very dissimilar 

(at least from certain perspectives) may be 

felt by native speakers to belong to a single 

phoneme. 

� eg. Japanese (1) 

/h/ → [ɸ] before /u/ eg.[ɸuku] "luck“ 

/h/ → [ç] before /i/ eg.[çito] "man“ 

/h/ → [h] before /e,a,o/ eg.[hana] 

(1) Japanese in the mid 20 th century. This pattern has undergone recent change.

Phonemic Pattern 

� A pair of phones in complementary distribution may 

sometimes be classified into separate phonemes on 

the basis of phonemic pattern. 

� In other words, is there a group of phonemes which 

exhibit a similar pattern of distribution (eg. clustering 

behaviour, morphology, etc.) to one of the phones 

being examined? 

� In the case of the pair [h], [ŋ] there are some 

similarities in patterning between [h] and certain 

fricatives, and between [ŋ] and the other nasal stops.

Phonological Space (1) 

� The greater the distance between a 

phoneme and its nearest neighbours, the 

greater the scope for allophonic variation. 

� In other words, the larger the number of 

redundant features (ie. features which when 

changed will not create another phoneme) 

the greater the number of allophones which 

can actually occur.


� eg. English 

/p/ = [-voice] [+bilabial] [+stop] [-nasal] [+/-aspirated] 

(nb. + present, - absent, +/- optional) 

� Changing the feature [-voice] to [+voice] will create /b/, 

changing the feature [bilabial] may create /t,k/, 

changing the feature [stop] may create /w,f/, 

changing the feature [nasal] will create /m/. 

� The only feature with complete freedom of movement 

is aspiration, and variation of this feature does create 

the main pair of allophones of this phoneme in English.


� eg. English 

� /r/ → [ɹ] alveolar approximant 

� /r/ → [R&] voiceless alveolar approximant (e.g. after /t/) 

� /r/ → [ɻ ] retroflex approximant (West England) 

� /r/ → [ɾ] alveolar flap (Scottish) eg. [ɡɾIn] 

� /r/ → [ʁ] uvular fricative (Tyneside, UK) 

� The possible varieties of /r/ seem to include variations 

of manner, place and voicing. The only restrictions are 

that its allophones may not overlap with those of /l/ 

and /w/.

Allophones & Narrow Transcription (1) 

� It should now be obvious that broad 

(phonemic) transcription is only possible 

following phonemic analysis. We can’t 

transcribe the phonemes until we know what 

they are. 

� To what extent do narrow transcriptions 

match the result of the identification of 

allophones in phonemic analysis?


� No narrow transcription captures all 

allophones of each phoneme. As we have 

already seen, each phoneme has an 

extremely large number of slightly varying 

allophones. 

� In this course we greatly simplify narrow 

transcription and ignore a lot of significant 

Australian English allophones.


� What might be a maximal narrow transcription 

of a language (e.g. Australian English)? 

� The maximal set of possible distinctions that 

we can transcribe is limited by the availability 

of IPA symbols, including the diacritics and by 

our ability to hear (or otherwise measure) 

these differences.


� For example we can use, not only the IPA 

vowel symbols but also the raising, lowering, 

fronting and backing diacritics to indicate a 

large variety of vowel qualities. 

� We can also provide diacritics for vowel 

nasalisation, breathy voice and creaky voice 

as well as voiceless (for whispered vowels). 

� For Arabic vowels we could add a velarised 

diacritic (for velarised vowels).


� Traditionally, phonemic analysis was limited 

by the accuracy and degree of detail of a 

narrow transcription. If a feature was missed 

in a narrow transcription it wasn’t part of the 


� Today we can add detail from acoustic and 

physiological measurement when judging 

allophonic variation.

Phoneme and Allophone 

� This is a complex topic. You will not become 

sufficiently familiar with it without practice in actual 


� You should review the unit web site. The web site 

has some additional material not covered here 

(especially “The Premises of Phonemic Analysis”). 

� Read and try all of the phonemic analysis tutorial 

exercises, including the complex ones. Solutions will 

be available after the relevant tutorial.

Readings 

� The unit web site:http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonology/phoneme/index.html 

� Clark, J., Yallop, C., & Fletcher, J. (2007), An introduction to 

phonetics and phonology, Blackwell (3rd edition).

References 

Referred to in preparation of these notes, but not required reading 

� Hockett, C.F. (1942) “A System of Descriptive Phonology”, Language, 

18(1), 3-21 

� Pike, K.L. (1947) Phonemics, U.Michigan 

� Trubetzkoy, N.S. (1939) Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du 

Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7, Reprinted 1958, Göttingen: 

Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Translated into English by C.A.M.Baltaxe 

1969 as Principles of Phonology, Berkeley: University of California 

Press.

Phoneme and Allophone - Speech Resource Pages

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?