neutralization

NEUTRALIZATION

A. Definition

Neutralization is the second type of free variation can also be seen as constituting the tip of a much larger theoretical iceberg. In [E]conomic – [i]conomic cases, two otherwise contrastive sounds are both possible in a single word. The contrast between two phonemes may also be interrupted more systematically, in a particular phonological context; In this case, rather that the two phonemes being equally possible alternatives, we find some from intermediate between the two.

One example involves the voiceless and voiced English plosives. These seem two to contrast in all possible positions in the word: minimal pairs can be found for /t/ and /d/ initially, as in till versus dill; medially, in matter versus madder, finally, as in lit versus lid; and in consonant clusters, as in trill, font versus drill. Fond – and the same is true for the labial and velar plosives. However, no contrast is possible in an initial cluster, after /s/: spill, still and skill are perfectly normal English words, but there is no *sbill,* sdill or *sgill. This phenomenon is known as neutralization, because the otherwise robust and regular contrast between two sets of phonemes is neutralized, or suspended, in a particular context – in this case, after /s/.

In fact, matters are slightly more complicated yet. Although the spelling might suggest that the sounds founds found after /s/ are realizations of the voiceless stops, we have already seen that, in one crucial respect, they do not behave as we ould expect voiceless stops to behave at the beginning of a word: that is, they are not aspirated. On the other hand, they do not behave like realizations of /b d g/ either, since they are not voiced. That is to say, the whatever-it-is that appears after /s/ has something in common with both /p/ and /b/, or /k/ and /g/, being and oral plosive of a particular place of articulation. But in another sense, it is neither one nor the other, since it lacks aspiration, which is the distinctive phonetic characteristic of an initial voiceless stop, and it also lacks voicing. The main signature of an initial voiced one.

There are two further pieces of evidence, one practical and the other theoretical, in support of the in-between status of the sounds following /s/. if a recording is made of spil, still, skill, the [s] is erased, and the remaining portion is played to native speakers of English, they find it difficult to tell whether the words are pill, till, kill, or bill, dill, gill. Furthermore, we might argue that a /t is a /t/ because it contrasts with /d/ - phonemes are defined by the other phonemes in the system they belong to. To take an analogy, again from written English, children learning to write often have difficulty in placing the loop for a right at the base of the upstroke, and it sometimes appears a little higher that in adult writing - which is fine, as long as it doesn’t migrate so high as to be mistaken for a /p/, where the loop is meant to appears at the top. What matters is maintaining distinctness between the two; and the same is in speech, where a realization of /d/, for instance, can be more or less voiced in different circumstances, as long as it does not become confused with realizations of /t/. in a case where the cannot possibly contrast, as after /s/ in English, /t/ cannot be defined as it normally is, precisely because here alone, it does not contrast with / d/. It follows again that the voiceless, unaspirated sound after /s/ in still cannot be a normal allophone of /t/.

B. Archiphoneme

Phonologies call the unit found in a position of neutralization an archiphoneme. The archiphoneme is symbolized by a capital letter, and is composed of all the properties which the neutralized phonemes have in common, but not the properties which typically them, as shown in (3).

(3) /T/

+oral

+stop

+alveolar

0 voice

The archiphoneme /T/ is proposed where the normal opposition between /t/ and /d/ is suspended, so neither /t/ nor /d/ is a possibility. /T/ is an intermediate form, sharing the feature values common to /t/ and /d/, but with no value possible for voicing, since there is no contrast of voiced and voiceless in this context. Neutralization is therefore the defective distribution of a class of phonemes, involving a particular phonological context ( Rather than a single word, as in the either/neither case ).

C. Cases of Neutralization

There are many other cases of neutralization in English, but for the time being, we shall consider only one. In many varieties of English, the normal contrasts between vowels break down before /r/. To take one example, British English speakers will tend to maintain a three-way contrast of Mary, merry and marry, whereas many speakers of General American suspend the usual contrast of /eI/, /ε/ and /ae/, as established by minimal triplets like sail, sell and Sal or pain, pen and pan, in this environment, making Mary, merry and marry homophones. Although the vowel found here often sounds like [ε], this cannot be regarded as a normal realization of /ε/, since /ε/ is a phoneme which contrasts with/e/ and /_/, and that contrast is not possible here. So, we can set up an archiphoneme /E/ in just those cases before /r/, again signaling that a contrast otherwise found in all environments fails to manifest itself here.

Similarly, singular and plural noun forms like leaf – leaves, hoof – hooves, knife – knives might initially appear to represent a case of neutralisation, where the usual contrast between /f/ and /v/ is suspended before /z/ (recall that this is pronounced voiced). However, whatever is going on here cannot be ascribed straightforwardly to the phonetic context, since there are also cases, as in (4), where either the singular and plural both have voiceless fricatives, or both have voiced ones.

(4) chief – chiefs roof – roofs

hive – hives stove – stoves

Neutralisation always involves a regular suspension of contrast in a particular phonetic context. Here, we are dealing with an alternation between two phonemes, /f/ and /v/, in a particular grammatical context. Leaf has a final /f/, and leaves a medial /v/ – there is no intermediate, archiphonemic form here. The determining factor is neither phonetic nor phonological: it is simply a fact about certain English nouns (including leaf, hoof, knife, life, wife, but excluding chief, roof, hive, stove) that they have /f/ in some forms, notably the singular, and /v/ in others, notably the plural.

Such alternation between phonemes, depending on grammatical facts, is very common. For instance, before certain suffixes, the shape of the final consonant of a stem may change: hence /k/, /s/ and /ʃ/, otherwise three distinct phonemes as in kin, sin and shin, occur predictably depending whether the stem electric stands alone, or has a following suffix. Similar alternations involve president and other words derived from that, as shown in (5). English speakers can perfectly well pronounce [k] before the sound sequence [Iti], as in kitty, or [t] before [i], as in pretty or Betty: the fact that these sounds do not appear in electricity or presidency, where we find [s] instead, reflects the function of -ity and -y as suffixes in those cases.

(5) electri[k] electri[s]ity electri[ʃ]ian

presiden[t] presiden[s]y presiden[ʃ]ial

Cases of neutralisation tend not to be subject to sociolinguistic influence in this way, but rather reflect a tendency for certain otherwise contrastive sets or pairs of vowels to fall together with a single realisationin a particular phonological context. In the last chapter, we saw that the DRESS, TRAP and SQUARE vowels are neutralised for many GA speakers before /r/, so that merry, marry and Mary become homophonous: in this context, rather than the usual /ε/, /ae/, /eI/ opposition, we might propose archiphonemic /E/, realised as [ε]. Neutralisations of this sort are extremely common for English vowels. To take just two further examples, speakers from the southern states of the USA have a neutralisation of the KIT and DRESS vowels before /n/, so that pin and pen are homophonous; and for many speakers of SSE and Scots, the opposition between the KIT and STRUT vowels is suspended before /r/, so that fir and fur are both pronounced with [^].

However, whereas suspension of contrast takes place in a particular phonological context, and will affect all lexical items with that context, in other cases we are dealing with an interaction of morphology and phonology; here, we cannot invoke neutralisation. For instance, the discussion of the Scottish Vowel Length Rule above does not quite tell the full story, since we also find alternations of long and short vowels in the cases in (8).

(8) Short Long

greed agreed

brood brewed

bonus slowness

typing tie-pin

From the Scottish Vowel Length Rule examples considered earlier, we concluded that vowel length is not contrastive in SSE and Scots, since it was possible to predict that long vowels appear before certain consonants or at the end of a word, while short ones appear elsewhere. However, the data in (8) appear, on purely phonological grounds, to constitute minimal pairs for short and long vowels. In fact, what seems to matter is the structure of the words concerned. The vowels in the ‘Long’ column of (8) are in a sense word-final; they precede the inflectional ending [d] marking past tense; or the suffix -ness; or appear at the end of the first element of a compound, which is a word in its own right, as in tie. This is not true for the ‘Short’ column, where the words are not separable in this way. The Scottish Vowel Length Rule must therefore be rewritten to take account of the morphological structure of words: it operates before /r/ and voiced fricatives, at the end of a word, and also at the end of a morpheme, or meaningful unit within the word; in the cases in (8), the affected vowel is at the end of a stem.

In other cases, different vowel phonemes alternate with one another before particular suffixes, as we found for consonants in where the final [k] of electric became [s] or [ʃ] before certain suffixes, as in electricity and electrician. One of the best-known cases in English, and one which affects all varieties, involves pairs of words like those in (9).

(9). divine – divinity line – linear /aI/ – /I/

serene – serenity supreme – supremacy /i:/ – /ε/

sane – sanity explain – explanatory /eI/ – /ae/

These Vowel Shift alternations (so-called because the patterns reflect the operation of a sound change called the Great Vowel Shift several hundred years ago) involve pairs of phonemes which very clearly contrast in English – the members of the PRICE and KIT, FLEECE and DRESS, and FACE and TRAP pairs of standard lexical sets. Minimal pairs are common for all of these (take type and tip, peat and pet, lake and lack, for instance). However, the presence of each member of these pairs can be predicted in certain contexts only; and native speakers tend to regard the pairs involved, such as divine and divinity, as related forms of the same word. This is not neutralization, because the context involved is not specifically phonetic or phonological: it is morphological. That is, what matters is not the length of the word, or the segment following the vowel in question, but the presence or absence of one of a particular set of suffixes. In underived forms (that is, those with no suffix at all) we find the tense or long vowel, here /aI/, /i:/ or /eI/; but in derived forms, with a suffix like -ity, -ar, -acy, -ation, a corresponding lax or short vowel /I/, /ε/ or /ae/ appears instead. This alternation is a property of the lexical item concerned; vowel changes typically appear when certain suffixes are added, but there are exceptions like obese, with /i:/ in the underived stem, and the same vowel (rather than the /ε/ we might predict) in obesity, regardless of the presence of the suffix -ity. Opting out in this way does not seem to be a possibility in cases of neutralization, but is quite common in ases of morphophonemic, or the interaction between phonology and morphology.

To put it another way, not all alternations involving morphology are completely productive. Some are: this means that every single relevant word of English obeys the regularity involved (so, all those nouns which form their plural using a -s suffix will have this pronounced as [s] after a voiceless final sound in the stem, [z] after a voiced one, and [Iz] after a sibilant; not only this, but any new nouns which are borrowed into English from other languages, or just made up, will also follow this pattern). Others are fairly regular, but not entirely so: this goes for the Vowel Shift cases above. And yet others are not regular at all, but are simply properties of individual lexical items which children or second language learners have to learn as such. The fact that teach has the past tense taught is an idiosyncrasy of modern English which has to be mastered; but although knowing this relationship will help a learner of English to use teach and taught appropriately, it will not help when it comes to learning other verbs, because preach does not have the past tense *praught, nd caught does not have the present tense *ceach. Knowing where we should draw the line between extremely regular cases which clearly involve exception less rules or generalizations, fairly regular ones which may be stated as rules with exceptions, and one-off (or several off) cases where there is no rule at all but a good deal of rote-learning, is one of the major challenges of morphophonology. The only comfort is that native speakers, at least during acquisition and sometimes later too, find it just as much of a challenge, as amply demonstrated by overgeneralizations like past-tense swang from swing (on the pattern of swim – swam) or past-tense [trεt] from treat (on the pattern of meet – met).