Editing Phoneme (section)

=={{anchor|Neutralization}}Neutralization and archiphonemes==
{{more citations needed|section|date=May 2019}}
Phonemes that are contrastive in certain environments may not be contrastive in all environments. In the environments where they do not contrast, the contrast is said to be '''neutralized'''. In these positions it may become less clear which phoneme a given phone represents. '''Absolute neutralization''' is a phenomenon in which a segment of the [[underlying representation]] is not realized in any of its [[phonetic]] representations (surface forms). The term was introduced by [[Paul Kiparsky]] (1968), and contrasts with '''contextual neutralization''' where some phonemes are not contrastive in certain environments.<ref>Kiparsky, P., ''Linguistic universals and linguistic change.'' In: E. Bach & R.T. Harms (eds.), ''Universals in linguistic theory'', 1968, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (pp. 170–202)</ref> Some phonologists prefer not to specify a unique phoneme in such cases, since to do so would mean providing redundant or even arbitrary information – instead they use the technique of [[underspecification]]. An '''archiphoneme''' is an object sometimes used to represent an underspecified phoneme.

An example of neutralization is provided by the Russian vowels {{IPA|/a/}} and {{IPA|/o/}}. These phonemes are contrasting in [[stress (linguistics)|stressed]] syllables, but in unstressed syllables the contrast is lost, since both are [[vowel reduction|reduced]] to the same sound, usually {{IPA|[ə]}} (for details, see [[vowel reduction in Russian]]). In order to assign such an instance of {{IPA|[ə]}} to one of the phonemes {{IPA|/a/}} and {{IPA|/o/}}, it is necessary to consider [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] factors (such as which of the vowels occurs in other forms of the words, or which [[inflection]]al pattern is followed). In some cases even this may not provide an unambiguous answer. A description using the approach of underspecification would not attempt to assign {{IPA|[ə]}} to a specific phoneme in some or all of these cases, although it might be assigned to an archiphoneme, written something like {{IPA|⫽A⫽}}, which reflects the two neutralized phonemes in this position, or {{IPA|<nowiki>{a|o}</nowiki>}}, reflecting its unmerged values.{{efn|Depending on the ability of the typesetter, this may be written vertically, an o over an a with a horizontal line (like a fraction) without the braces.}}

A somewhat different example is found in English, with the three [[nasal consonant|nasal]] phonemes {{IPA|/m, n, ŋ/}}. In word-final position these all contrast, as shown by the minimal triplet ''sum'' {{IPA|/sʌm/}}, ''sun'' {{IPA|/sʌn/}}, ''sung'' {{IPA|/sʌŋ/}}. However, before a [[stop consonant|stop]] such as {{IPA|/p, t, k/}} (provided there is no [[morpheme]] boundary between them), only one of the nasals is possible in any given position: {{IPA|/m/}} before {{IPA|/p/}}, {{IPA|/n/}} before {{IPA|/t/}} or {{IPA|/d/}}, and {{IPA|/ŋ/}} before {{IPA|/k/}}, as in ''limp, lint, link'' ({{IPA|/lɪmp/}}, {{IPA|/lɪnt/}}, {{IPA|/lɪŋk/}}). The nasals are therefore not contrastive in these environments, and according to some theorists this makes it inappropriate to assign the nasal phones heard here to any one of the phonemes (even though, in this case, the phonetic evidence is unambiguous). Instead they may analyze these phonemes as belonging to a single archiphoneme, written something like {{IPA|⫽N⫽}}, and state the [[underlying representation]]s of ''limp, lint, link'' to be {{IPA|⫽lɪNp⫽}}, {{IPA|⫽lɪNt⫽}}, {{IPA|⫽lɪNk⫽}}.

This latter type of analysis is often associated with [[Nikolai Trubetzkoy]] of the [[Prague school]]. Archiphonemes are often notated with a capital letter within double virgules or pipes, as with the examples {{IPA|⫽A⫽}} and {{IPA|⫽N⫽}} given above. Other ways the second of these has been notated include {{IPA|{{!}}m-n-ŋ{{!}}}}, {{IPA|{m, n, ŋ<nowiki>}</nowiki>}} and {{IPA|⫽n*⫽}}.

Another example from English, but this time involving complete phonetic convergence as in the Russian example, is the flapping of {{IPA|/t/}} and {{IPA|/d/}} in some American English (described above under [[#Biuniqueness|Biuniqueness]]). Here the words ''betting'' and ''bedding'' might both be pronounced {{IPA|[ˈbɛɾɪŋ]}}. Under the [[generative grammar]] theory of linguistics, if a speaker applies such flapping consistently, morphological evidence (the pronunciation of the related forms ''bet'' and ''bed'', for example) would reveal which phoneme the flap represents, once it is known which morpheme is being used.<ref>{{cite journal|title=A Re-Examination of Phonological Neutralization|last=Dinnsen|first=Daniel|year=1985|journal=Journal of Linguistics|volume=21|number=2|pages=265–79|jstor=4175789|doi=10.1017/s0022226700010276|s2cid=145227467 }}</ref> However, other theorists would prefer not to make such a determination, and simply assign the flap in both cases to a single archiphoneme, written (for example) {{IPA|⫽D⫽}}.

Further mergers in English are [[plosive]]s after {{IPA|/s/}}, where {{IPA|/p, t, k/}} conflate with {{IPA|/b, d, ɡ/}}, as suggested by the alternative spellings ''[[wikt:sketti|sketti]]'' and ''sghetti''. That is, there is no particular reason to transcribe ''spin'' as {{IPA|/ˈspɪn/}} rather than as {{IPA|/ˈsbɪn/}}, other than its historical development, and it might be less ambiguously transcribed {{IPA|⫽ˈsBɪn⫽}}.