Phonology & Identification
Identification of various phonetically described aspects, which have the ability of describing groups of sounds that are phonologically active in numerous unconnected languages according to Mielke (2008), is one of the accomplishments of distinctive feature theory. Mielke (2008), states that innatist to characteristic aspects have accounted for the crosslinguistic recurrence of various types of sound patterns through establishment of crosslinguistic generalization into the demonstration employed for phonological patterns.
Recurrent categories can be defined using innate aspects, and the conduct of specific classes is attributed to the organization of the mental demonstration of phonology (Mielke, 2008). Hypothesizing that only the aspects, which describe the active categories, exist in a universal feature set accounts for the phonological activity of only a few logically possible categories of sounds in sound patterns (Mielke, 2008).
Mielke (2008) points out that a lot more specific observations are accounted for by hypothesizing that values of certain aspects do not exist, and that features are structured in an order that limits the ways through which they can interact. Things occur as a result of features is the slogan used to summarize this view (Mielke, 2008). Another view, according to Mielke (2008), is the emergent feature theory, through which feature effects are given an explanation for in terms of the historical development of sound patterns, as in evolutionary phonology.
Recurrent phonologically dynamic categories are clarified by features whose phonetic correlates are included in commonly-phonologized phonetic effects, as well as the behaviors of specific categories as attributed to the character of the phonetic special effects from which they developed (Mielke, 2008). In emergent feature theory, all sound patterns are regarded as historical accidents; though some of these accidents, for example the phonetically natural ones which structure the fundamental data for innate feature theories, are more common as compared to others (Mielke, 2008).
Features, in this view, are hypothesized in response to examined sound patterns by learners. This theory foretells that features are necessary in rule, for as long as they are connected to the source of the sound pattern they are implicated in. Features happen as a result of things is the slogan used to summarize this view (Mielke, 2008). Mielke (2008) argues that recurrent sound patterns, in innate feature theories, are established based on characteristic features from the general feature set. These features are, in turn, grounded in phonetics in such a way that they serve as a connection between sound patterns and phonetics.
For purposes of investigating the link between phonetic effects as well as features implicated in sound patterns, the aspects required to define a sample of phonologically dynamic categories need to be categorized according to their behavior (Mielke, 2008). There are numerous ways through which results portray varying behavior for different features. These are variations in dissimilation, spreading as well as partitioning the way meticulous principles of the same trait behave. Spreading in representational approaches has been regarded as very strong evidence that a feature exists (Mielke, 2008).
Numerous questions arise in regards to features that do not appear to spread. Consonantal, is devoid of clear cases of being implicated in a change; and instances in which the feature has been employed to describe segmental contrasts or describe categories implicated in patterns, it can be reexamined in terms of other features. According to Mielke (2008), spreading is favored in establishing the need for a feature, due to the fact that changes especially the ones that seem to entail only one feature are hard to reexamine, although there are numerous alternatives for describing a phonologically dynamic category.
Various classes involved in phonological patterns, to a greater extent, cannot be limited to just the spreading feature values; and due to that fact the difference between vigorously-spreading features in addition to non-spreading features cannot be taken care of through hypothesizing a general feature set that only incorporates features with evidence of spreading (Mielke, 2008). This difference can, on the other hand, be developed by appealing to the source of sound patterns involving dispersion; if dispersion feature values contain phonetic connections which are implicated in co-expressive effects which are indicators for phonologization.
That is to say that, in case assimilation is taken as phonologized co-expression, then it is likely that some feature values, especially those whose phonetic connections are likely to be affected by noticeable co-expression, will be dispersed more regularly in phonological patterns (Mielke, 2008). As opposed to spreading, sonorant, continuant, as well as vocalic perform the most partitioning. These features are regularly employed for purposes of defining phonologically dynamic categories, as well as dividing inventories. Consonant and sonorant have an account of being hard to devise accurate phonetic definitions for.
However, they are vital for the definition of phonological form of almost every language (Mielke, 2008). The association between being difficult to define in addition to not dispersing, can be taken as an issue of analysis; meaning that it is simpler to make out phonetic correlates of features that spread, due to the fact that assimilated as well as unassimilated sections can be compared directly. In cases where features describe a divide instead of spread, it is usually along with other features, and usually there are numerous optional feature bundles which can describe the same category.
It is even harder to have co-expression which matches to features that are not connected to a particular expressive implementation. Sonorant is never employed by itself to describe any category or modification (Mielke, 2008). The most recurrent dissimilating feature principles are the opposites of the most recurrent assimilating feature principles, which attribute phonolization of mistakenly undone assimilation to dissimilation (Mielke, 2008). Dissimilation, according to Mielke (2008), is believed to happen as a result of misapplication of a correction for expression or undone assimilation by a listener.
The irregular behavior of feature principles may also have explanations in terms of phonetic impacts that are highly likely to be phonologized. Irregular behavior have also been given an explanation for by hypothesizing that some features contain only a single value, even though this generates the question of why some features contain a wider ranger of values than others, and does not tackle relative activity in view of the fact that the lack of a value envisages no activity (Mielke, 2008).
Appealing to the association linking phonetic effects and feature behavior, as Mielke (2008) argues, makes it easy for a more distinct explanation of feature behavior than is obtained from hypothesizing the absence or presence of specific feature values. Mielke (2008) makes it clear that an impression of a general feature set has been created by the identical patterning of sections of unrelated languages. Basing explanation on phonetic effects, the answer to the question why there appears to be general features, differ from feature to feature.
Features are significant for denoting clusters of sounds that have similar behavior within a certain language (Mielke, 2008). The role played by sounds relies on the sound patterns in which they are likely to be implicated in. Making out the form of universality to specific phonetic effects is in agreement with the observation that in synchronic patterns the sections containing the most consistent behavior, taking into consideration a specific phonetic dimension, are the sections which are most explicit as regards to that dimension (Mielke, 2008).
As Mielke (2008) states that comprehending the way phonologization develops certain patterns of sound is fundamental to comprehending the sound patterns themselves. Reference: Mielke J. , (2008), Phonologization and the typology of feature behavior, retrieved on May 8, 2010 from http://aix1. uottawa. ca/~jmielke/research/mielke_phonologization_article. pdfSample Essay of PapersOwl.com