Terms to know for EOGs

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Auteur Theory is a way of looking at films that state that the director is the “author” of a film. A film is a reflection of the director’s artistic vision; so, a movie directed by a given filmmaker will have recognizable, recurring themes and visual queues that inform the audience who the director is (think a Hitchcock or Tarantino film) and shows a consistent artistic identity throughout that director’s filmography. The 3 Components of Auteur Theory Andrew Sarris, film critic for The New York Times, expanded on Truffaut’s writing and set out a more comprehensive definition for auteurs according to three main criteria: technical competence, distinguishable personality, and interior meaning. 1. Technical competence: Auteurs must be at the top of their craft in terms of technical filmmaking abilities. Auteurs always have a hand in multiple components of filmmaking and should be operating at a high level across the board. 2. Distinguishable personality: What separates auteurs from other technically gifted directors is their unmistakable personality and style. When looking at an auteur’s collected works, you can generally see shared filming techniques and consistent themes being explored. One of the primary tenets of auteur theory is that auteurs make movies that are unmistakably theirs. This is in sharp contrast with the standard studio directors of the era who were simply translating script to screen with little interrogation of the source material or editorial input. 3. Interior meaning: Auteurs make films that have layers of meaning and have more to say about the human condition. Films made by auteurs go beyond the pure entertainment-oriented spectacles produced by large studios, to instead reveal the filmmakers unique perspectives and ruminations on life. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/film-101-what-is-an-auteur#3ClNjwO6Gkgjd8ix2Cm5qI Who is the author of a TV program? It seems like it ought to be an easy question to answer, but it is not. There are, of course, scriptwriters, who are the literal authors of episodes in the sense of generating words that an actor eventually speaks, but in a soap opera or a sitcom there may be a dozen or more scriptwriters working on dialogue as the months go by. Is any one of them truly responsible for the overall tenor of the show, or are they just following rigid guidelines set down by other scriptwriters ahead of them? And the script is just the blueprint of an episode anyway. Actors, production designers, directors, videographers, editors, and on and on, are all necessary to construct an episode from that blueprint. Should we call one of them the author? And, at a more basic level, should we even bother looking for authors in television? Do viewers need to know who created a program in order to enjoy it? What does it add to our appreciation or understanding of television if we assign authorship of a program to an individual? In the closely related medium of the cinema, questions such as these have been answered by the auteur theory, which stems from the French word for “author,” auteur. Its basic precept is that a single individual is, and should be, the “author” of a work in order for it to be a good, artistically valuable work. A book, poem, film, or television show should express this individual’s personality, his “vision” (the masculine pronoun is significant; auteurist studies almost all focus on men). This notion stems from the nineteenth-century Romantic image of the author as a figure who sits alone in a dingy room, scratching out angst-ridden poems with a quill pen. The tormented, misunderstood author or artist is a cherished character type that can be traced back to the poet Lord Byron (1788–1824) and observed in numerous portrayals of demented painters, musicians, and writers in television programs and other media. Consider this: Have you ever seen or read a story about a creative person who wasn’t somehow strange or crazy? The auteur theory originated in French film criticism of the 1950s, where it was initially theorized that auteurs could be drawn from the ranks of producers, directors, scriptwriters, actors, and other filmmaking personnel.1 However, the vast bulk of auteurist film criticism has been about directors: Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Quentin Tarantino, among many others.

Create me a multiple choice type of test with 4 options on this topic for college level: SEXUAL ORIENTATION • According to the Psychological Association of the Philippines, typically at ages 6 or 8, we experience or develop attraction to other people. By adolescence, we really know who we are attracted to and would experiment through dating and relationships. Everyone’s sexuality is different and deeply personal. Our capacity for emotional and sexual attraction is diverse and complex. FOUR CATEGORIES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION 1. HETEROSEXUALITY • The attraction to individuals of the opposite sex. 2. HOMOSEXUALITY • The attraction between people who are the same sex. 3. BISEXUALITY • The attraction to individuals of either sex. 4. ASEXUALITY • A term used to describe someone who does not experience sexual attraction toward individuals of any gender. GENDER • Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. • There are many ways through which gender is manifested. As soon as a new baby arrives in the family, adults surrounding the baby manifests their social interpretation of the baby’s sex by the color assigned to the baby. Example: common for the families to buy blue apparels and toys when the baby is a male, as blue is associated with boyhood. • Conversely, female babies are often assigned to color pink, would buy toys and clothes that are color pink which is associated to a girlhood. Remarkably, the moment a baby is born, the name, toys, and apparels are picked by parents and relatives based on their interpretation of the baby’s sex. • Throughout childhood and adolescence, this assignment becomes more complex as the expectations go beyond the kind of clothes worn, but also in terms of how the person must or must not behave.

Revealing personal data can lead to threats like identity theft, fraud, bullying, and blackmail. 1.Identity Theft Definition: Identity theft occurs when someone steals your personal information and uses it without your permission. This can include your name, Social Security number, or bank details. Example: If someone gets your Social Security number, they could open a credit card in your name and run up bills that you would have to pay. 2.Fraud Definition: Fraud is when someone deceives another person to gain something of value, like money or personal information. This is often done through lies or tricks. Example: A person might call you pretending to be from your bank and tell you that you need to confirm your account details. If you give them your information, they may steal your money. 3. Bullying Definition: Bullying is when someone repeatedly hurts, threatens, or picks on another person. This can happen in person or online (cyberbullying). Example: If someone sends hurtful messages or spreads rumors about you on social media, that’s a form of bullying. 4. Blackmail Definition: Blackmail is when someone threatens to reveal harmful or embarrassing information about you unless you give them something they want, usually money or favors. Example: If someone takes a private photo of you and threatens to share it unless you pay them, that’s blackmail. Summary Identity Theft: Stealing personal information for illegal use. Fraud: Deceiving someone for personal gain. Bullying: Repeatedly hurting or threatening someone. Blackmail: Threatening to expose information unless demands are met. Understanding these terms helps you recognize and protect yourself from potential dangers in both real life and online. If you see any signs of these actions happening, it’s important to talk to a trusted adult or authority figure. There are several guidelines for you to be aware of to keep your personal data confidential: •Have strong passwords set on any account that holds personal data. Stronger passwords include characters, numbers and symbols and are not a recognisable word. •Encrypt (scramble text so that it cannot be read without a decryption key) any personal data that you store on your computer. •Have a firewall present, scanning incoming and outgoing data from your computer system. firewall : a security measure that can be implemented to monitor traffic into and out of a computer and prevent external users gaining unauthorised access to a computer system. A firewall is a security measure that helps protect a computer system by monitoring and controlling the traffic that comes into and goes out of the system. Think of it as a barrier between your computer and the outside world. It prevents unauthorized users from accessing your computer while allowing authorized traffic to pass through. •Regularly scan your computer with preventative software, such as an anti-virus package, that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it. Anti-virus: software that is used to identify a virus on a computer and remove it •Make use of any biometric devices (devices that measures a person's biological data, such as thumbprints), that are built into technology. biometric devices: Unique physical characteristic of a person that can be used by a computer for identification purposes. https://www.aratek.co/news/biometric-devices-definition-and-examples Biometric devices are tools that use unique physical characteristics of a person for identification purposes. This means they can recognize who you are based on features that are unique to you. Here are some examples of biometric characteristics: Fingerprint Recognition, Facial Recognition, Voice Recognition •Only visit and provide data to websites that are a trusted source. •Do not open any email attachments from a sender you do not recognise. •Check the URL attached to any link requesting data to see if it is genuine. •Be cautious about any pictures or opinions that you post or send to people. •Remove data about your location that is normally attached to your photos and videos that you may post, such as geotags. Geotag: an electronic tag that assigns a geographical location A geotag is an electronic tag that assigns a specific geographical location to a piece of information, like a photo or a video. Geotags can help people understand where a photo was taken or where an event occurred, making it easier to organize and find information based on location. •Do not become friends on social networking sites with people you do not know. •Set all the privacy controls to the most secure setting that are available on social media accounts. •Report and block any suspicious user. •Use a nickname or pseudonym when using the internet for entertainment, for example, playing games. •If it is possible, use a virtual private network (VPN), an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network. Virtual private network (VPN) : an encrypted connection that can be used to send data more securely across a network A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a special way to connect to the internet that keeps your information safe. Imagine you are sending a secret message to a friend. You want to make sure no one else can read it while it travels. A VPN helps you do just that! It creates an encrypted connection, which means it turns your message into a code that only your friend can understand Example: Public Wi-Fi Safety: When you use public Wi-Fi, like in a café, your data can be easily accessed by hackers. If you connect to a VPN while using that public Wi-Fi, your data is encrypted, making it much harder for anyone to steal your information.

Musical Texture Texture Musical texture is the element of music that analyzes musical layers in terms of number and function. The most basic texture is called monophonic. Oh mama, I'm in fear for my life from the long arm of the law. Monophonic texture has only one layer, a melody. With monophony, it doesn't matter how many instruments and or voices are present if they are all singing or playing the same thing at the same time. It also doesn't matter if the voices or instruments are on the exact same frequency, or if they are singing in octaves. An octave is the distance between two musical pitches that sound almost the same, but one is higher and one is lower. It also doesn't matter if drums are present or not. In most cases, drums, the rhythmic layer, are neither melody nor harmony, and therefore are generally not considered when determining texture type. Too much monophony can be boring, so most music has another kind of layer, harmony. When a melody is supported by a harmony, the texture is homophonic. No one may ever know the feelings inside my mind. All the lines I ever write are running out of time. One layer grabs your attention, and the other layer is just hanging out in the background. Most popular music is homophonic. Notice how there was only one instrument in the previous example, a piano, but there were two different things happening on that instrument, a melody, and a harmony. What if a piece of music has multiple independent layers happening at the same time, and you're not sure which one is the melody? This is called polyphony. Polyphony can occur if you take the same melody but start it at staggered intervals. This is called a round. ♪ The last texture is called heterophony. Heterophony is relatively rare in Western music but is very common in non-Western music. It occurs when there are two or more versions of the same melody happening at the same time. Usually, one of the melody lines has more notes than the other, a kind of musical decoration, and or a slightly different rhythmic pattern. Songs will often use a variety of textures to keep the piece interesting. Come on, I need you, I swear, at this moment, you need everything. Come on, I need you, I swear, at this moment, you need everything. Start trying to identify the musical textures in your favorite music.

Can you create an evaluation using this information PHONETICS VS. PHONOLOGY Whereas phonetics is the study of sounds that occur in language, phonology is the study of how these sounds are organized and how they function in language. It uses the classifications of sounds derived from phonetics to describe and analyze how sounds occur in speech. STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS As linguists began to study sounds in fine detail, they recognized increasingly complex aspects of phonetic organization. For example, the sound /p/ appears in different varieties in English. STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS One of the varieties of /p/ is indicated by [ph]. This sound is produced with an accompanying puff of air called aspiration, as in the words “pill,” and “peace.” Another sound, indicated by [p•], is produced when there is little or no aspiration; this sound occurs in a word like “spill.” A third major variety for the /p/ sound is the unreleased [p– ], which may occur at the end of a word like “stop.” To deal with these variations for the /p/ sound, the structuralists suggested the existence of an abstract unit which they termed a phoneme. STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS A phoneme was defined by the structuralists as an abstract phonological unit that represents a class of real sounds, termed the allophones of a phoneme. The phoneme /p/ in English, then, is represented by the allophones [ph], [p•], and [p– ]. STRUCTURALISTS: MINIMAL PAIRS How do we know what these abstract units of sound called phonemes are? In order to find the phonemes of a language, the structuralists developed the concept of the minimal pair, defined as any two words that: a) Contain the same number of segments b) Differ in meaning c) Exhibit only one phonetic difference. STRUCTURALISTS: MINIMAL PAIRS In practical terms, phonemes distinguish meanings; and a phoneme can also be defined as the smallest meaning-distinguishing unit of sound. For instance, the words “pin” /pɪn/ and “bin” /bɪn/ mean different things, and the only one difference in these words occurs in the initial sounds. STRUCTURALISTS: MINIMAL PAIRS By using the concept of a minimal pair, we can determine that the three variations of the /p/ sound do not represent three phonemes. Certainly, it is possible to pronounce the word cap with either an aspirated [ph ] or unreleased [p– ]; however, the two forms [kæph ] and [kæp– ] are not a minimal pair, even though they involve different sounds, because they are identical in meaning. STRUCTURALISTS: FREE VARIATION The two forms [kæph ] and [kæp– ] are, therefore, said to exhibit free variation: that is, the pronunciation may vary without signifying a change in meaning. In other words, we may conclude that the unreleased [p– ] and the aspirated [ph ] are not representations of different phonemes in English; they are, in fact, allophones of one phoneme, /p/. STRUCTURALISTS: COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION When phonemes have more than one allophone in a language, the allophones are said to be in complementary distribution. Complementary distribution means that the allophones of a phoneme occur in different phonetic environments (that is, with different sounds surrounding them). TRANSFORMATIONAL- GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY Transformational-generative phonology is a relatively recent development in linguistic theory. Chomsky launched Transformational-Generative Grammar in 1957, but the earliest studies within this framework were largely concerned with syntax. A decade later, the first comprehensive transformational-generative treatment of English phonology appeared: Chomsky and Halle’s The Sound Pattern of English (1968). TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY Transformational-generative phonologists strongly oppose the structuralists’ phonemic level. They replace this level by a series of rules that directly relate underlying representations to observed phonetic representations. The central mechanisms in transformational-generative phonology, then, are underlying representations and phonological rules. PHONOLOGICAL RULES A rule is an operational statement in which some linguistic entity is modified, resulting in a new linguistic entity. Rules may add elements, remove elements, or change elements. By using phonological rules, linguists attempt to demonstrate that there is order in linguistic phenomena and that linguistic patterns are systematic. PHONOLOGICAL DERIVATION A phonological derivation is an operation that begins with an underlying representation and, through the application of a set of specific rules, yields the actual sound the speaker produces. The representation of a phonological rule has the following general appearance. /A/ → [B] / C “A” changes to “B” under condition “C” PHONOLOGICAL RULE – EXAMPLE In most Southern dialects, the word ten is pronounced like the word tin. This is not an isolated fact, for den is pronounced like din and Ben is pronounced like bin, and so on. This very general fact can be represented by the phonological rule: /ɛ/ → [I] / ___ [n] den /dɛn/ → /dIn/ Ben /bɛn/ → /bIn/ ten /tɛn/ → /tIn/ /ɛ/ → [I] / ___ [n] - high - low - tense + front + high - tense + front + sonorant + anterior + coronal - continuant NOTATIONAL DEVICES IN PHONOLOGICAL RULES The statement of phonological rules can be complex, and linguists have developed several notational devices for writing them. Often, the following symbols will be necessary for stating the conditions under which rules apply: # indicates a word boundary + indicates an intraword boundary $ indicates a syllable boundary UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONS AND RELATED ISSUES The transformational-generative description of phonology relates underlying representations to phonetic representations by rules. This can be represented in a simple example: In English, there are certain pairs of words like sign / signature, and malign / malignant that exhibit a regular alternation in their phonetic representations: [g] is present in the second member of the pairs but absent in the first member. UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONS AND RELATED ISSUES To explain the relatedness of words such as sign / signature, we could claim that the underlying representation of the segment in all such pairs is /g/ and that a rule operates to delete /g/ before syllable-final nasals. Thus, the rule “/g/ is deleted before syllable-final nasal” would appear formally as: + voice - anterior →∅ ____ [+ nasal] $ - coronal UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONS AND RELATED ISSUES On the left-hand side of the arrow, we place the features needed to uniquely specify /g/ among the consonants; that is, no other consonant has the features [+ voice], [- anterior], and [- coronal]. The symbols → mean that the sound /g/ changes to nothing or more properly “/g/ is deleted.” The horizontal line following the slash mark refers to the position of /g/ - namely, before a segment that is [+nasal]. Finally, this [+nasal] segment occurs before a syllable boundary, as indicated by $. A less formal way of writing this rule would be: /g/ → / _ [+nasal] $ Notice that this rule also helps describe such alternations as phlegm/phlegmatic and paradigm/paradigmatic. Application Activity: Think of other words in which this rule can be applied. Write the sound segments to prove /g/ is deleted. Another example is the process through which the prefix meaning “not” is added to words. This prefix alternates among the forms /Im/, /In/, and /Iŋ/, depending on the point of articulation of the initial segment of the following word. -If the segment begins in the extreme front part of the mouth (labials), the form is /Im/, as in improper. -If the segment begins in the extreme back part of the mouth (velars), the form is /Iŋ/, as in incomplete. -If the segment begins in the mid-region of the mouth (all other sounds), the form is /In/, as in indecent. *Exceptions:Words beginning with /r/ or /l/. Analyze the Word “in + complete,” for example. /n/ → [ŋ] / __ [k] - continuant - continuant - continuant + sonorant → + sonorant - sonorant + anterior - anterior - strident + coronal - coronal - coronal + tense THE VELAR SOFTENING RULE Still another example of alternation in English is found in pairs of words like “electric / electricity,” in which the segments /k/ and /s/ alternate. /k/ changes to [s] only before non- low, front vowels. THE VELAR SOFTENING RULE /k/ → [s] / __ - continuant + continuant - strident → - sonorant V - anterior + anterior - low - coronal + coronal - back

Related quizzes

Related quizzes