|
REAL WORLD LINGUISTICS 101
by Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph.D.
(linguistics; UCSD)
LESSON THREE
Introduction
In Lesson Two we looked at this small set of English words...
sign, resignation, malignant, signature, resign, benign,
malignancy, malign, significant
...and tried to figure out why native speakers sometimes do and
sometimes don't pronounce the G that appears in them. We considered
every one of the nine words in the set, looking for patterns. We
extrapolated from the set to other English words of the same kind, looking
for evidence that the patterns we had found also applied to them. And we
came up with this rule as a working hypothesis:
Rule 1: When an English word ends with GN, the G has to be
silent.
In this lesson we're going to look at that rule again, and talk about it
for a while. There are 4 things that we need to go over.
1.It's important to understand that the rule says only what it says. It
says that when you pronounce English words ending with GN, you don't
pronounce the G. It says nothing more. It doesn't say, for example, that
when a GN sequence isn't word-final you do pronounce the G. That would be
a different hypothesis, separate from the rule we've proposed, and it would
have to be tested. We'd have to look at sets of words like these:
gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnaw, gnome, gnu
And like these:
designer, benignly, resignedly, signing
We'd quickly discover that there are other positions for a GN sequence in
English words where the G has to be silent. Rule 1 is an accurate statement
for the data we examined in Lesson Two, but it clearly isn't the last word
on the matter.
2. It's important to understand that (as many of you suggested in your
e-mails) there are many other ways to word Rule 1. As long as all the
proposed wordings accurately describe what native speakers of English do
when they say English words ending in GN, they're all acceptable. Choosing
among them is a matter of personal preference. You might choose a
particular wording for "stylistic reasons" that is, because you liked
the way it sounded. You might choose a wording because you felt that it was
more elegant than the others. You might choose a wording because it fit
better into your preferred model of linguistic theory. (We'll come back
later in this course to what "model of linguistic theory" means; for now,
trust me.) All of that is acceptable.
3. It's important to understand that in linguistics it's almost never safe
to call a rule "the right answer." In math, two and two are always going to
be four, and you can count on that. Any linguist who proposes a rule about
a human language knows that some other linguist might propose a better one
the following day. It's not unusual for a linguist to be giving a paper
about a rule at a conference and have some other linguist in the audience
break in and say, "Oh, that's not right! Here's what's really going on!",
followed by a different proposed rule. That's a hazard of doing business,
if you're a linguist. When you propose a rule, you're saying that based
on the information you have available at that moment it's your best and
most carefully-reasoned hypothesis about the language behavior in question.
4. Finally, it's important to understand that the rule we're working with
isn't a rule about letters of English, but a rule about English sounds.
Suppose we were talking about the words "telephone", "telegraph," and
"pharmacy," and we decided that the relevant rule is something like "In
those (and similar) words, PH is pronounced as F." That would be a rule
about letters of English, and about the English writing system, and about
English spelling. Our rule about word-final GN isn't like that; it's a
phonological rule a rule about sounds.
Moving Right Along
With all that specified, we can move on. It's certainly possible that
English would have a phonological rule applying only to word-final GN. That
could happen. But it's a bit suspicious. When you come across a linguistic
rule that limited, you always want to ask yourself whether it might really
be part of some other, bigger rule. We already know from the brief look at
words like "gnaw" and "designer" that restricting the rule to word-final
GNs is an error; we can see that it applies to GNs at the beginning of
words, and to GNs at the end of some English syllables. (That is, the G in
"designer," at the end of its second syllable, is silent; the G in
"designate," also at the end of a second syllable, is pronounced.) That's
enough to make us think that something more must be going on here. And in
that situation, what a linguist does first is look at other English sounds
that are the same type of sound as G and N.
When linguists refer to the meaningful sounds of a language its phonemes
they put them between slashes. So G and N, as English phonemes, are
written as /g/ and /n/; in phonemic notation, "gnu" is written as /nu/ and
"gnome" is written as /nom/. The phoneme /g/ is a consonant of the kind
that's called a STOP because when you say it by itself it completely stops
the flow of air through your throat and mouth; you can't say /g/ unless you
put a vowel with it. The phoneme /n/ is a consonant of the kind that's
called a NASAL because it involves the nose in an intimate fashion. Here
are the complete sets of English stops and nasals:
Stops: /p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ /g/
Nasals: /n/ /m/ /ng/
[There's a fancier symbol for /ng/, but not all of your browsers would let
me use it here, so we'll stay with /ng/; it's the sound two letters, but
just one sound at the end of "swing" and "long."]
Suppose we look for some English words that have not just GN but other
examples of a stop followed immediately by a nasal. Look in a dictionary,
and you'll find a few. You'll find words like "knee" and "pneumonia"; you
won't find any words like "bmag" or "dnak" or "tngoverly" or "lobn" or
"matn" ... and so on. If I tried to convince you that there could be
English words like "bmag" or "matn" or "bnadn," you'd flatly refuse to
believe it. You know better, because the specifications for pronounceable
English words are in your internal grammar, and those words don't fit the
specs.
You have this all figured out by now, I suspect. [Often, when my own
linguistics profs said that in class, I didn't yet have a clue, and I had
to live with the awful idea that I might be the only person in the class
who was still clueless. If you don't have this all figured out yet, you
and I have something in common.] Clearly, the rule we need isn't a rule
about G and N or about /g/ and /n/; it's a rule about stops and nasals.
And one way to word it would be this:
Rule 2: No English word can have a stop followed immediately by
a nasal.
This is a rule about sounds, remember. Certainly English words can have
sequences of letters that put a nasal right after a stop as in "gnaw,
knot, sign," and many others we've been looking at. But when that happens,
something has to give. "Something has to give" isn't elegant, but it
accurately states the facts. Whenever a word of English would otherwise
turn out to have a forbidden sequence of sounds, for whatever reason,
something has to give.
One mechanism for that kind of giving is to do what we do with a stop
followed by a nasal we delete one of the two sounds from our
pronunciation of the word. (Whether we then go on to spell the word in a
way that matches the pronunciation is a separate decision and depends on
other factors.)
Another way is to do what we do with lots of English plurals. English won't
allow a nasal to occur immediately after a stop; it also won't allow any
two of its hissing-and-buzzing sounds to occur one right after the other.
If you want to talk about more than one beach (/bich/) you have to add an S
to it to mark it as a plural, which would leave you with /bichs/ to
pronounce. That's not allowed. Something has to give. There could be a rule
that made either the /ch/ or the /s/ silent, and if you were analyzing
another language you might find that option being used; English doesn't do
it that way. Instead, it inserts a vowel the vowel that sounds like "uh"
between the /ch/ and the /s/ to break up the forbidden cluster. The
result "beaches" is a fine English word.
That's enough; we're not through, but it's enough for now. (Notice that you
knew how to do all these things, even though you didn't know that you knew
and you couldn't recite the rules.)
My thanks to all of you who've been sending messages about these lessons;
special thanks to Douglas Dee, Aya Katz, Richard Kennaway, Ken Rolph, Sheri
Wells-Jensen, Jim White, Elizabeth Barrette, and Sue Surova. I appreciate
your help, and I look forward to your input about Lesson Three. Please
e-mail me directly at OCLS@madisoncounty.net.
Suzette Haden Elgin
Copyright © 2001 by Suzette Haden Elgin
|
|