Editing Phoneme (section)

==The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions==
During the development of phoneme theory in the mid-20th century, phonologists were concerned not only with the procedures and principles involved in producing a phonemic analysis of the sounds of a given language, but also with the reality or uniqueness of the phonemic solution. These were central concerns of [[phonology]]. Some writers took the position expressed by [[Kenneth Pike]]: "There is only one accurate phonemic analysis for a given set of data",<ref>Pike, K.L. (1947) ''Phonemics'', University of Michigan Press, p. 64</ref> while others believed that different analyses, equally valid, could be made for the same data. [[Yuen Ren Chao]] (1934), in his article "The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems"<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chao|first1=Yuen Ren|title=The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems|journal=Academia Sinica|date=1934|volume=IV.4|pages=363–97}}</ref> stated "given the sounds of a language, there are usually more than one possible way of reducing them to a set of phonemes, and these different systems or solutions are not simply correct or incorrect, but may be regarded only as being good or bad for various purposes". The linguist [[Fred Householder|F. W. Householder]] referred to this argument within linguistics as "God's Truth" (i.e. the stance that a given language has an intrinsic structure to be discovered) vs. "hocus-pocus" (i.e. the stance that any proposed, coherent structure is as good as any other).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Householder | first1 = F.W. | year = 1952 | title = Review of ''Methods in structural linguistics'' by Zellig S. Harris | journal = International Journal of American Linguistics | volume = 18 | pages = 260–8 | doi=10.1086/464181}}</ref>

Different analyses of the English vowel system may be used to illustrate this. The article [[English phonology]] states that "English has a particularly large number of vowel phonemes" and that "there are 20 vowel phonemes in Received Pronunciation, 14–16 in General American and 20–21 in Australian English". Although these figures are often quoted as fact, they actually reflect just one of many possible analyses, and later in the English Phonology article an alternative analysis is suggested in which some diphthongs and long vowels may be interpreted as comprising a short vowel linked to either {{IPAslink|j}} or {{IPAslink|w}}. The fullest exposition of this approach is found in [[George L. Trager|Trager]] and Smith (1951), where all long vowels and diphthongs ("complex nuclei") are made up of a short vowel combined with either {{IPA|/j/}}, {{IPA|/w/}} or {{IPA|/h/}} (plus {{IPA|/r/}} for rhotic accents), each comprising two phonemes.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Trager|first1=G.|last2=Smith|first2=H.|title=An Outline of English Structure|date=1951 |publisher=American Council of Learned Societies|page=[https://archive.org/details/outlineofenglish00trag/page/20 20] |url=https://archive.org/details/outlineofenglish00trag|access-date=30 December 2017}}</ref> The transcription for the vowel normally transcribed {{IPA|/aɪ/}} would instead be {{IPA|/aj/}}, {{IPA|/aʊ/}} would be {{IPA|/aw/}} and {{IPA|/ɑː/}} would be {{IPA|/ah/}}, or /ar/ in a rhotic accent if there is an {{angbr|r}} in the spelling. It is also possible to treat English long vowels and diphthongs as combinations of two vowel phonemes, with long vowels treated as a sequence of two short vowels, so that 'palm' would be represented as /paam/. English can thus be said to have around seven vowel phonemes, or even six if schwa were treated as an allophone of {{IPA|/ʌ/}} or of other short vowels.

In the same period there was disagreement about the correct basis for a phonemic analysis. The [[Structural linguistics|structuralist]] position was that the analysis should be made purely on the basis of the sound elements and their distribution, with no reference to extraneous factors such as grammar, morphology or the intuitions of the native speaker; this position is strongly associated with [[Leonard Bloomfield]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bloomfield |first1=Leonard|title=Language|date=1933|publisher=Henry Holt |url=https://archive.org/details/language0000unse_p0r2|url-access=registration}}</ref> [[Zellig Harris]] claimed that it is possible to discover the phonemes of a language purely by examining the distribution of phonetic segments.{{sfn|Harris|1951|p=5}} Referring to [[Mentalism (psychology)|mentalistic]] definitions of the phoneme, [[William Freeman Twaddell|Twaddell]] (1935) stated "Such a definition is invalid because (1) we have no right to guess about the linguistic workings of an inaccessible 'mind', and (2) we can secure no advantage from such guesses. The linguistic processes of the 'mind' as such are quite simply unobservable; and introspection about linguistic processes is notoriously a fire in a wooden stove."{{sfn|Twaddell|1935}} This approach was opposed to that of [[Edward Sapir]], who gave an important role to native speakers' intuitions about where a particular sound or group of sounds fitted into a pattern. Using English {{IPA|[ŋ]}} as an example, Sapir argued that, despite the superficial appearance that this sound belongs to a group of three nasal consonant phonemes (/m/, /n/ and /ŋ/), native speakers feel that the velar nasal is really the sequence [ŋɡ]/.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sapir|first1=Edward|title=Sound patterns in language|journal=Language|date=1925 |volume=1|issue=37|pages=37–51 |doi=10.2307/409004|jstor=409004}}</ref> The theory of [[generative phonology]] which emerged in the 1960s explicitly rejected the structuralist approach to phonology and favoured the mentalistic or cognitive view of Sapir.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Chomsky|first1=Noam |title=Current Issues in Linguistic Theory|date=1964|publisher=Mouton}}</ref>{{sfn|Chomsky|Halle|1968}}

These topics are discussed further in [[English phonology#Controversial issues]].