MINIMAL PAIRS ( ENGLISH WRITING )

3.2 Minimal Pairs

Let’s come back to the concept of phoneme. Since the substitution of [h] for[R] changes she into he, [h] and [R] belong necessarily to two different phonemes. Whereas [r] and [R], which under no circumstances change the information given, are said to belong to the same phoneme /r/.
In the discussion of phonological versus phonetic differences, what matters is whether the substitution of one sound for another brings about a change in meaning or not; the description of this change does not enter the field of phonology.
Generally, when we wish to decide whether two segments belong to the same phoneme or, on the contrary, are realisations of two different phonemes, we put them in an identical context, that is the same string of sounds. When there is a difference between two otherwise identical strings of sound and this difference results in a change of meaning, these two strings are said to constitute a minimal pair. Examples of minimal pairs were given in (1a) and (1b), and in (3), (4) and (5) above.
If we substitute one segment for another and this results in a change in meaning the two segments belong to two different phonemes. Thus [k] and [m] are realisations of two different phonemes /k/ and /m/ because substituting one for the other as first element of the string [-zt] gives two different words: /kzt/ (cat) and /mzt/ (mat).
One can safely say that the phonemes of a given language form a system in which they are all opposed to one another. Take English /p/:

/p/ is opposed to /b/ as in /pHg/ : /bHg/ pig : big
/p/ is opposed to /t/ as in /pi:/ : /ti:/ pea : tea
/p/ is opposed to /d / as in /pHg/ : /dHg / pig : dig
/p/ is opposed to /k/ as in /pzt/ : /kzt/ pat : cat
/p/ is opposed to /g/ as in /pPt/ : /gPt/ pot : got
/p/ is opposed to /m/ as in /pzt/ : /mzt/ pat : mat
/p/ is opposed to /n/ as in /pHt/ : /nHt/ pit : knit
/p/ is opposed to /M/ as in /rHp/ : /rHM/ rip : ring
/p/ is opposed to /f/ as in /pi:t/ : /fi:t/ peat : feet
/p/ is opposed to /v/ as in /pet/ : /vet/ pet : vet
/p/ is opposed to /S/ as in /pN:t/ : /SN:t/ port : thought
/p/ is opposed to /C/ as in /pzt/ : /Czt/ pat : that
/p/ is opposed to /s/ as in /pzt/ : /szt/ pat : sat
/p/ is opposed to /z/ as in /pHp/ : /zHp/ pip : zip
/p/ is opposed to /R/ as in /pi:/ : /Ri:/ pea : she
/p/ is opposed to /Y/ as in /lep?/ : /leY?/ leper : leisure
/p/ is opposed to /tR/ as in /pi:p/ : /tRi:p/ peep : cheap
/p/ is opposed to /dY/ as in /pi:p/ : /dYi:p/ peep : jeep
/p/ is opposed to /l/ as in /pHt/ : /lHt/ pit : lit /p/ is opposed to /r/ as in /pPt/ : /rPt/ pot : rot
/p/ is opposed to /w/ as in /pi:/ : /wi:/ pea : we
/p/ is opposed to /j/ as in /p?Tk/ : /j?Tk/ poke : yoke
/p/ is opposed to /h/ as in /pi:/ : /hi:/ pea : he
table 1: /p/ as opposed to the other consonant phonemes of English

This procedure can theoretically be applied to each phoneme of the language. Note, though, that in the chart above, /p/ is opposed to other consonants only. This is because even though all phonemes of a given language form a system, oppositions in that language are organised in such a way that consonants can only be opposed to consonants and vowels to vowels. We shall see in the next chapters how oppositions are organised according to the rules of syllable structure, word formation and other contingencies.