Against Reduction (On the Problematic Nature of the Term and Concept)

This article presents arguments against the concept of reduction. It demonstrates that the term is excessively polysemous and, in practice, fails to align with the formal definition of a term. After briefly reviewing the historical background of this terminological ambiguity, the paper offers practical suggestions for resolving it. These proposals are ideologically aligned with similar critical research, most notably by drawing a parallel to Martin Haspelmath’s article “Against markedness (and what to replace it with)”. Specifically, it is proposed that the abstract concept of reduction should be replaced with unambiguous terms that denote specific phonetic or phonological processes.

Furthermore, the article critically evaluates the traditional distinction between “qualitative” and “quantitative” reduction. This dichotomy plays a central role in Russian-language phonetics but is virtually absent from English-language sources. It is argued that while the connection between quality and duration is well-established — primarily through the works of L. V. Shcherba in the Russian tradition — an excessive methodological focus on this opposition is harmful. It can lead to false conclusions, such as the erroneous assumption that quantitative changes can occur without qualitative ones, or vice versa. Finally, as an alternative classification, it is proposed that attention should be paid to reduction in phonetics as opposed to reduction in phonology, while also addressing consonant reduction and the universality of the phenomenon.