# Is a single minimal pair enough?



## iobyo

What are the criteria for minimal pairs?

Is _one_ minimal pair of local word versus loanword enough to demonstrate two separate phonemes in a language?


----------



## Alxmrphi

iobyo said:


> What are the criteria for minimal pairs?
> 
> Is _one_ minimal pair of local word versus loanword enough to demonstrate two separate phonemes in a language?



What do you mean by local / loan word? When looking at minimal pairs it doesn't matter about the origin of the word (in a strict synchronic sense), only that it is an accepted word in that language (as CapnPrep has mentioned below).

If you can find a minimal pair in a language then that demonstrates that a contrast can be made between two phonemes, so technically yes. Obviously the more you can find the better the definitiveness is of your statement.

But pairing even two words together and showing they differ by one sound and the listener automatically arrives at another meaning is a successful demonstration that the two sounds in question are considered different phonemes within the phonological framework of that language.


----------



## CapnPrep

If the sound in question is found only in recent or unassimilated loanwords, or other peripheral word classes (interjections, onomatopoeic words, names, scientific/technical terminology, etc.), then its phonemic status is questionable.

Do you have a particular example in mind?


----------



## sokol

As CapnPrep said, a single minimal pair _might_ not be enough, especially if it involves a loan.
Actually the sound you have in mind might be a loaned phoneme - in which case I certainly would doubt its phonemic status in the language the word has been loaned to.

But there are cases when one single minimal pair could be an argument for proposing phonemic status - even if it involves a loan.
Let me give an example from my native dialect (Mühlviertel, Austrian German): I would propose a phonemic opposition of /œ/ (half-open front-rounded vowel) vs. /ɶ/ (open and slightly nasalised front-rounded vowel).

There is only one (1) minimal pair:
/vɶn/ = to want (German equivalent: wollen): this is a "native" word of this dialect
/vœn/ = to elect (German equivalent: wählen): this is a loan from standard language German, it is not a native word of this dialect

Else, only the sound /œ/ can be attested as a phoneme of this dialect. However, /ɶ/ also is used as spelling sound for the standard language letter of /ä/, so if a native speaker of this dialect is asked to spell standard language "Bär" he or she will spell /be-ɶ-ɛɐ̯/ - while 'properly' "ä" should be spelled as /æ/. This kind of spelling variety once was more widespread in Austria and not limited to Mühlviertel dialect; but as school teachers began to switch to the spelling considered being 'more proper' - i. e., /æ/ - the use of 'spelling-/ɶ/' is not as common as it once was (and might in fact even become extinct some time in the future).

Arguments for the phonemic status go as follows:
(1) The spelling-/ɶ/, which supports the phonemic opposition: of course this spelling-/ɶ/ is not a phoneme of this dialect but it still raises awareness of this sound being distinct from /œ/.
(2) The fact that not the loan but the native word uses /ɶ/ while in the loan /œ/ is used.
(3) The fact that a native speaker would recognise both sounds - /œ/ and /ɶ/ - as native to the dialect: neither is considered a foreign sound; this is of course a very weak argument (as it is difficult to measure scientifically), which could be tested easily by asking native speakers whether aspirated /th/ were a native phoneme of their dialect (it isn't, and that's a fact): I am quite sure that many would be unsure, and some certainly would claim that yes, it were "native" - influenced, of course, by the fact that it is a phoneme of standard language, and that they've learned the sound in school.

I have arranged arguments in the order which I think is most important - (1) and (2) however are, to me, almost equally important arguments for postulating two (native) phonemes /œ/ and /ɶ/.
(However, with (2) a linguist could argue that the native word were just a nasalised variety of /œ/, which historically certainly is the case - in this particular dialect non-distinctive or "intrinsic" nasalisation developed into a phonemic opposition but a linguist could argue that it only developed into an opposition in all other cases but /œ/; it is not my position, mind, I just want to point out that this argument is not rock-solid.)

So to cut the long story short: if you cannot find any other supporting arguments for the one minimal pair you have in mind then it might indeed prove difficult to argue for phonemic status.
But please post the example you've got in mind - else we could only guess. 


PS: Oh, I have forgotten, another important thing CaptnPrep mentioned above - both /vɶn/ and /vœn/ are not peripheral in their use, they're actually both used quite frequently. Frequency of words of course also is an important argument.


----------



## iobyo

Thank you all so very much!


----------



## iobyo

Alxmrphi said:


> What do you mean by local / loan word?



In this case it would be a Proto-Slavic derivation versus Turkish loan in Macedonian:



CapnPrep said:


> Do you have a particular example in mind?



_бела_ [beɫa] v. _беља_ [bela] as given by Friedman (Lunt also claims /ɫ/ is a distinct phoneme).


----------



## marlodge

Nobody has yet mentioned a classic case for English RP, the word _loch_. You don't have to be Scottish to pronounce this with a velar fricative. Dictionaries which show RP pronunciations often make it a homophone with _lock_, using a velar stop. I don't think it is generally claimed that the fricative should be added to the RP phoneme inventory on the basis of this word, along with Bach and other German names which English speakers usually get right.


----------



## Alxmrphi

marlodge said:


> Nobody has yet mentioned a classic case for English RP, the word _loch_. You don't have to be Scottish to pronounce this with a velar fricative. Dictionaries which show RP pronunciations often make it a homophone with _lock_, using a velar stop. I don't think it is generally claimed that the fricative should be added to the RP phoneme inventory on the basis of this word, along with Bach and other German names which English speakers usually get right.



Yeah, not in RP, but it's phonemic in Scottish English, though disappearing in some younger speakers around the Glasgow area (so I remember someone telling me*).
I haven't met anyone who isn't Scottish that uses /x/ though, I wouldn't say this was representative of the majority so I wouldn't say it is considered phonemic in RP, but certainly the majority of Scottish English speakers can make the differentiation* /lɔk/* (_lock_, to put your key in) and */lɔx/ *(_loch_, to put your giant monster in).

*It was this document, I remember now (page 13).


----------



## iobyo

What if an etymological _*a_ always gave _x_, _*b_ always gave _y_, there aren't any minimal pairs and no observable phonological processes; could _x_ and _y_ be considered separate phonemes?


----------



## CapnPrep

iobyo said:


> What if an etymological _*a_ always gave _x_, _*b_ always gave _y_, there aren't any minimal pairs and no observable phonological processes; could _x_ and _y_ be considered separate phonemes?


Yes. A commonly discussed example (e.g. here) is the contrast between /ŋ/ and /h/ in English. The phonotactics of English exclude /ŋ/ in onset positions and /h/ in coda positions, so obviously there can be no minimal pairs, but "common sense" tells us that they must still be separate phonemes.

Actually, the phonotactic constraints on /h/ and /ŋ/ may be what you are referring to as "phonological processes", so maybe this example doesn't count. But if you look at the table of consonants on this page, you can see that there are a few other pairs of English phonemes for which no minimals pairs can be found, e.g. /ʒ/~/h/ or /ʒ/~/r/. I would say that these gaps are simply accidental. (Of course, /ʒ/ occurs primarily in French loanwords, but these words are now fully integrated into the English lexicon.)


----------



## Istriano

In order to make [x] (in loch) a distinct phoneme in English, it should be be contrasted not only with [k], but also with .
In SerboCroatian, [x] is just a variant of /h/ used before r (for example in _Hrvatska_)
In Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese [x] and  are interchangeable variants of the same phoneme: [hwan] in Caracas, [xwan] in Bilbao; [xiu] in São Paulo, [hiu] in Salvador.

Many Brazilian phoneticians claim Brazilian Portuguese has no nasal vowels, but only nasalized vowels, because nasal vowels are not in contrast with oral vowel+nasal consonant sequence:

*/bõ/* vs. */bon/*, contrasts with "beau" */bo/*.
French has perfectly nasal vowels, 

this contrast is impossible in Brazilian Portuguese.

(In Continental Portuguese perfect nasal vowels are possible in
Lisbon Portuguese:  *vi *(oral) ~ *vim *(nasal vowel) ~ *vime *[vim] (oral vowel + nasal consonant))

I don't think a single minimal pair is enough to make a contrast,
because it may be just a conditional variant.


----------



## sokol

iobyo said:


> _бела_ [beɫa] v. _беља_ [bela] as given by Friedman (Lunt also claims /ɫ/ is a distinct phoneme).


Please warn us when you're linking to huge PDF documents.  The link to Lunt actually takes ages to download, and then is even scrambled (completely unreadable at least on my computer). But Friedman is okay. 
Anyway, Friedman says about distribution:
- <л> = pronounced as clear /l/ before front vowels but as velar /ł/ else
- <љ> = always pronounced as clear /l/, and used as writing variety before dark vowels
So this is a clear case of spelling tradition which might not have much relevance for phonemic analysis.  Obviously there are plenty of minimal pairs between the two, and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever about them being different phonemes - only thing is, <л> does not represent the phoneme /л/ but is rather just a grapheme. 



Istriano said:


> I don't think a single minimal pair is enough to make a contrast, because it may be just a conditional variant.


I _*think*_ I made a very strong case about a single minimal pair being possibly enough for claiming phonemic status, as described in my post above (my native Mühlviertel dialect ).
Of course you're at a disadvantage arguing here as you do not know this dialect, so I am sorry but you just will have to trust me here.
As said however, it is possible to argue against me even in this case, but I think a linguist with sufficient knowledge of German dialects, and this dialect in particular, would find it difficult to argue against me. 

In general however I agree that a single minimal pair is awfully little to claim phonemic opposition.
And in cases of above mentioned English velar "loch" phoneme I would still see /x/ as a "loan phoneme", only used in loanwords and thus not being part of classical English standard language phonology; and for the same reason I would claim that German standard language (! - it's different in dialects!) does not have any nasalised vowel phonemes, even though some loans (especially French ones) supposedly should be pronounced with nasal vowels in standard language.


----------



## CapnPrep

sokol said:


> Anyway, Friedman says about distribution:
> - <л> = pronounced as clear /l/ before front vowels but as velar /ł/ else
> - <љ> = always pronounced as clear /l/, and used as writing variety before dark vowels


That's right (as far I understand it), but your following statement does not follow:


			
				sokol said:
			
		

> Obviously there are plenty of minimal pairs between the two


Maybe _бела_ "white" ~ _беља_ "trouble" really is the only minimal pair of words in the language (I don't know). But if there are other words in the core lexicon that contain _ља_,_ љу_, and _љо, _then it is difficult to analyze [l] and [ł] as allophones of a single underlying phoneme. Because allophones should not only have complementary distribution, but their distribution should be predictable from the phonological context.


----------



## iobyo

sokol said:


> Please warn us when you're linking to huge PDF documents.



Sorry!  



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> Anyway, Friedman says about distribution:
> - <л> = pronounced as clear /l/ before front vowels but as velar /ł/ else
> - <љ> = always pronounced as clear /l/, and used as writing variety before dark vowels
> So this is a clear case of spelling tradition which might not have much relevance for phonemic analysis.



Could such a spelling tradition then be taken to suggest that there are two phonemic laterals?



CapnPrep said:


> Maybe _бела_ "white" ~ _беља_ "trouble" really is the only minimal pair of words in the language (I don't know).



Hence why I asked if it would make sense claim a phonemic /ɫ/ on the basis of this one minimal pair:



CapnPrep said:


> But if there are other words in the core lexicon that contain _ља_,_ љу_, and _љо, _then  it is difficult to analyze [l] and [ł] as allophones of a single  underlying phoneme.



So in this case — assuming I'm right about [beɫa] ~ [bela] being the only minimal pair — a single such pair will _have to_ be sufficient as there isn't complementary distribution (i.e. instead of proving they are separate phonemes, we prove they aren't allophones)?

This then raises the question of what degree of consistency is required to determine an allophone? Does every /a/ before /b/ always need to give [x]...


----------



## CapnPrep

iobyo said:


> So in this case — assuming I'm right about [beɫa] ~ [bela] being the only minimal pair — a single such pair will _have to_ be sufficient as there isn't complementary distribution (i.e. instead of proving they are separate phonemes, we prove they aren't allophones)?


Technically it is sufficient, as Alxmrphi said in the first response above. Assuming that _беља _is consistently pronounced as [bela], and that it isn't subject to some special treatment by speakers. For example, very recent or rarely used loanwords are often pronounced in a more deliberate or affected way, and such words should not be used to make claims about the core/native phonology of a language. I don't know if this is the case for _беља_. 

Another is example is if two sounds are in fact allophones, except in a small number of exceptional words that go against the regular phonology of the language. Words like that often end up being part of speakers' metalinguistic knowledge, i.e. they know they they have a strange or special pronunciation. Again, I don't know if this applies to _беља_. Are there other words that contain _ља_?

So it may be that this minimal pair is not sufficient, but it is not necessary either. Imagine that the word _беља_ did not exist. Are there other arguments for showing that /l/ and /ł/ are phonemes in Macedonian? For example, I see that many words begin with _љу-_ [lu] and many words begin with _лу-_ [łu]. Is there any possible way to account for this in terms of allophonic variation? (I don't think so…)



			
				iobyo said:
			
		

> This then raises the question of what degree of consistency is required to determine an allophone? Does every /a/ before /b/ always need to give [x]...


Allophony is governed by phonological rules, and as for all linguistic rules, there can be exceptions. A few exceptions is OK. A lot of exceptions means that the rule is incorrect/incomplete, or maybe there isn't a rule after all.


----------



## iobyo

Thank you again, CapnPrep. I think I've finally gotten my head around this.



CapnPrep said:


> Are there other words that contain _ља_?



Yes, and the _-ља-_ almost always follows a consonant: _кљака_, _мљацка_, _пљампа_, _пљачка_, _рубља,_ etc. 

The exceptions are the already mentioned _беља,_ and _Каља_ (proper noun).



CapnPrep said:


> Are there other arguments for showing that /l/ and /ł/ are phonemes in Macedonian?



There aren't any other minimal pairs that I can think of. I've even tried using online dictionaries which allow for wild-card searches. 



CapnPrep said:


> For example, I see that many words begin with _љу-_ [lu] and many words begin with _лу-_ [łu].



Well _љу-_ only occurs in the root _љуб-_ which is pronounced [ljub]/[ljup]-, otherwise _-љу-_ is -[lu]-.

_-Лу- _is always -[łu]-.


----------



## CapnPrep

iobyo said:


> CapnPrep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there other arguments for showing that /l/ and /ł/ are phonemes in Macedonian?
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any other minimal pairs that I can think of. I've even tried using online dictionaries which allow for wild-card searches.
Click to expand...

My point was that you don't necessarily need to find any minimal word pairs. It is enough to show that the distribution of the two sounds cannot be reasonably analyzed using allophonic rules. 

From what I have seen so far in this thread, [l] and [ł] are not in complementary distribution (nor do they show free variation) before back vowels, which would suggest that there is a phonemic distinction (in that context at least). But you might be able to find some sub-regularities in the distribution of the two phonemes. For example, maybe before a back vowel the more common phoneme is /ł/, and that all cases of /l/ before a back vowel can be explained phonologically, or morphologically, or historically, etc.


----------



## sokol

ioboyo, unfortunately I have little knowledge of Macedonian but I think there _must_ be some minimal pairs, based on more-or-less basic knowledge about Slavic languages. (And sorry, the Captain of course was right that my statement above does not mean necessarily that there were other minimal pairs too.)

Possibly in some declension paradigms? (I know, not much of it is left, but how about /-л/ participles? with ending /-a/ in feminine I take it, and possibly some front vowel /-и/ as plural ending?)*)

*) EDIT: No, might actually not help much, as it would be /-лa/ (velar) and /-ли/ (palatal), right? Which then would be, if anything, an argument for analysing both /l/ sounds as allophones of one phoneme.


But even if there are no more minimal pairs to be found I agree with CapnPrep that both could and should be considered separate phonemes, as the distribution of both phonemes would be difficult to explain by any phonological rules.

Certainly pronunciation of /л/ as palatal before front vowels is an indicator for it being just a positional variety once, in which case we would have to consider /љ/ as an allophone only; however, it looks to me like in modern Macedonian this is not valid anymore, else there would be no point in using the grapheme <љ> at all.
You can try and make a test: replace in a Macedonian text all <љ> letters by <л> and ask yourself whether there's a danger of the text being misread or misunderstood, even by someone without any knowledge of phonology.


The article from Friedman by the way also contains an interesting piece of information about tendencies: it says there that part of the younger generation tends to pronounce /л/ "dark" in all positions (also before front vowel) while (I take it) /љ/ always will sound "palatal".
This would mean that for the speakers of those variety both sounds clearly have become phonemic by re-interpretation of the phonology, influenced possibly (that seems to be the most obvious explanation to me) by standard language spelling. But this of course also isn't anymore the same phonological system as that of standard language.


----------

