[Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus
Ivan Uemlianin
ivan@llaisdy.com
Mon Oct 30 06:41:16 PDT 2017
Interesting article, thanks. I am not very familiar with SFL.
"aperture" vs "vowel" seems like just terminological variation. We
could use manner of articulation (it is articulation rather than prosody
as tone is separate - both 慢 and 焖 have falling tone). For
understanding phonology it is essential to have terms for units smaller
than the syllable, including a term for the syllable kernel ("vowel",
"open aperture", feature cluster, whatever).
Ivan
On 29/10/2017 22:55, David Kellogg wrote:
> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open,
> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when
> you move from one to the other.
>
> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to
> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels.
> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation.
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2196-419X-1-2
>
> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it
> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications
> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding
> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the
> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and
> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in
> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but
> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on
> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not
> phonemes at all but morphemes.
>
> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy.
> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More
> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant!
>
> David Kellogg
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@llaisdy.com> wrote:
>
>> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological
>> difference in Mandarin between 慢 and 焖?
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> --
>> festina lente
>>
>>
>>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even
>> then
>>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of
>> analysis
>>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The
>>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or a
>>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the
>>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels and
>>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so
>>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in
>>> them..
>>>
>>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English puts
>>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological
>>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be
>>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe
>>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features:
>>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed),
>> and
>>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use
>>> vowels or consonants.
>>>
>>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very
>>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to
>>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is introducing
>>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on
>>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific
>>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great
>> antiquity,
>>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" are
>>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better!
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one 炉火纯青 is the
>> "subject-predicate"
>>>> type, for example, 刚柔相济 masculinity and femininity are complementary to
>>>> each other; the second one 出神入化 the "symmetric relation" type, for
>> example,
>>>> 字正腔园 (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and perfect
>>>> execution of the tone.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees <
>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in
>> different
>>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one
>>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the
>>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus
>>>>>
>>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four
>>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate
>>>> vowels
>>>>> and consonants).
>>>>>
>>>>> 炉火纯青
>>>>> 出神入化
>>>>>
>>>>> Lú huǒ chún qīng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Chū
>>>>> shén rù huà (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in)
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on
>>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or
>>>> "superb"
>>>>> communicate the thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese
>>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley
>>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized.
>>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the
>> way
>>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the
>>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival
>>>> in
>>>>> the the countryside
>>>>>
>>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of
>>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language.
>>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in
>>>>> English.)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David’s words, good and catalytic
>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce’s idea of
>>>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative
>>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to “a dialectical leap”. To me,
>>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued
>>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the
>>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical
>>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, “a dialectical leap” is a more
>>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland)
>>>>>> due to historical reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor’s privileged access
>>>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be
>>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the
>>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are
>>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in
>>>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since
>>>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination
>>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical
>>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the
>>>>>> essence of Peking opera: 炉火纯青 consummate, and 出神入化
>>>>>> superb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a
>>>>>> self-organizing
>>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the
>>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at
>>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe
>>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure
>>>>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in
>>>>> contexts).
>>>>>> So
>>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into
>>>>>> syllables
>>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form
>>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to
>>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this
>>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words
>>>>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting
>>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the
>>>>> stones that compose them.
>>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at
>>>>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of
>>>>> consonants.
>>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning
>>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional
>>>>>>> Consonant)
>>>>>> Mandatory
>>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the
>>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same
>>>>>>> trick at any
>>>>>> level
>>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can
>>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> clause
>>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are
>>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence
>>>>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the
>>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my
>>>>>>> preceding one, and mine
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential
>>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which
>>>>>>> language
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has
>>>>>>> something to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people
>>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example
>>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in
>>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels
>>>>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are
>>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality).
>>>>>>> Consonants, on the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing
>>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a
>>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy
>>>>>>> orisons be all my
>>>>>> sins
>>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>> both
>>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http:
>>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>>>>
>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
>> for
>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
>>>> it.
>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
>> accepts
>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
>>>> emails
>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
>> responsibility
>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
>> accompanied
>>>>> by an official order form.
>>>>>
>>>>>
--
============================================================
Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD
Llaisdy
Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd
Speech Technology Research and Development
ivan@llaisdy.com
@llaisdy
llaisdy.wordpress.com
github.com/llaisdy
www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin
festina lente
============================================================
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list