音素和音位 - 第3頁 - 粵拼、字碼及輸入法 Cantonese Computing - 粵語協會

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 13:43:51

按照1960年广东省教育行政部门公布的「广州话拼音方案」，i列韵母有  i  iu   im   in ing ib id ig，实际上 ing和 ig 中的 i  和 i iu im in id 中的 i 在口腔开度上是不同的，属于不同的音素，ing ig 中的 i 是[ I ](小一些）或，i iu im in id 中的 i 是，但是，因为在广州话中并没有  ing 和  ing  的对立， 也没有  ig 和   ig 的对立，因此可以把它们中的 i  作为同一个音位  /i/  来处理。
说明：音素用 [ ] 表示，音位用 / /表示。
 
        同样，撮口呼那列韵母----（靴）（去）（春）（香）（律）（约）这六个字代表的韵母中的主要元音发音时口腔开度是不同的，（靴）（香）（约）中的主要元音发音时口腔开度大一些，属于一个音素，（去）（春）（律）中的主要元音发音时口腔开度小一些，属于另外一个音素，但是因为这两组韵母没有对立，所以可以把它们中间的主要元音作为同一个音位来处理。在《广州音字典》中作为同一个音位来处理，在广州话正音字典中也作为同一个音位/oe/来处理。
       至于《广州音字典》用汉语拼音方案注解三的  ê   （扁唇音）来表示「靴」列六个韵母的主要元音不恰当，那是另外一个问题。

[ 本帖最後由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 13:48 編輯 ]

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 14:02:14

无对立，唔等于系同一个音位。 因为信口开河詌话，无对立就等于同一个音位，实在系违反科学，违反逻辑。 it, ik 只不过系黄锡凌等拼音系统武断詌制定出来嘅人工规则。可以讲系同一个「字位」，完全系人工嘅。 但系，「音位」却系自然嘅。即使粤语至今无拼音，佢嘅自然嘅语音系统仍会表明，「热翼」韵腹，为完全唔同两个音位。 字位同音位嘅唔同，人工同自然嘅唔同，我希望邓先生要搞清楚。亦希望有第三个学者可以见证呢两个概念嘅唔同。

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 14:17:31

      您是把语音学的术语「音素」的概念和音位学上「音位」的概念弄混了。

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 14:21:10

是你混淆了。我认为熟悉国际音标权威理论的学者，是会否定你的观点的。 你对「宽式音标」是什么，「严式音标」是什么，似乎也不太熟悉。你可以用广东话和普通话来做个例子，解释一下你认为什么是这两种语言的「宽式」，什么是这两种语言的「严式」。 语音学上是有「音位」这个概念的。 把「字位」讲成是「音位」，是不科学的。而且是本末倒置的。 先有语言，再有拼音文字。 未有拼音文字时，早已有音位。 再者，我完全知道「音素」是什么东西，你不需要再跟我解释。 

[ 本帖最後由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 14:25 編輯 ]

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 14:32:36

再看看下面这段论述：
 
語音學與音位學：
語音學是依據發聲器官的發音(發音語音學)或聲音(聲學語音學)在耳內產生的效應來研究語言的學問。因為人類的發音機制與聽覺機制是一整套不可分割的系統，所以所有的語音學細部分類都是互相關連的。語音學的書寫系統主要的重點在於能正確的紀錄、轉寫所有由語音合成的音串，而其中最廣為人知的書寫系統就是International Phonetic Alphabet。 
每一個語言都使用人類所能發出的音中有限的音，這些音叫做phonemes，而無論聽者或是說話者，從小就被訓練成可以將他們區分成好幾個音群、將無意義的語音排除。因此說英語的人會忽略在其他語言中或許很重要的音，例如法文或西班牙文中的某些語音。音位包含了所有關於語音特殊且有意義的差異，例如有聲無聲、發音部位、發音方式、重音、以及鼻化、聲門式發音、雙唇化發音等等。研究音位的學問，就是一個語言的音位學。

melop 發表於 2008-9-5 14:32:43

原帖由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 12:25 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104918&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y_Yvoc6cc0經典重溫 : 羅文孔子曰 MV 1995http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E7%B2%A4%E8%AF%AD%E8%AE%BA%E8%AF%AD&btnG=Search&meta=粤语论语曰读成 joet , 应该唔系「 ... 呢首MV裡面都係讀 joek6 咋嘛，邊度有讀joet6 呀大佬。我都話咗囉，我支持oe eo 係唔同音位。但係你係都要話有個joet6音我就真係唔明。都係嗰句，你錄音上來聽下就知啦。

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 14:42:25

但系我阿爷同我老豆唔系懒音人。广州嘅口音比香港嘅口音要硬要明确，呢个好多人系知道嘅。 香港啲细路到底系读 t 定系读 k 定系读一个喉塞音，实在听得唔系好清。不过呢种情况我系当懒音看待嘅。第三句我认为似 t 多过 k, 其他我认为似喉塞音。 不过，我细时，广州籍嘅老豆同阿爷，无可能有任何懒音。佢哋读  t 定 k, 我分得好清楚嘅。 oet　呢个韵詌独特，我有乜可能自己发明佢呢？确实系我阿爷，老豆传畀我嘅「习得读音」。

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 14:47:33

原帖由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 14:32 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104936&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
再看看下面这段论述：
 
語音學與音位學：
語音學是依據發聲器官的發音(發音語音學)或聲音(聲學語音學)在耳內產生的效應來研究語言的學問。因為人類的發音機制與聽覺機制是一整套不可分割的系統，所以所有的語音學細 ... 喺广东话入边，属于「长元音组」嘅元音，同属于「短元音组」嘅元音，系无可能同属同一个音位嘅。　就系詌简单。 无一个音位，系可能既属于长元音组，又属于短元音组嘅。 长元音组同短元音组嘅对应，喺好多东南亚语言入边有，喺好多汉语南方方言入边有，但系喺官话入边无。

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 15:04:31

我认定您是搞不清楚音素和音位的概念，我估计也有人搞不清楚，所以才专门发一个帖子谈这个问题。
我最初也是搞不清楚的，开始用语音学的办法设计开平方音方案，后来拜访语言学专家和老师，才弄明白了，广州话拼音方案为什么把i iu im  in ib id 和    ing ig 放在一列，（就是说把归纳为一个音位）。因为我早就知道i iu im  in ib id 和    ing ig 这两组韵母中的元音 i实际发音是不同的，广州话的ing 和普通话的ing 中的 i 也是不同的。我说普通话的时候，没有把广州话的ing 带到普通话ing  中去。我也要求学生学习广州话的时候，不要把普通话的ing 带到广州话中去。我在《粤语基础教程》和《最新粤语教程》韵母表中作了注解。让学生对照音带来学准广州话的 ing和 ig（音带是广东人民广播电台著名播音员纪锋和韦东播讲的）。

melop 發表於 2008-9-5 15:07:42

原帖由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 14:42 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104939&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
但系我阿爷同我老豆唔系懒音人。广州嘅口音比香港嘅口音要硬要明确，呢个好多人系知道嘅。香港啲细路到底系读 t 定系读 k 定系读一个喉塞音，实在听得唔系好清。不过呢种情况我系当懒音看待嘅。第三句我认为似 t 多过... 我都聽到好似有一句有少少似「joet」，但係可能係啲香港細路懶音囉，因為其它幾句都係joek... 噉如果你屋企真係噉讀，就係比較新奇嘅發現囉，事關廣州話好似真係未紀錄過個 joet 音節。但係可能真係無咩人噉讀，事關真係好拗口。

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 15:09:42

这段话是从网上搜索来的，其中的观点我已经和几位教授通电话研究过，凡是希望搞清楚语音学和音位学的概念的网友，不妨认真学习一下。
 
 
語音學與音位學：
語音學是依據發聲器官的發音(發音語音學)或聲音(聲學語音學)在耳內產生的效應來研究語言的學問。因為人類的發音機制與聽覺機制是一整套不可分割的系統，所以所有的語音學細部分類都是互相關連的。語音學的書寫系統主要的重點在於能正確的紀錄、轉寫所有由語音合成的音串，而其中最廣為人知的書寫系統就是International Phonetic Alphabet。 
每一個語言都使用人類所能發出的音中有限的音，這些音叫做phonemes，而無論聽者或是說話者，從小就被訓練成可以將他們區分成好幾個音群、將無意義的語音排除。因此說英語的人會忽略在其他語言中或許很重要的音，例如法文或西班牙文中的某些語音。音位包含了所有關於語音特殊且有意義的差異，例如有聲無聲、發音部位、發音方式、重音、以及鼻化、聲門式發音、雙唇化發音等等。研究音位的學問，就是一個語言的音位學。 

[ 本帖最後由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 15:14 編輯 ]

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 15:36:14

原帖由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 15:04 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104945&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
    我认定您是搞不清楚音素和音位的概念，我估计也有人搞不清楚，所以才专门发一个帖子谈这个问题。
我最初也是搞不清楚的，开始用语音学的办法设计开平方音方案，后来拜访语言学专家和老师，才弄明白了，广州话 ... A，「即」嘅韵腹系个属于短元音组嘅音位 B，「节」嘅韵腹系个属于长元音组嘅音位 佢哋点可能系同一个音位？？？ 用A来做韵腹嘅清入汉语字，永远只能读高清入调，即系「北」调。 用B来做韵腹嘅清入汉语字，除咗「必"字，必然读低清入调，即」百「调。 你以前教授无教o岩你。我呢个理论，你完全无办法指出错误。你只能够重复詌贴前人嗰啲错误嘅」粤语音位考「，并重复詌贴」音位系乜意思，音素系乜意思「嘅非具体定义，而唔能够具体詌推翻我嘅具体论点。 而我就能够好好詌用例子来推翻你嘅具体论点。

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 15:37:04

广州话中并没有  ing 和  ing 的对立，也没有  ig 和   ig 的对立，因此可以把它们中的 i  作为同一个音位  /i/  来处理。
 
换一句话说，如果北方人把广州话「明」读成普通话的「明」，虽然实际发音不同，用了不同的元音音素,本来该用，却用了.但广州人也是会听明白的，因为在这里没有区别词义的作用，属于同一个音位，因此听起话来是可以忽略不计的。

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 15:38:04

原帖由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 15:09 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104947&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
这段话是从网上搜索来的，其中的观点我已经和几位教授通电话研究过，凡是希望搞清楚语音学和音位学的概念的网友，不妨认真学习一下。

語音學與音位學：
語音學是依據發聲器官的發音(發音語音學)或聲音(聲學語 ... 对唔住，呢个定义系非具体嘅。我完全明白呢个定义。佢所讲嘅精神无错，但因为系台湾人写嘅，佢哋将英文入边两个好重要嘅词翻译错咗。唔该你用心想下啦：「PHONEMICS」点能同「PHONOLOGY」割裂先得啦？「PHONEMICS」系「PHONOLOGY」不可割裂嘅一部分！ 而家请你具体詌推翻我嘅具体论点。 <h3>Phonemic distinctions or allophones</h3>
If two similar sounds do not belong to separate phonemes, they are called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allophone" title="Allophone">allophones</a> of the same underlying phoneme. For instance, voiceless stops (/p/, /t/, /k/) can be aspirated. In English, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_stop" title="Voiceless stop" class="mw-redirect">voiceless stops</a> at the beginning of a stressed syllable (but not after /s/) are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspiration_%28phonetics%29" title="Aspiration (phonetics)">aspirated</a>, whereas after /s/
they are not aspirated. This can be seen by putting the fingers right
in front of the lips and noticing the difference in breathiness in
saying 'pin' versus 'spin'. There is no English word 'pin' that starts
with an unaspirated p, therefore in English, aspirated (the [ʰ] means aspirated) and unaspirated are allophones of the same phoneme /p/.
The /t/
sounds in the words 'tub', 'stub', 'but', 'butter', and 'button' are
all pronounced differently in American English, yet are all intuited to
be of "the same sound", therefore they constitute another example of
allophones of the same phoneme in English. However, an intuition such
as this could be interpreted as a function of post-lexical recognition
of the sounds. That is, all are seen as examples of E /t/ once the word
itself has been recognized.
In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language" title="English language">English</a>, for example, /p/ and /b/ are distinctive units of sound, (i.e., they are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme" title="Phoneme">phonemes</a> / the difference is phonemic, or phonematic). This can be seen from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_pair" title="Minimal pair">minimal pairs</a> such as "pin" and "bin", which mean different things, but differ only in one sound. On the other hand, /p/ is often <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation" title="Pronunciation">pronounced</a> differently depending on its position relative to other sounds. For example, the /p/ in "pin" is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspiration_%28phonetics%29" title="Aspiration (phonetics)">aspirated</a>
while the same phoneme in "spin" is not. Yet these different
pronunciations are still considered by linguists invoking the
intuitions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_speakers" title="Native speakers" class="mw-redirect">native speakers</a> to be the same "sound".
The findings and insights of speech perception and articulation
research complicates this idea of interchangeable allophones being
perceived as the same phoneme, no matter how attractive it might be for
linguists who wish to rely on the intuitions of native speakers. First,
interchanged allophones of the same phoneme can result in
unrecognizable words. Second, actual speech, even at a word level, is
highly co-articulated, so it is problematic to think that one can
splice words into simple segments without affecting speech perception.
In other words, interchanging allophones is a nice idea for intuitive
linguistics, but it turns out that this idea can not transcend what
co-articulation actually does to spoken sounds. Yet human speech
perception is so robust and versatile (happening under various
conditions) because, in part, it can deal with such co-articulation.
 
There are different methods for determining why allophones should fall
categorically under a specified phoneme. Counter-intuitively, the
principle of phonetic similarity is not always used. This tends to make
the phoneme seem abstracted away from the phonetic realities of speech.
It should be remembered that, just because allophones can be grouped
under phonemes for the purpose of linguistic analysis, this does not
necessarily mean that this is an actual process in the way the human
brain processes a language. On the other hand, it could be pointed out
that some sort of analytic notion of a language beneath the word level
is usual if the language is written alphabetically. So one could also
speak of a phonology of reading and writing. <h2>Development of the field</h2>
In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_of_Ancient_India" title="Kingdoms of Ancient India" class="mw-redirect">ancient India</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit" title="Sanskrit">Sanskrit</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammarian" title="Grammarian" class="mw-redirect">grammarian</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini" title="Pāṇini">Pāṇini</a> (c. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/520_BC" title="520 BC" class="mw-redirect">520</a>–<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/460_BC" title="460 BC">460 BC</a>) in his text of Sanskrit phonology, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Sutra" title="Shiva Sutra">Shiva Sutras</a>, discusses something like the concepts of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme" title="Phoneme">phoneme</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme" title="Morpheme">morpheme</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_%28linguistics%29" title="Root (linguistics)">root</a>. The Shiva Sutras describe a phonemic notational system in the fourteen initial lines of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%AD%C4%81dhy%C4%81y%C4%AB" title="Aṣṭādhyāyī" class="mw-redirect">Aṣṭādhyāyī</a>. The notational system introduces different clusters of phonemes that serve special roles in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29" title="Morphology (linguistics)">morphology</a> of Sanskrit, and are referred to throughout the text. Panini's grammar of Sanskrit had a significant influence on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure" title="Ferdinand de Saussure">Ferdinand de Saussure</a>, the father of modern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism" title="Structuralism">structuralism</a>, who was a professor of Sanskrit.
The Polish scholar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baudouin_de_Courtenay" title="Jan Baudouin de Courtenay" class="mw-redirect">Jan Baudouin de Courtenay</a>, (together with his former student <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miko%C5%82aj_Kruszewski" title="Mikołaj Kruszewski">Mikołaj Kruszewski</a>) coined the word <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme" title="Phoneme">phoneme</a>
in 1876, and his work, though often unacknowledged, is considered to be
the starting point of modern phonology. He worked not only on the
theory of the phoneme but also on phonetic alternations (i.e., what is
now called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allophony" title="Allophony" class="mw-redirect">allophony</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphophonology" title="Morphophonology">morphophonology</a>). His influence on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure" title="Ferdinand de Saussure">Ferdinand de Saussure</a> was also significant.
Prince <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Trubetzkoy" title="Nikolai Trubetzkoy">Nikolai Trubetzkoy</a>'s posthumously published work, the Principles of Phonology (1939), is considered the foundation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_School" title="Prague School" class="mw-redirect">Prague School</a> of phonology. Directly influenced by Baudouin de Courtenay, Trubetzkoy is considered the founder of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphophonology" title="Morphophonology">morphophonology</a>, though morphophonology was first recognized by Baudouin de Courtenay. Trubetzkoy split phonology into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemics" title="Phonemics" class="mw-redirect">phonemics</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archiphoneme" title="Archiphoneme" class="mw-redirect">archiphonemics</a>; the former has had more influence than the latter. Another important figure in the Prague School was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Jakobson" title="Roman Jakobson">Roman Jakobson</a>, who was one of the most prominent linguists of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_century" title="Twentieth century" class="mw-redirect">twentieth century</a>.
In 1968 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky" title="Noam Chomsky">Noam Chomsky</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Halle" title="Morris Halle">Morris Halle</a> published <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sound_Pattern_of_English" title="The Sound Pattern of English">The Sound Pattern of English</a> (SPE), the basis for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_linguistics" title="Generative linguistics">Generative</a> Phonology. In this view, phonological representations are sequences of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segment_%28linguistics%29" title="Segment (linguistics)">segments</a> made up of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinctive_feature" title="Distinctive feature">distinctive features</a>. These features were an expansion of earlier work by Roman Jakobson, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Fant" title="Gunnar Fant">Gunnar Fant</a>,
and Morris Halle. The features describe aspects of articulation and
perception, are from a universally fixed set, and have the binary
values + or -. There are at least two levels of representation: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underlying_representation" title="Underlying representation">underlying representation</a> and surface phonetic representation. Ordered phonological rules govern how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underlying_representation" title="Underlying representation">underlying representation</a>
is transformed into the actual pronunciation (the so called surface
form). An important consequence of the influence SPE had on
phonological theory was the downplaying of the syllable and the
emphasis on segments. Furthermore, the Generativists folded
morphophonology into phonology, which both solved and created problems.
Natural Phonology was a theory based on the publications of its proponent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Stampe&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Stampe (page does not exist)">David Stampe</a>
in 1969 and (more explicitly) in 1979. In this view, phonology is based
on a set of universal phonological processes which interact with one
another; which ones are active and which are suppressed are
language-specific. Rather than acting on segments, phonological
processes act on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinctive_feature" title="Distinctive feature">distinctive features</a>
within prosodic groups. Prosodic groups can be as small as a part of a
syllable or as large as an entire utterance. Phonological processes are
unordered with respect to each other and apply simultaneously (though
the output of one process may be the input to another). The second-most
prominent Natural Phonologist is Stampe's wife, Patricia Donegan; there
are many Natural Phonologists in Europe, though also a few others in
the U.S., such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Pullum" title="Geoffrey Pullum">Geoffrey Pullum</a>. The principles of Natural Phonology were extended to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29" title="Morphology (linguistics)">morphology</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_U._Dressler" title="Wolfgang U. Dressler">Wolfgang U. Dressler</a>, who founded Natural Morphology.
In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976" title="1976">1976</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Goldsmith" title="John Goldsmith">John Goldsmith</a> introduced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosegmental_phonology" title="Autosegmental phonology">autosegmental phonology</a>. Phonological phenomena are no longer seen as operating on one linear sequence of segments, called phonemes or feature combinations, but rather as involving some parallel sequences of features which reside on multiple tiers. Augosegmental phonology later evolved into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_Geometry&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Feature Geometry (page does not exist)">Feature Geometry</a>,
which became the standard theory of representation for the theories of
the organization of phonology as different as Lexical Phonology and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimality_Theory" title="Optimality Theory" class="mw-redirect">Optimality Theory</a>.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**_Phonology" title="** Phonology" class="mw-redirect">** Phonology</a>,
which originated in the early 1980s as an attempt to unify theoretical
notions of syntactic and phonological structures, is based on the
notion that all languages necessarily follow a small set of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle" title="Principle">principles</a> and vary according to their selection of certain binary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter" title="Parameter">parameters</a>.
That is, all languages' phonological structures are essentially the
same, but there is restricted variation that accounts for differences
in surface realizations. Principles are held to be inviolable, though
parameters may sometimes come into conflict. Prominent figures include
Jonathan Kaye, Jean Lowenstamm, Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Monik Charette,
John Harris, and many others.
In a course at the LSA summer institute in 1991, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Prince" title="Alan Prince">Alan Prince</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Smolensky" title="Paul Smolensky">Paul Smolensky</a> developed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimality_Theory" title="Optimality Theory" class="mw-redirect">Optimality Theory</a>
— an overall architecture for phonology according to which languages
choose a pronunciation of a word that best satisfies a list of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint" title="Constraint">constraints</a>
which is ordered by importance: a lower-ranked constraint can be
violated when the violation is necessary in order to obey a
higher-ranked constraint. The approach was soon extended to morphology
by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_%28linguist%29" title="John McCarthy (linguist)">John McCarthy</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Prince" title="Alan Prince">Alan Prince</a>,
and has become the dominant trend in phonology. Though this usually
goes unacknowledged, Optimality Theory was strongly influenced by
Natural Phonology; both view phonology in terms of constraints on
speakers and their production, though these constraints are formalized
in very different ways.
Broadly speaking <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**_Phonology" title="** Phonology" class="mw-redirect">** Phonology</a> (or its descendant, strict-CV phonology) has a greater following in the United Kingdom, whereas <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimality_Theory" title="Optimality Theory" class="mw-redirect">Optimality Theory</a> is predominant in North America. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetics">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetics</a>Phonetics <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemics">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemics</a>Phonemics <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme</a> <h1 class="firstHeading">Phoneme</h1> 

[ 本帖最後由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 15:58 編輯 ]

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 15:40:47

原帖由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 15:37 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104954&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
广州话中并没有ing 和ing的对立，也没有ig 和 ig的对立，因此可以把它们中的 i作为同一个音位/i/来处理。

换一句话说，如果北方人把广州话「明」 广州话入边有」即」韵腹同「节」韵腹嘅对立。前者嘅清入汉语字唔能够读低阴入调。后者嘅清入汉语字，除「必」字外，只能够读低阴入调。 而且唔单只系「即」，「节」腹对立。所有长韵腹清入汉语字，包括「百」，「锡」，「削」，「雪」，「阔」嘅韵腹，除「必」字外，只能够读低阴入调。所有短韵腹清入汉语字，包括「北」，「色」，「率」，「福」嘅韵腹，唔能够读低阴入调。 李奥尼达话斋：呢个就系对立！呢个就系规律！ <img src="http://www.qarl.com/qLab/pile/300/SPARTA.jpg"> 我将你嘅论点具体推翻咗。 

[ 本帖最後由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 15:49 編輯 ]

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 15:55:14

即 [ tsik55]  没有  (  )的对立
 
节  tsit   没有   (  )tsIt33] 的对立
 
因此，用音位学的方法可以把归为同一个音位/i/,在《广州音字典》的广州话拼音方案中写「即」jig1  「节」jid3，在《广州话正音字典中》写「即dzik1」「节」 dzit3，尽管它们的实际发音是不同的。

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 16:00:11

    我针对您的问题回答您，帖子还没有修改完，您就一连贴了两个帖子。

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 16:01:30

无你呢种对立，唔等于无我嗰种对立。 无你呢种对立，但系有我嗰种对立，结果重系有对立嘅。 我所讲嘅，系复合逻辑嘅。0+1=1，亦即系话，最终重系能通过我嘅方法，检测出对立，只不过唔系通过你嗰种唔完整嘅方法。凡检测对立，必须完整。用完你嗰种方法，重要用我呢种。 即 [ tsik55]  点解读高阴入？原因系因为，佢嘅韵腹系个」短元音组「嘅音位。呢个音位永远系短嘅。系个独立嘅音位。 
 
节  tsit   点解读低阴入？原因系因为，佢嘅韵腹系个」长元音「嘅音位。呢个音位永远系长嘅。系个独立嘅音位。 请你具体詌否定我嘅论点。请你唔好重复贴非具体嘅定义，论文之类。因为重复贴，好似话我完全唔理解呢啲论文嘅主旨。其实我完全明。 

[ 本帖最後由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 16:26 編輯 ]

dengjun 發表於 2008-9-5 16:22:34

说两个不同的音素没有词义上的对立，就是说没有区别词义的作用，就可以归纳为一个音位，这是说
「即」jig1 即使读成,没有区别词义的作用，它也可以和「节」jid3      i  归纳成一个音位/i  /.     换句话说，在制订拼音方案的时候可以把「积」和「节‘使用同一个元音字母 i来表示，这样就
节省字母，方便学习。

penkyamp 發表於 2008-9-5 16:31:43

原帖由 dengjun 於 2008-9-5 16:22 發表 <a href="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=104975&ptid=12117" target="_blank"><img src="http://bbs.cantonese.asia/images/common/back.gif" onclick="zoom(this)" onload="attachimg(this, 'load')" alt="" border="0"></a>
说两个不同的音素没有词义上的对立，就是说没有区别词义的作用，就可以归纳为一个音位，这是说
「即」jig1 即使读成,没有区别词义的作用，它也可以和「节」jid3 i归 ... 错，呢种粤语唔存在。用短阔音位做韵腹嘅字，读成长窄韵腹，无呢种粤语。你唔能够将」出「 ceot1 读成coet4 coet2 seng1 嗰个coet. 如果你将」出「读成 coet coet seng 嗰个 coet, 所谓」无词义对立「，完全只系因为你」占空「，唔系因为 coet coet seng 个 coet 同 ceot 无词义对立。 你讲嘅」词义对立「嘅观点，又被我推翻咗。 作为教师，你唔能够描写或假想一种唔存在嘅粤语！正如，作为普通话嘅教师（我系业余教普通话嘅），我唔能够教用粤语口音模仿出来，从而唔具备普通话语音规律嘅普通话。虽然用粤语口音模仿出来嘅普通话，可以讲系」能够准确表达意思「。但系，呢种普通话，系一种」唔存在嘅普通话「！ 你嘅观点，又被推翻。 

[ 本帖最後由 penkyamp 於 2008-9-5 16:35 編輯 ]

頁: 1 2 [3] 4

粵語協會's Archiver