Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

(14) Vowel reduction in Seediq
/haed/ ‘cook’
-> h-m-aed -> hmaets -> [humauts], (Actor Focus)
infixation d -> ts epenthesis and UVR
-> haed-an -> hedan -> [huedan], (Locative Focus)
suffixation a -> ø epenthesis
/heyeg/ ‘stand’
-> m-heyeg -> mheyew -> mheyuw 39 -> mheyu -> [meheyu] (AF)
prefix g->w UVR w -> ø epenthesis, translaryngeal harmony
-> h-n-eyeg -> hneyeg-an -> hnyegan -> [hunuyean] (LF, Pret.)
infix suffix e -> ø epenthesis
There are lexical exceptions to the pattern, but it is otherwise said to be quite
general. The problem, of course, is that in an unstressed syllable which licenses the
faithful realization of [i], it is difficult to imagine what would make [u] an optimal
realization for unstressed /e/. /e/ -> [i] involves the change of [-high] to [+high], involved
in any case in /e/ -> [u] as well. But /e/ -> [u] involves changes to [back] and [round] as
well (or just [back], depending on one’s view of underspecification).
The answer is that [u] is not in fact an optimal realization for /e/ under vowel
reduction under any circumstances (which is to say, in comparison with [i] or []. [u] is
perfectly fine from the point of view of dispersion). It is, however, the realization that a
layering of sound changes in Seediq ultimately provides. There was no gradual drift of
39 Final -Vw simplified to -V is independently attested and is not the source of [-u] here. Other dialects
retain /w/.
110