{"title":"A short critical survey of N. S. Trubetzkoy's theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme","authors":"T. Akamatsu","doi":"10.15304/moenia.id8001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to attempt a short critical survey of the theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme which N. S. Trubetzkoy progressively developed from roughly the late 1920’s to 1938. His magnum opus, Grundzüge der Phonologie, saw the light of day the year after his decease in 1938. I have spread the net wider than just Grundzüge by studying a number of available pre-Grundzüge writings on the theory. Many aspects of the theory seem to have been unproblematically accepted by subsequent phonologists without critically discussing certain of the key points in the theory. It seems to me that the all-important notion of ‘neutralization’ suffers from certain aspects of the notion of ‘archiphoneme’ that Trubetzkoy presents which in turn suffers from his introduction of the notion of ‘archiphoneme representative’ whose nature remains obscure. The involvement of the concepts of ‘mark’, ‘marked’ and ‘unmarked’ creates further complications. Within the confines of the present paper, I have deliberately concentrated on Trubetzkoy’s writings only and left untouched what other interested linguists have had to say about Trubetzkoy’s theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme. The present work consists of first, my critical discussions of certain points in Trubetzkoy’s theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme and second, my own version of the theory by citing actual examples of my analyses of a few case of neutralization some languages.","PeriodicalId":53908,"journal":{"name":"Moenia-Revista Lucense de Linguistica & Literatura","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Moenia-Revista Lucense de Linguistica & Literatura","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15304/moenia.id8001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to attempt a short critical survey of the theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme which N. S. Trubetzkoy progressively developed from roughly the late 1920’s to 1938. His magnum opus, Grundzüge der Phonologie, saw the light of day the year after his decease in 1938. I have spread the net wider than just Grundzüge by studying a number of available pre-Grundzüge writings on the theory. Many aspects of the theory seem to have been unproblematically accepted by subsequent phonologists without critically discussing certain of the key points in the theory. It seems to me that the all-important notion of ‘neutralization’ suffers from certain aspects of the notion of ‘archiphoneme’ that Trubetzkoy presents which in turn suffers from his introduction of the notion of ‘archiphoneme representative’ whose nature remains obscure. The involvement of the concepts of ‘mark’, ‘marked’ and ‘unmarked’ creates further complications. Within the confines of the present paper, I have deliberately concentrated on Trubetzkoy’s writings only and left untouched what other interested linguists have had to say about Trubetzkoy’s theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme. The present work consists of first, my critical discussions of certain points in Trubetzkoy’s theory of neutralization and the archiphoneme and second, my own version of the theory by citing actual examples of my analyses of a few case of neutralization some languages.
本文的目的是对特鲁别茨科从20世纪20年代末到1938年逐步发展起来的中和理论和archiphoneme作一个简短的批判性考察。1938年,他去世后的第二年,他的巨著《音韵学》(grundzge der Phonologie)面世。通过研究大量在grundz之前关于该理论的著作,我把网撒得更广,而不仅仅是grundz。该理论的许多方面似乎已经被后来的音系学家毫无疑问地接受了,而没有批判性地讨论该理论中的某些关键点。在我看来,所有重要的“中和”概念都受到Trubetzkoy提出的“archiphoneme”概念的某些方面的影响,而Trubetzkoy提出的“archiphoneme representative”概念反过来又受到其本质仍然模糊的影响。“标记”、“标记”和“未标记”等概念的介入使问题更加复杂。在本文的范围内,我有意只关注特鲁贝兹科的著作,而不涉及其他感兴趣的语言学家对特鲁贝兹科的中和理论和archiphoneme的看法。目前的工作包括:首先,我对Trubetzkoy的中和理论和archiphoneme中的某些观点进行了批判性的讨论;其次,通过引用我对一些语言中和的几个案例的实际分析,我自己的理论版本。