{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02837326607818411, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011349306431273645, 'mean_word_length': 4.75, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The concept of neutralization outside the field of phonology

Historically, the term neutralization originated from the field of phonology, yet it has become widely used in the field of meaningful units as well. The goal of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it traces back the origins of the different ways the term has been used in the field of meaningful units, viz. lexicon, grammar, and discourse, in 20th-century linguistics. On the other hand, it determines to what extent it is theoretically reasonable to use the term for the variety of phenomena which have come under its extension. In the introductory section, the focus is on the notion of neutralization as developed by the Prague School of Linguistics, particularly in the writings of Trubetzkoy. In the second part of the paper, the use of the term neutralization outside the domain of phonology is examined in a chronological way: first, Hjelmslev’s view on neutralization is discussed (section 2.1.); then, an overview is given of the use of the term in the 1950s (sections 2.2. and 2.3.); the third section deals with the notion of neutralization from the 1960s onwards. In this final part, nine different senses of neutralization (with various sub-senses) are distinguished. In order to prevent neutralization from becoming a vacuous or superfluous term in linguistics, I argue that its use should be confined to a particular type of linguistic phenomenon and that some of the concepts it has denoted in 20th-century linguistics should be better expressed by other (either already existing or new) terminologies.