Historical evidence and the treatment of absolute neutralization

Kiparsky draws two main conclusions from this and similar cases. First, he points out that in lieu of alternations supporting abstractness, the surface and underlying forms should be assumed to be identical: alternations are central to supporting an abstract underlying form. Second, and more controversially, these examples are used in an argument against the psychological reality of absolute neutralization. The argument is as follows. Cases such as Yiddish show the psychological reality of contextual neutralization, since it can be reversed. However, there is no known case where absolute neutralization has been historically reversed: if absolute neutralization had the psychological reality of contextual neutralization, we would expect to find a reversal of absolute neutralization, and we have not. Therefore, putative cases of absolute neutralization lack psychological reality.

Kiparsky proposes that morphemes which seem to motivate abstract segments are simply lexical exceptions to the rule in question: they fail to undergo or trigger a rule. For the problematic roots of Hungarian where front vowels seem to trigger back harmony, such as he:ɟ-am ‘my rind,’ ɲi:l-am ‘my arrow,’ the proposal is that these roots are marked as exceptions to vowel harmony. On the assumption that harmonizing suffixes all contain underlying back vowels, the fact that back vowels appear in suffixes after these roots boils down to the fact that the suffixes have underlying back vowels, and since these roots do not trigger vowel harmony the underlying vowel quality is preserved on the surface.