THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PHONEMES OF A LANGUAGE

Once the phonemes of a language are established and their phonologically relevant features are determined, there arises another phonological problem: to describe the interrelationships among the phonemes of a language.

Can different phonemes have common allophones? Can allophones of a phoneme lose any of their phonologically relevant features in certain phonetic positions?

There are three views on the problem.

Scholars who support the morphonological viewpoint (R. Avanesov, P. Kuznetsov, A. Reformatsky and others) claim that a phoneme in a "weak" position may lose one of its distinctive {phonologically relevant} features and, therefore, lose its distinctive function. For example, Russian voiced consonants lose their voiced character and are pronounced as voiceless in final position (as in "луг" /к/ "глаз" /c/, etc.). This leads to the loss of the distinction between /k/ and /г/, /c/ and /з/. Therefore, in word final position the phonological oppositions based on the phonologically relevant features "voiced vs. voiceless" are neutralized in Russian. Scholars term this phenomenon neutralization of phonological oppositions.

Neutralization of phonological oppositions is the loss of a distinctive {phonologically relevant) feature by one of the phonemes of an opposition.

Those who support this view consider that a phoneme is morphemically bound and, therefore, in all the derivatives of "луга" (лугов, луг) we deal with the allophones of one and the same phoneme /г/, and in all the derivatives of "лука" (луком, лук) we deal with the allophones of the phoneme /k/.

Consequently, different phonemes may have common allophones and sometimes a sound may be assigned to either of two phonemes. In the case of [k], it may either be considered an allophone of the phoneme /k/ (as in "лук") or an allophone of the phoneme /г/ (as in "луг").

But the Russian language is the only language in which the phenomenon of neutralization has been examined more or less in depth.

The supporters of the phonological viewpoint (L. Shcherba, D. Jones, K. Pike and others) reject the notion of "neutralization of phonological oppositions". They consider that an allophone cannot lose any of its distinctive features. If it does, it becomes an allophone of the phoneme the distinctive features of which it acquires. Thus, [k] in "луг" is an allophone of /k/, /ə/ in "addition" is an allophone of the schwa vowel phoneme /ə/ (and is not an allophone of /æ/, as in "add"); [t] in "walked" is an allophone of /t/.

The third viewpoint is that of N. Trubetzkoy, R. Jakobson, and some other linguists who consider that there are phonological units higher than a phoneme - the archiphonemes.

The archiphoneme is an abstraction which combines the distinctive features common to two phonemes. According to this viewpoint both [к] and [г] in "луг" and "лук" are assigned to the archiphoneme /K/ which is neither voiced, nor voiceless.

We assume that for teaching purposes the most suitable viewpoint is that of L. Shcherba and his followers. Accordingly, the phoneme is characterized by definite articulatory and acoustic characteristics and can be easily described as a separate unit of the sound system of language. Whereas the other viewpoints treat the phoneme as a phonological unit which is actually devoid of articulatory and acoustic characteristics, because even its phonologically relevant features appear to be unstable {they can be neutralized). Moreover, the phoneme in that sense embraces sounds that can be assigned to other phonemes as well (the so-called "common" allophones). Such an approach hinders the practical application of phonology to teaching pronunciation. The existence of a number of viewpoints on phonological problems can be explained by the well-known fact that language is too complicated for all its features to be described in terms of any one theory.

Date: 2015-12-18; view: 2017