Linguistics Encyclopedia.pdf

A-Z 203
phonologically valid in the latter position is the common base of /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/, which
is none other than the archiphoneme /m-n-ŋ/, definable as ‘nasal’.
/m/–/n/–/ŋ/ in English is, then, said to be a neutralizable opposition which is operative
in the position of relevance but is neutralized in the position of neutralization. Since the
relevant feature ‘nasal’, which alone characterizes the archiphoneme /m–n–ŋ/, is not
found in any other phoneme in English, the opposition /m/–/n/–/ŋ/ is, of course, an
exclusive opposition. The phonic feature of velarity, which characterizes the realization
(i.e. [ŋ] in ['æŋka] or ['æŋga]) of this archiphoneme, is not part of its phonological
characteristics; rather, the occurrence of velarity in its realization is merely dictated by
the fact that /k/ or /g/ which follows the archiphoneme is phonologically velar.
The concept of neutralization presented above is largely in line with Martinet and his
associates’ phonological analysis. In contrast, Trubetzkoyan phonological analysis is
incapable of accounting for the neutralization of /m/–/n/–/ŋ/ monememedially before /k/
or /g/ in English, for Trubetzkoy always presents a phonological opposition as consisting
of two, and not more than two, phonemes, and operates with other phonological concepts
compatible with such a concept of phonological opposition. His presentation of various
types of phonological opposition (bilateral, multilateral; proportional, isolated; privative,
gradual, equipollent; constant, neutralizable) is always such that a phonological
opposition is formed by two phonemes. (See Trubetzkoy, 1969, pp. 67–83, for a detailed
explanation of these types of phonological opposition.)
In a case where a neutralizable opposition happens to be a phonological opposition
consisting of two phonemes, Trubetzkoy accounts for its neutralization in the following
way. For instance, in German, /t/–/d/, which is a bilateral opposition operative in, say,
moneme-initial prevocalic position (cf. Tank, Dank), is neutralized in moneme-final
position (cf. und, freund(lich)), where only the archiphoneme is valid and is ‘represented’
by the unmarked member of the opposition (/t/? [t]?). The phonetic or phonological status
of the archiphoneme representative is a moot point over which there exists disagreement
even among functionalists. As is evident from Trubetzkoy’s use of the notion of the
mark and the associated notions of marked and unmarked, a neutralizable opposition is
supposed to be a privative opposition formed by the marked and the unmarked phonemes.
Martinet and the majority, if not all, of his associates give much the same account of
the neutralization of such an exclusive opposition consisting of two phonemes, except
that they generally do not resort to the concept of bilateral opposition and to the concept
of the archiphoneme representative. It should be noted in passing that a few functionalists
do not operate with the notions of the mark, marked, and unmarked in their account of
any neutralization (see Akamatsu, 1988, ch. 11).
However, it is important to note that functionalists’ concept of neutralization is an
inevitable consequence of their prior belief in the concept of phonological opposition. It
should be mentioned in this connection that some functionalists (see Vachek, 1966, p. 62;
Buyssens, 1972a, 1972b) have abandoned the concept of the archiphoneme while
claiming to operate with the concept of neutralization, a stance which has come under fire
from other functionalists. The debate on this issue can be pursued through the writings of
Akamatsu, Buyssens, and Vion in issues of La Linguistique from 1972 to 1977. It is also
discussed in Davidsen-Nielsen (1978) and in Akamatsu (1988).
Finally, a few words are in order about the concepts of the mark, marked, and
unmarked, and the concept of correlation. Most functionalists consider that one of the