Applied English Phonology, Second Edition ( PDFDrive )

PHONOLOGY 33
we do not have the minimal pairs to prove that two or more sounds are in
contrast, we look for the ‘near-minimal pair’. This is a pair of words that would
be a minimal pair except for some irrelevant difference. What this rather
vague definition says is that the potentially influential elements in the linguistic
environment are kept constant, while others that are unlikely to influence a
change may be different. Essentially, we look at the immediately preceding and
immediately following environments, because these are the primary sources
of contextual conditioning for changes. For example, if we cannot find an exact
minimal pair to show the contrast between [S] and [Z] in English, we can use
the words vision [vIZ@n] and mission [mIS@n], or illusion [@luZ@n] and solution
[s@luS@n]. Although these pairs do not constitute minimal pairs (because the
difference is not solely in the suspicious pair of sounds, [S] and [Z], but also
related to others), the relevant ‘preceding’ and ‘following’ environments of the
suspicious pairs of sounds are kept identical. Similarly, pairs such as lethargy
[lET2dZi] and leather [lED2] for [T] and [D], and lesion [liZ@n] and heathen [hiD@n]
for [Z] and [D], would serve as near-minimal pairs. Thus, we can answer the
question “Do the two sounds occur in the same/similar environment?”
affirmatively, and conclude that the pairs of sounds considered above are in
contrast and belong to two separate phonemes.
2.2.2 Complementary distribution
The other distributional possibility, complementary distribution, presents the
diametrically opposing picture. Here we never find the two or more sounds
in the same environment. Stating it simply, we can say that two sounds are
in complementary distribution if /X/ never appears in any of the phonetic
environments in which /Y/ occurs. Having said that, we can now go back to
some of the examples we gave at the beginning of the chapter and re-examine
them. The first one concerns the dental and alveolar nasal sounds [6] and [n].
In English the distribution of these two sounds is such that they never appear
in the same environment (that is, they are mutually exclusive). We find the
dental only before /T/ or /D/, as in tenth [tE6T], in the game [I6 D@ . . . ], where
the other one never appears. When we find the sound /X/ only in a certain
environment, and the sound /Y/ in a completely different environment, then
it is impossible for the difference between these two sounds to be contrastive,
because a contrast requires an overlapping distribution. In such cases of
complementary distribution, we say that these sounds are allophones of one
and the same phoneme. We should be reminded, in passing, that the very
same two sounds are capable of occurring in the same environment, as we saw
in the case of Malayalam, and function contrastively (thus, belong to two
separate phonemes) in that language.
Another example of the complementary distribution of an allophonic
relationship can be given for [3] and [D] of Spanish. These two sounds can never
occur in the same environment in Spanish; [D] occurs between two vowels
or after a nasal, [3] occurs in the remaining environments. This is clearly
an example of a complementary distribution where the occurrences of the two