Linguistics Encyclopedia.pdf

The linguistics encyclopedia 202
relatively great muscular tension) which is opposed to the phonic feature lenis, over
voicelessness, or even to the exclusion of voicelessness.
Such absence of a certain phonic feature is dictated by a particular phonetic context in
which the relevant feature occurs, for the voicedness does occur in all those different
phonic contexts that are favourable to voicing—say, in intervocalic position. A relevant
feature in a given language is identified, in spite of any minor variation observed in terms
of the presence or absence of some of its multiple non-dissociable distinctive phonic
features, as a unitary entity which phonologically functions as a single global unit in
opposition to another or other relevant features in the same language, which also
functions or function phonologically as a single global unit or units. The term nondissociable
used in definitionally characterizing the relevant feature is therefore to be
taken in this particular sense and not in the sense of ‘constant’.
It may be the case that the common base of the member phonemes of a phonological
opposition in a given language is not found in any other phoneme(s) of the same
language. For example, in English, /m/ (defined as ‘bilabial nasal’), /n/ (‘apical nasal’),
and /ŋ/ (‘velar nasal’) share the common base, ‘nasal’, which is not found in any other
phoneme(s) of this language. In such a case, the phonemes are said to be in an exclusive
relation; that is, the common base is exclusive to the phonemes in question. Some
functionalists suggest the term exclusive opposition to designate conveniently this type
of phonological opposition, whose member phonemes are in an exclusive relation. An
exclusive opposition is of particular importance in functional phonology, as we shall see
below.
On the other hand, it may be the case that the common base of the member phonemes
of a phonological opposition in a given language is found in another or other phonemes
of the same language. For example, again in English, /p/ (‘voiceless bilabial non-nasal’)
and /t/ (‘voiceless apical non-nasal’) share the common base ‘voiceless non-nasal’ which
is also found in /k/ (‘voiceless velar non-nasal’) of this language. In such a case, /p/ and
/t/ are said to be in a non-exclusive relation, and some functionalists suggest the term
non-exclusive opposition to designate conveniently this type of phonological opposition,
whose member phonemes are in a non-exclusive relation.
The common base of the phonemes of an exclusive opposition (but not of a nonexclusive
opposition) is the archiphoneme, which may be defined as the sum of the
relevant features of the (two or more) phonemes of an exclusive opposition.
An exclusive opposition may or may not be a neutralizable opposition. However, a
neutralizable opposition is bound to be an exclusive opposition; it is never a nonexclusive
opposition. This brings us to the concept of neutralization, which may be
illustrated as follows. In English, /m/–/n/–/ŋ/ (that is, the opposition between /m/, /n/, and
/ŋ/) is operative in, say, moneme-final position (cf. rum v. run v. rung). It is, however,
not operative e.g. moneme-medially before /k/ (cf. anchor) or/ g/ (cf. anger), that is, there
is no possibility of having /m/–/n/–/ŋ/ in such a position. According to functionalists,
/m/–/n/–/ŋ/ which is operative in moneme-final position (the position of relevance for this
phonological opposition) is neutralized in the position describable as ‘moneme-medially
before /k/ or /g/’ (the position of neutralization for this phonological opposition). This
neutralization results from the fact that the opposition between the relevant features
‘bilabial’ (in /m/), ‘apical’ (in /n/), and ‘velar’ (in /ŋ/), which is valid in moneme-final
position, is cancelled (note, not ‘neutralized’) moneme-medially before /k/ or /g/. What is