Neutralization of opposition. –p.136 Ilyish

The notion of Neutralization of opposition was first introduced by N. Trubetskoy in his book “Essentials of phonology” (Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague, 1939)

The essential idea at the bottom of neutralization in phonology is this. An opposition existing between 2 phonemes may under certain circumstances (which are to be strictly defined in each case) disappear. I.e. it may lose its validity and become irrelevant. E.g.: the sounds [t] & [d] are different phonemes in Russian, as they distinguish pairs of words, e.g.: дом:: том; дам :: там. However the difference between the 2 phonemes disappears at the end of the word, e.g.: рот (mouth) :: род (genus) sound alike, a voiced [d] being impossible at the end of the word in Russian.

Trubetskoy says that the opposition between [t] & [d] is neutralized in those conditions. To put it more exactly, whereas in the word том the relevant features of the initial phoneme [т] are three, viz.: it is (a) a forelingual consonant; (b) a stop; (c) voiceless, &

the initial consonant [д] of дом also has 3 relevant features, viz.: (a) a forelingual consonant; (b) a stop; (c) voiced.

The final consonant in рот or род has only two relevant features: (a) a forelingual consonant; (b) a stop. No third relevant feature is found here. The consonant is phonetically voiceless, but voicelessness is phonologically irrelevant, as the corresponding voiced consonant cannot appear in this position.

The notion of Neutralization of opposition has since been applied to grammar as well. Here are some examples:

1. Between sing :: pl. of Nouns, e.g.: Sing. Nouns may be used to express pl. : Trees in leaf;

to have a keen eye; - this is stylistic transposition exemplifying synechdochy – the simplest case of metonymy in grammar.

Or / opposition “class-subclass” (fish-fishes, fruit-fruits) (Alexeyeva, p.40)

1. + Neutralization of opposition in Verbals

2. (Do you mind my/ me smoking?) [Gerund & Participle I]

He was afraid of her knowing the truth

(-ing is a Gerund if her is a possessive pronoun;

-ing is a Participle I if her is a pronoun in the objective case).

Neutralization of opposition

3. The director said the film would be improved by cutting. (Neutralization of opposition is between Future Ind. in the Past & the Conditional Mood).

4. + When–clauses, though-clauses, which-clauses = (Neutralization of opposition is between composite and compound sentences. See Lecture 13).

Homonymy:

1.Flying planes can be dangerous. (The homonymy is between “flying” used as

a) Participle I; b) Gerund.

1. Love / blossoms // in spring.

2. He looked / over // the old fence.

See (Polysemantic and homonymous forms)

(Ilyish P.137-143)

2.He said he would do it.

a. Conditional Mood (Lex. meaning = 0); = An analytical form.

b. Fut-Ind.-in-the-Past; (Lex. meaning = 0); =An analytical form.

c.Modal verb in the past = бывало. (Lex. meaning > than 0).= A free syntactical combination.

So, morphological forms and syntactical units are polysemantic, polyfunctional and homonymous.