DIAPHONES AS INTERLINGUALLY OR INTERDIALECTALLY IDENTIFIED PHONEMES

抄録

4. The following points have been emphasized in this paper: (1) The identification of phonemes between different systems is of structural significance in that not only is it to be explained in terms of the structure of the systems but also it throws much light on the structural similarities and differences between them. But the description of phoneme identifications between systems in contact in terms of diaphonic formulas does not make clear all structural differences, even if it is corroborated by the componential analysis of each phoneme and the examination of the pattern of phonemic contrasts. Differences in phoneme distribution are structurally as important as differences in phoneme inventory and some other device than diaphonic formulation must be employed in comparing different languages or dialects as to phoneme distribtution. (2) The study of the equivalents established between different phonemic systems tends to be invalidated by the informant's knowledge of vocabulary. This danger is greatest when the systems in contact are those of very closely related dialects. It is therefore unwise to use existing lexical items especially in checking interdialectally identified phonemes. (3) What are called diaphones are often better regarded as interdialectally differing phonemes occurring in the same word, especially when they are established by the unsound procedure referred to in (2) above. This conceptual confusion must be warned against though differences in phonemic incidence form another important category in dialectology.