Aturamu Olayinka Omolayo
Department of Yoruba
College of
Education
Ikere- Ekiti
Awoyomi Emmanuel Segun
Department of
Yoruba
College of
Education
Ikere- Ekiti
Musa Haliru Kuta
Department of
Hausa
College of
Education
Ikere-Ekiti
Abstract
This paper examines the
place of distinctive features in phonology. It traces the development of distinctive
features in phonology. It argues that the consonants differ from vowels. The
use of features in phonological description reflects the dynamic nature of
linguistic behaviour. It enumerates the various ways its impact is felt in
indigenous languages sound segments. The theoretical framework is also
presented. This paper, therefore, concludes that distinctive features are
subject to revision or modification from time to time.
Keywords: Distinctive
features, indigenous languages, sound segments.
Introduction
According to the
international phonetic Association (IPA), phoneme was defined as “the smallest
constructive linguistic unit that is significant for meaning” (Jones 1975).
However, in the 21st century, linguistic knowledge later revised its
analysis of the phonic material, and it was discovered that phonemes is made up
of smaller linguistic units known as distinctive features. It is needed to turn
a given word or utterance into another. For example, the two words in Yoruba; tˋa (sold) and r`a (bought) as well in Hausa; ja (pulled) and sa (put)
constitute a minimal pair since the sounds in their final position are
identical, the only difference between them being in respect of the sounds in
their initial positions, that is in Yoruba /t/ in tˋa (sold) and r`a (bought) and in Hausa; /j/ in ja (pulled) and /s/ in
sa (put). Since the substitution of /t/ for /r/ in Yoruba and /j/ for /s/ in
Hausa causes a difference in the meaning, each of the sounds is on that
account, a phoneme.
Phoneme is being referred to as
sound segment (SS) in distinctive feature analysis. The generative phonologists
argue that the phoneme is made up of smaller constituents called features. It
is these features that are now labelled as distinctive features. Distinctive
features are extracted features or abstracted because they are concerned as
parts and parcel of the segment that bear them. Distinctive features are
employed partly to distinguish between one sound and the other. They are also
employed to describe the attribute and the quality of the different segment.
Theoretical Framework
This paper will rely on the
assumptions and principles of Generative Phonology. This theory has been in use
for the analysis of language for over four decades now. Its goal is to describe
the intuitive knowledge of native speakers on how they use sounds to produce
meaningful utterance. Therefore, pertinent to the concept of distinctive
features in indigenous languages, the theoretical framework employed for the
analysis is the principles of Generative Phonology. Sommerstein (1977) says of
the theory “seeks to account for the principles that determine the
pronunciation of languages and how the principles are universal”. As such,
principles of generative phonology can be used to investigate the ideological
concern of the sound segments so as to understand their implications.
Historical Development:
Distinctive
features have their origin in the theory of phonological oppositions developed
by Trubetzkoy (1939) one of the founders of the Prague School of Linguistics.
He attempted a comprehensive taxonomy of the phonetic properties of the
distinctive contracts employed by languages. The theory of distinctive features
was elaborated and radically transformed by Roman Jacobson (1896-1982),
especially in the 1940s. For classical Prague School theory, features were
merely dimensions along with which oppositions between phonemes may be
classified.
All
native speakers know which segments of their language contrast. Segments are
said to contrast (on to be distinctive or be in opposition) when their presence
alone may distinguish forms with different meaning from each other. The
segments [s] and [z] contrast in the words: Sip and Zip as do the vowels of
hit, hate and ho. Segments [s] and [z] are thus said to be distinctive sounds
in English called phonemes. A basic test for a sound’s distinctiveness is
called a Minimal pair test. A minimal pair consists of two forms with distinct
meanings that differ by only one segment which is their initial
consonants.
The
examples [s] and [z] are the same in the place and manner of articulation. The
only difference is that s = [- voiced] while z = [+ voiced].
Minimal
pairs are established on the basis of sound and not spelling. Jacobson
collaborated with the Swedish Acoustic aspects of oppositions, using the sound
spectrograph, and was thus able to devise a set of acoustic or auditory labels
for features such as ‘graves’, ‘student’, ‘flat’, etc. come into use.
The use of acoustic features enabled
the distinctive feature theory to integrate the description of consonants and
vowels within the same perspective. This was not possible through articulatory
phonetics. The Acoustic character of features enables back and front vowels
distinguished by the same feature, grave versus “acute”, as velar and palatal
consonants. The same feature “grave” may be used to group together labial and
velar consonants on account of their “dark” quality and oppose them to both
dentals consonants.
Another aspect of binary nature of
feature oppositions: Binary means two. This means that there are two sides to
every feature “+” or “-“. In other words a sound or phoneme can only be
described in terms of having or lacking a feature. Oppositions can be
“bilateral” or “multilateral”. For instance, the oppositions between /t/ and
/d/ in English is bilateral. This is the same with /f/ and /v/. Both are
distinguished by the feature + voicing. Multilateral opposition is found
in the case of p, t, k, that differ on the basis of point of articulation.
Bilateral c, j, s, z.
Oppositions
can also be private or gradual depending on whether it is a matter of presence
or lack of presence and degree. The opposition between [p], [b] is privative
while that between [i], [e], [E] in English or [u], [o], [a] in Yoruba in terms
of height.
Roles or Why We Use
Distinctive Features.
Distinctive features help us to
describe all segmental contrasts in the world of languages. This is reflected
in the fact that no two sounds carry the same set of similarity, it is always
possible to distinguish sounds by using features for instance, in English [p]
and [ph] are different only because one is aspirated, i.e. [ph] while the [p]
is un- aspirated and can occur either medially or word finally. The phonetic
differences is capture by the use of the feature [+ aspirated].
The distinctive feature values
are”relational”, that is “+” is positive only in relation to
“ “. Each feature thus represents not an
absolute property, but a relative one. This allows the same contrast to be
located at different points on a scale. For instance in Danish there is a
“strong” versus “weak” opposition which in initial position is found between a
pair such as /t/ versus /d/, but which in final position is contained in the
pair /d/ versus /o/. Though the same sound may be found on different sides of
the opposition, in each case, it can be treated as the same opposition, since
the first phoneme is “stronger” in relation to the second in both cases.
Despite this relational character, however, Jacobson maintains that distinctive
features are actual phonetic properties of the sounds, and not merely abstract
labels, since “strength” in this sense is a definable phonetic property even if
the terms of the opposition may be located at variable points along the scale.
The feature itself remains invariant, the variation in its physical
manifestation being non-distinctive.
The distinctive features, enables us to understand
how segments influence one another.
A B C
im-possible in-tolerance iη-correct
im-purity in-tangible iη-congress
im-balance in-discrete iη-complete
in-direct iη-gratitude
in-sufficient iη-consistence
in-op iη-
We
noticed that the phonetic form of the prefix meaning “not” is phonetically
variant for each group. This could be explained with the attention to the place
of articulation of the initial consonant of the roots, it is [in] before a
vowel [o] an alveolar consonant, [im] before a labial consonant, and [iη]
before a velar consonant. Since in all these cases the same prefix is added,
the phonetic forms are predictable by one rule within a word, a nasal consonant
assumes the same place of articulation as a following consonant. The rule can
also be stated in another form as this:
[m] + bilabial
[η] + velar
The rule therefore states the class of
phonemes to which it applies and where it is to be applied, this is an
assimilation rule. The nasal assimilates its place of articulation to agree
with the articulation of the following consonant. Thus the place of
articulation features: [ + labial], [ + coronal], [ +
high] and [ + back] features here.
The
assimilation process observed above is for instance, the progressive morpheme
in the Yoruba and Hausa language is a syllabic nasal that has different forms
depending on the place of articulation of the consonant after it. For example:
Yoruba Hausa English
mbo
-
ina zuwa -
coming
nta - ina sayarwa - selling
nso -
ina magana - saying
ηge -
ina yanka - cutting
η-gu -
ina hawa -
climbing
Another
character of distinctive features is its universal nature. One of the major
objectives of the distinctive feature theory is to have a system of description
that will work for all languages. Roman Jakobson, the inventor of the
distinctive feature theory therefore came up with twelve major features, not
all of which have the same importance across world languages. Some features
happen to be more relevant to the description of some languages than others.
Although all languages draw from the same universal set of features, individual
languages draw from the same universal set of features, individual languages
differ in the groups of features that make up their phonemes. For instance, the
features [coronal], [lateral], [affricate] and [distributed] are all found in
English, but they never occur together in a single phoneme.
To
make another example, English does not have the feature of rounding in front
vowels, but many European languages and indigenous languages do, among them:
French, German, Hungarian, Finnish, Hausa and Yoruba languages. In other words,
the set of universal distinctive features is a set that is available to all
languages and combinations of features are actually found in each individual
language.
Another
significance of distinctive features is the hierarchical structure of
oppositions. It enables us to know that all features are dependent on others,
in the sense that they can only occur in a language if a certain other features
are not present. This implies that if a language has feature B, it must also
have feature A.
Jakobson (1941) supports this point
with evidence from language acquisition and aphasia. He says that if a feature
B can only occur in a language when another feature A is also present, then it
follows that feature A must be acquired before feature B, and in aphasic
conditions when control of oppositions is impaired, feature B will inevitably
be lost before feature A.
Distinctive features enables us to
understand the redundancy criterion of sounds. Due to the individual
peculiarities of languages, some features must not necessarily be specified by
virtue of the presence of others. For instance, in both Yoruba, Hausa and
English all nasals are voiced, so plus nasal [+ nasal] automatically means plus
voice [+ voice] in that languages. Other languages that have voiceless nasals need
to specify with [ + voice]. Another example, is that all [ +
nasal] consonants are [+ continuant], hence [- continuant] consonants must be
[- nasal], there are also no nasal vowels in English, hence [- nasal] is
redundant for the vowel. All vowels are [+ continuant], and all non-tense
phonemes are [+ voice], while neither vowels nor [- compact], [- continuant]
consonants can be [+ strident]. We notice that redundancy also applies in
sequences. If a phoneme with feature A must always be followed by a phoneme
with feature B, then the latter feature is predictable, and therefore redundant
for the second phoneme.
Distinctive features are useful in
phonological description because they help in grouping sounds into natural
classes. Any natural class require fewer features to define it than to define
any one of its members. Thus, as the class becomes more general, the number of
features required decreases.
When
phonemes behave alike or are affected in same way, they are grouped together as
a set of natural class. In other words, consonants are grouped together as
distinct from vowels, stops are grouped together as distinct from fricatives,
nasals belong to a natural class that is distinct from fricatives, and nasals
belong to a natural class that is distinct from oral sounds. For example:
Fricatives
are [+ consonantal]
[+ continuant]
Stops
are [+ consonantal]
[- continuant]
Thus,
as the class becomes more general, the member of features required decreases.
For example: /p/ [- compact]
[+ tense]
[- continuant]
/p,t,k,/ [+
tense]
[- continuant]
/p,t,k,b,g/ [-
continuant]
On
the other hand, any set of phonemes which does not constitute a natural class.
For example: /ph/, /t/, /a/ cannot be grouped together using a number of
features than is needed for any one of them.
Like
the consonants, vowels also fall into natural classes. The high vowels as
against the non-high, round vowels as against non-round, low vowels as against
non-low etc. From the above explanation, consonants differ from vowels, as such
the features required to distinguish consonants are always not applicable to
vowels.
For
example: i u
[+ syllabic]
[+ high]
׀
e ʒ [+ syllabic]
[- back]
[- low]
ɥ ο Ͻ [+ syllabic]
[+ back]
[+ round]
[+ low]
Ƌ [+ syllabic]
[+ low]
[+ back]
[ round]
This
principle, together with that of redundancy, means that features are able to
achieve generalizations which are not possible in the case of phonemes.
Distinctive
features allow the use of an evaluation measure, simplicity metric, for
descriptions based on the number of features used.
Another
function of the distinctive features is the phonetic content of the features.
The set of features required must have articulatory, acoustic or auditory
correlates such as use of the feature Sonorant versus Obstruent in addition to
vocalic and consonantal. Vowels, glides, nasals and liquids are [+ Sonorant],
while the rest are [- Sonorant].
Another
one is the use of the features anterior, coronal, high, back and low in place
of “compact”, “grave”, “sharp” and some uses of “flat”, other uses of flat are
catered for by other features, e.g. round.
Furthermore,
distinctive features serve to distinguish phonemes as groups and at the same
time to refer to classes of sounds. The role of distinctive features in the
expression of phonological rules is also noticeable.
Recent
Developments:
In the 1970s, generative phonology was
more concerned with rule systems than with features and generally assumed
Chomsky and Halle’s framework with only minor modifications and additions.
In
recent years (1980s) new interest in nature of phonological representations and
new developments in feature theory was witnessed. Individual feature tiers may
be grouped together under place and manner of articulation which confirm that
features behave as classes in phonological processes.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the belief is that part
of one’s knowledge of a language is the knowledge of the sound system and the
phonology of that language. The phonetic features are universal rather than
specific to a particular language. The use of features in phonological
description reflects the dynamic nature of linguistic behaviour. The use of
features reflects a basic level of phonological activity contrasts that take
place on the feature level, not on the level where segments are represented.
References
Adrien,
A., Richard, A., Demers et.-al. (2004). Linguistics: An Introduction to
Language and
Communication. 5th edition. Cambridge,
M.A., U.S.A.: MIT Press.
Anderson,
S.R. (1985). Phonology in the Twentieth Century, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Durand,
J. (1990). Generative and Non-Linear Phonology, London and New-York: Longman.
Fromkin,
V. (1978). An Introduction to Language, Great Britain: Butler and Tanner Ltd.
George,
Y. (1996). The Study of Language. 2nd edition Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gimson,
A.C. (1980). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English, 3rd Edition.
London:
Edward Arnold.
Hyman,
L.M. (1975). Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New-York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
James,
D. (1975). The History and Meaning of the Term Phoneme. Supplement to Maitre
Phonetic. Reprinted in E.C. Fudge (ed).
Phonology: Penguin, 197, pp. 17-34.
Kenstowcz,
M. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell.
Ore,
Y. (2007). Basic Linguistic for Nigerian Languages. Shebiotimo Publication,
Ijebu-Ode,
Nigeria.
