Introduction

This paper is intended to show that there are many ways of

analysing the English phonemic system, each with its own
advantages and disadvantages. We need to consider that there
is a few theoretical problems connected with phonemic
analysis have been mentioned in this paper

usually whenever a speech sound is produced by a speaker it is

possible to identify which phoneme that sound belongs to.
While this is often true, we must recognise that

there are exceptions which make us consider some quite

serious theoretical problems.

From the comparatively simple point of view of learning

pronunciation, these problems are not particularly important.
However, from the point of view of learning about the

phonology of English they are too important to ignore.

There are problems of different types. In some cases, we have

difficulty in deciding on the overall phonemic system of the
accent we are studying, while in others we are

concerned about how a particular sound fits into this system. A

number of such problems are discussed with in this paper.
1. Affricates

The affricates /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ are, phonetically, composed of a

plosive followed by a fricative. It is possible to treat each of the
pair t j , d3 as a single consonant phoneme; we will call this the
one-phoneme analysis of t j , d 3 . It is also possible to say

that they are composed of two phonemes each - t plus J, and d

plus 3 respectively - all of which are already established as
independent phonemes of English; this will be called

the two-phoneme analysis of t j , d3. If we adopted the two-

phoneme analysis, the words ‘church’ and ‘judge’ would be
composed of five phonemes each, like this:

t —J — 3 i — t —J

d-3-A-d–3

instead of the three phonemes that result from the one-

phoneme analysis:

t j - 3: - t j

d3-a-d3

and there would be no separate t j , d3 phonemes. But how can

we decide which analysis is preferable? The two-phoneme
analysis has one main advantage: if there are no separate tj, d3
phonemes, then our total set of English consonants is smaller.
Many phonologists have claimed that one should prefer the
analysis which is the most “economical” in the number of
phonemes it results in. The argument for this might be based
on the claim

that when we speak to someone we are using a code, and the

most efficient codes do not employ unnecessary symbols.
Further, it can be claimed that a phonological analysis is a type
of scientific theory, and a scientific theory should be stated as
economically as possible. However, it is the one-phoneme
analysis that is generally chosen by phonologists.

Why is this? There are several arguments: no single one of

them is conclusive, but added together they are felt to make
the one-phoneme analysis seem preferable.

1. The "phonetic" or "allophonic" argument claims that

the phonetic quality of the /t/ and /ʃ/ as in ("hutch"
/hətʃ /and "watch apes" watʃ eps/) is different from
realisations of /t/ and /ʃ/ in otther contexts as in
("hush" /həʃ /or what shapes /wət ʃeps/). This
argument is weak since there is no evidence for the
existence of these phonetic differences
2. The proposed phonemes /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ (if one were
arguing for the one-phoneme analysis) have
distributions similar to other consonants (initially,
medially and finally) while other combination of
plosives plus fricative do not. However, several
consonants like /r/, /w/, /j/, /h/, /ŋ/, /ʒ/ are generally
accepted as phonemes despite not being free in
distribution.
3. If /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ are able to combine quite freely with
other consonants to form consonant clusters, e.g.
finally in "watched" / wɑtʃt/. However, such clusters
do not exist in the initial position and are very limited
in the final position.
4. The intuitions of the native speakers may suggest
that /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ are each "one sound". The problem
 is that discovering what native speakers feel about
their own language is not easy.

2. The English vowel system

The analysis of the English vowel system contains a large

number of phonemes, so some phonologists propose different
analyses which contain less than ten vowel phonemes and treat
all long vowels and diphthongs as composed of two phonemes
each. There are different ways of doing this so.

One way is to treat long vowels and diphthongs as composed of

two vowel phonemes. Starting with a set of basic or “simple”
vowel phonemes

/ɪ/, /e/, /æ/, /ʌ/, /ɒ/, /ʊ/, /ə/,

it is possible to make up long vowels by using short vowels

twice

/ɪɪ/ (i:), /ææ/ (ɑ:), /ɒɒ/ (ɔ:), /ʊʊ/ (u:), /əə/ (ɜ:).

diphthongs are made from a simple vowel phoneme followed

by one of /ɪ/, /ʊ/, /ə/, and triphthongs are made from a basic
vowel plus one of /ɪ/, /u/ followed by /ə/, and are therefore
composed of three phonemes.

Another way of doing this kind of analysis is to treat long

vowels and diphthongs as composed of a vowel plus a
consonant; this may seem a less obvious way of proceeding,

but it was for many years the choice of most American

phonologists.
The idea is that long

vowels and diphthongs are composed of a basic vowel

phoneme followed by one of j, w , h

Thus the diphthongs would be made up like this

ej(ei) aw(au) ih ( ia )

asj ( a i ) aew ( a u ) eh(ea)

Dj ( a i ) u h (u a )

Long vowels:

ij(i:) aeh ( a : ) Dh (a : ) ah(3:) u w (u : )

Diphthongs and long vowels are now of exactly the same

phonological composition. An important point about this
analysis is that j, w , h do not otherwise occur finally in the

syllable. In this analysis, the inequality of distribution is

corrected.

Neutralisation refers to cases where contrasts between

phonemes which exist in other places in the language disappear

in particular contexts. For example, although /ɪ/ and /i:/ are

clearly distinct in most contexts, there are other contexts

where we find a sound which cannot clearly be said to belong

to one or other of these two phonemes. The suggested solution

to this is to use the symbol /i/.

3. Syllabic consonants

syllabic consonants are phonologically different from their non-

syllabic counterparts (‘coddling' /kɒdḷŋ/ vs. ‘codling’ /kɒdlɪŋ/)

(‘Hungary’ /hʌŋgṛi/ vs 'hungry’ /hʌŋgri/). One possibility is to

add new consonant phonemes /ḷ,ṛ,ṇ/. Yet, this does not

account for the fact that English speakers hear the consonants

as extra syllables. We might class the new phonemes vowels.

Another possibility is to set up a phoneme, naming it syllabicity,

symbolised with the mark [ˌ]; e.g. ‘codling’ /k.ɒ.d.l.ɪ.ŋ/ vs.

‘coddling' /k.ɒ.d.(l and and simultaneously ˌ).ɪ.ŋ/ . However, the

proposed phoneme is nothing like the other phonemes as it

doesn’t have any sound.

Some phonologists maintain that a syllabic consonant is really a

case of a vowel and a consonant that have become combined,

supposing that the vowel is /ə/. For example, ‘Hungary* is

phonemically /hʌŋgəri/ while ‘hungry' is /hʌŋgri/. The vowel

phoneme in the phonemic representation is not pronounced as

a vowel, but instead causes the following consonant to become

syllabic.

4. Clusters of s w ith plosives

Words like ‘spill’, ‘still’, ‘skill’ are usually represented with the

phonemes p, t, k following the s. But, as many writers have

pointed out, it would be quite reasonable to

transcribe them with b, d, g instead. For example, b, d, g are

unaspirated while p, t, k in syllable-initial position are usually

aspirated. However, in sp, st, sk we find an unaspirated

plosive, and there could be an argument for transcribing them

as sb, sd, sg. We do not do this, perhaps because of the

spelling, but it is important to remember that the contrasts

between p and b, between t and d and between k and g are

neutralised in this context.

5. Schwa (ə)
It has been suggested that there is not really a contrast

between /ə/ and /ʌ/, since /ə/ only occurs in weak syllables and

no minimal pairs can be found to show a contrast between

both in unstressed syllables. So, there is a proposal that one

phoneme symbol (e.g. ə) be used for for both (e.g. "upper"

/əpə/). This new phoneme would have two allophones: one

being [ə] and the other [ʌ]; the stress mark would indicate [ʌ]

allophone, and with no stress [ə] would be used.

Other phonologists have suggested that /ə/ is an allophone of

several other vowels; for example, compare the middle two

syllables in the words ‘economy’ /I'kɒnəmi/ and ‘economic’

/i:kə'nɒmɪk/. The conclusion is that /ə/ is not a phoneme of

English, but is an allophone of several different vowel

phonemes when occur in an unstressed syllable. Since this

leads to a rather complex and abstract phonemic analysis, it is

not adopted.
6. Distinctive features

Distinctive feature analysis is one of many different ways of

treating the notion of phoneme. The phonemes are
combinations of different features, the presence (+) and
absence (-) of features could be treated as different phoneme.
For example, the English /d/ phoneme differs from the plosives
/b/ and /g/ in its place of articulation (alveolar), from /t/ being
voiced, from /s/ and /z/ in not being fricative, from /n/ in not
being nasal, and so on. In distinctive feature analysis, the
feature themselves thus become important components of the
phonology.

The very fundamental notion of the phoneme, for example, has

been treated in many different ways. One approach, (distintice

feature analysis), regards phonemes not as independent and

indivisible units, but instead as combination of different

features. For example, the English /d/ phoneme differs from

the plosives /b/ and /g/ in its place of articulation (alveolar),

rom /t/ being voiced, from /s/ and /z/ in not being fricative,

from /n/ in not being nasal, and so on. In distinctive feature

analysis, the feature themselves thus become important

components of the phonology.

Some writers claim that distinctive feature analysis is relevant

to the study of language learning, and that pronunciation

difficulties experienced by learners are better seen as due to

the need to learn a particular feature or combination of

features than as the absence of particular phonemes. For

example, English speakers learning French or German have to

learn to produce front rounded vowels.

English, on the other hand, has to be able to distinguish dental

from labiodental and alveolar places of articulation, for /θ/ to

be distinct from /f/ and /s/ and for /ð/ to be distinct from /v/

and z. This requires an additional feature that most languages

do not make use of and learning this could be seen as a specific

task for the learner of English. Distinctive feature phonologists

have also claimed that when children, are learning their first

language, they acquire features rather than individual

phonemes.
Bibliography

and Phonology Roach, Peter (1983). English Phonetics

A practical course. forth edition Cambridge University Press.

Lass , Roger (1998) phonology. Cambridge University Press.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/181158788/PROBLEMS-IN-
PHONEMIC-ANALYSIS-ppt#logout

https://www.scribd.com/presentation/78336099/Problems-in-
Phonemic-Analysis

http://educationcing.blogspot.com/2013/04/phonology-
problems-in-phonemic-analysis.html