Editing Phoneme (section)

===Minimal pairs===
A pair of words like {{lang|is|kátur}} and {{lang|is|gátur}} (above) that differ only in one phone is called a ''[[minimal pair]]'' for the two alternative phones in question (in this case, {{IPA|[kʰ]}} and {{IPA|[k]}}). The existence of minimal pairs is a common test to decide whether two phones represent different phonemes or are allophones of the same phoneme.

To take another example, the minimal pair '''''t'''ip'' and '''''d'''ip'' illustrates that in English, {{IPA|[t]}} and {{IPA|[d]}} belong to separate phonemes, {{IPA|/t/}} and {{IPA|/d/}}; since the words have different meanings, English-speakers must be conscious of the distinction between the two sounds.

Signed languages, such as [[American Sign Language]] (ASL), also have minimal pairs, differing only in (exactly) one of the signs' parameters: handshape, movement, location, palm orientation, and [[nonmanual signal]] or marker. A minimal pair may exist in the signed language if the basic sign stays the same, but one of the parameters changes.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.handspeak.com/learn/index.php?id=109|title=Minimal pairs in sign language phonology|last=Handspeak|website=handspeak.com|language=en|access-date=2017-02-13|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170214003747/http://www.handspeak.com/learn/index.php?id=109|archive-date=14 February 2017}}</ref>

{{anchor|without-mps}}However, the absence of minimal pairs for a given pair of phones does not always mean that they belong to the same phoneme: they may be so dissimilar phonetically that it is unlikely for speakers to perceive them as the same sound. For example, English has no minimal pair for the sounds {{IPA|[h]}} (as in '''''h'''at'') and {{IPA|[ŋ]}} (as in ''ba'''ng'''''), and the fact that they can be shown to be in [[complementary distribution]] could be used to argue for their being allophones of the same phoneme. However, they are so dissimilar phonetically that they are considered separate phonemes.{{sfn|Wells|1982|p=44}} A case like this shows that sometimes it is the systemic distinctions and not the lexical context which are decisive in establishing phonemes. This implies that the phoneme should be defined as the smallest phonological unit which is contrastive at a lexical level or distinctive at a systemic level.{{efn |See [[Fausto Cercignani]], ''Some notes on phonemes and allophones in synchronic and diachronic descriptions'', in “Linguistik online”, 129/5, 2024, pp. 39–51, [https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/11228/14154 online]}}

Phonologists have sometimes had recourse to "near minimal pairs" to show that speakers of the language perceive two sounds as significantly different even if no exact minimal pair exists in the lexicon. It is challenging to find a minimal pair to distinguish English {{IPAc-en|ʃ}} from {{IPAc-en|ʒ}}, yet it seems uncontroversial to claim that the two consonants are distinct phonemes. The two words 'pressure' {{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|r|ɛ|ʃ|ər}} and 'pleasure' {{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|l|ɛ|ʒ|ər}} can serve as a near minimal pair.{{sfn|Wells|1982|p=48}} The reason why this is still acceptable proof of phonemehood is that there is nothing about the additional difference (/r/ vs. /l/) that can be expected to somehow condition a voicing difference for a single underlying postalveolar fricative. One can, however, find true minimal pairs for /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ if less common words are considered. For example, '[[Confucianism|Confucian]]' and 'confusion' are a valid minimal pair.