Problem 2 of the

phonological analysis:
the establishment of the phonologically relevant
features
The second problem of phonological analysis is
the identification of the inventory of distinctive features on
which all the phonological oppositions in the language are based
Every sound is characterized by a number of features, not all of which are equally important for
communication.

If one compares some of the allophones of /p/, it appears that all of them have common features
and features which characterize only a few of them.
The problem is to decide which of the features of a group of common sounds in a certain language are
phonologically relevant and which of them are irrelevant, or incidental. This is important not
only for a detailed characterization of the phonemic systems of languages and the identification of
their typology. It is also most essential for teaching purposes, since the phonologically relevant
features require special attention in pronunciation teaching.
 Primarily need to explain the following:

Phonologically relevant features of a phoneme are constant distinctive

features which distinguish this phoneme from all the other phonemes
of the language.

The phonologically relevant features are identified by opposing one

phoneme to every other phoneme in the language. PHONOLOGICALLY
IRRELEVANT features distinguish one allophone from all the other
allophones of the phoneme.
The phonologically relevant features that characterize the phoneme /p/ are,
therefore, bilabial, occlusive and fortis.

Aspiration, plosiveness, labialization, etc. are phonologically irrelevant features.

Phonologically irrelevant does not necessarily mean useless for communication. It
has already been mentioned that the aspiration of /p/ helps the listener to
distinguish it from /b/ as in
“pride” — “bride”
“pie” — ‘‘buy’’
The substitution of one phonologically relevant feature (e.g. bilabial) for any
other relevant feature (e.g. forelingual) results in a different phoneme (in this
case [p] is replaced by [t]).
Pie-tie

The substitution of one irrelevant feature for another ( aspirated for non—
aspirated) results in a different allophone of one and the same phoneme (p ]
aspirated and [p] non—aspirated) . Such a substitution does not affect
communication.
The phonologically relevant features are normally identified by opposing one
phoneme to every other phoneme in the language. But there often occur
difficulties, which can be overcome with the aid of physiological and acoustic
analyses.
e.g. until recently it was considered that the oppositions /p/ — /b/, /t/ — /d/, /k/
– /g/, /f/ – /v/, /θ/‑ /ð/, /s/ – /z/, /ʃ/ ‑ /ȝ/, /tʃ/ ‑ /dȝ/ were based on the presence
and absence of voice. But it has been proved that it is not a constant distinctive
feature "Do it" - "I did"
 Acoustic and physiological analyses have proved that

THE SO—CALLED “VOICED” consonants in English are

always lenis (lax, weak) irrespective of their phonetic
environment and position

THE SO—CALLED “VOICELESS” consonants in English

which are always fortis (energetic, strong) in all phonetic
positions
 Compare /p - k/ and /b - g/

• pronounced with the lips quite

tense, with aspiration (especially
/p - k/ in the initial /p/) and with the
vocal cords not vibrating

• pronounced with the lips more

relaxed, with no aspiration, and
/b - g/ with the vocal cords vibrating
only in the initial /b/
Or again, until recently duration in the English language was regarded as a
phonologically relevant feature capable of distinguishing /i:—i /, /u:-ʊ /, /ɔ:-ɒ /,
/a: —ʌ /. But in English the quality of the historically long and short vowels differs,
so length is not the only feature that distinguishes them.
Besides, length differences are conditioned, they therefore cannot be distinctive.
Acoustic analysis shows that the length of vowels varies in different phonetic
environment and in different positions.
/si: — si:d — si:t/

It is a well known fact that /i:/ in /si:/ is longer than the same sound in /si:d/, and
that /i:/ in /si:t/ is the shortest: it is almost as short as /i/ in /sid/.
It has also been established that a vowel is longer in front of a fricative than in
front of a stop. Besides that, vowel length depends on whether the syllable it
occurs in is stressed. Stressed vowels are generally longer than the unstressed
vowels. Vowel length also depends on the number of syllables in a word.
As length varies and does not characterize all the allophones of a historically long
vowel, length cannot be considered its phonologically relevant feature. But there
are perceptual features which constantly distinguish all the English vowels: these
are distinctions in their quality, which are based on the slight differences in the
tongue positions when producing these vowels, i.e. their articulatory differences.
 In the system of English consonant phonemes there are
oppositions based on the force of

Monophthongs • These oppositions are based on

between themselves differences in the movements and
positions of the tongue and the lips
and diphthongs
between themselves

• These oppositions are based on both

Monophthongs vs. above mentioned differences and the
absence or presence of glide
diphthongs
 There are no phonological oppositions in the system of English
vowel phonemes based on length alone

In the system of English consonant phonemes there are oppositions based

on the force of articulations
• fortis vs. lenis (two — do, back — bag, etc.)

There are oppositions based on the active organ of speech:

• bilabial vs. forelingual (pen — ten, mat — sat, wet — let)
• bilabial vs. backlingual (bay — gay)

There are oppositions based on the type of obstruction:

• plosive vs. fricative (pen — when, berry — very)
• fricative vs. affricate (share — chair)