Types of phonological opposition

1. Single – if the members of the opposition differ in one articulatory feature.

pen – Ben (occlusive; labial; [p] fortis, [b] lenis)

2. Double – if there are two distinctive features, which are different.

pen – den (occlusive, [p] labial, [d] alveolar; [p] fortis, [d] lenis)

3. Triple/Multiple – there are three distinctive features.

pen – then ([p] occlusive, [ð] constrictive; [p] labial, [ð] interdental; [p] fortis, [ð] lenis)

To establish the system of phonemes of a language it is necessary to oppose sounds in all possible position (initial, medial, final). But there are cases when the sounds can’t be used in the same position and can’t be opposed, e.g.:

[h] is never used in final position.

[ŋ] is never used in initial position.

These sounds are treated as different phonemes on the basis of native speaker’s knowledge and their phonetic dissimilarity.

There is another interesting case which is analyzed and explained by different schools of classical phonology. In some cases different sounds occur in the same position and in the same phonetic context, but the meaning of the word remains unchanged (калоши – галоши, letter [lɛtə] – letter [lɛdə]). They are called free variants. The existing of free variance is explained by stylistic, regional and individual variations.

Morphonology

We have discussed the methods of establishing the phonemic status of sounds, and it is not an easy task. But it becomes even more difficult when the sounds are in the weak position which is called “the position of neutralization”, when the distinctive features are neutralized. For vowels this is an unstressed position, for consonants – word final position or the position before other consonants. Which phoneme does the final sound in the word «зуб» belong to?

The English “active” [æ-] – “activity”[ə-]. This problem is tackled by morphonology which studies the relations between phonemes and morphemes. It studies the way sounds alternate as different realizations of one and the same morpheme. Its primary concern is to establish the phonemic status of sounds in the position of neutralization. There are two schools that approach this question in different ways.

1. Moscow School

It is represented by Аванесов, Кузнецов and Реформацкий. The fundamental idea of this school is the following: the phoneme is theminimal component of the morpheme, which is a minimal meaningful language unit. They claim that the phonemic content of the morpheme is constant. In establishing the phonemic status of sounds they base their analysis on the theory of strong and weak positions. The strong position for a vowel is the stressed position. For a consonant – before the stressed vowel. So, if we find the strong position, we can establish the phonemic status of the sound. Thus, in the word “activiry” the phoneme is [æ].

Advantages of the conception:

1) Phonetic changes are not separated from morphology. The unity between form and content is preserved. The phonetic aspect is not isolated from lexis and grammar.

2) It is quite convincing that the allophones of the same phoneme can show conciderable difference.

Disadvantages:

1) Sometimes it is impossible to find a strong position for a sound (словарные слова в русском языке, например: «молоко»).

2) Sometimes the difference between the sounds treated as allophones of the same phoneme is too big (рус. «ухо» - «уши»).