20.07.2013 Views

Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

h. English (Germanic)(Hammond 1997)<br />

Inventory: /i, , e, , æ, , , , o, , u/<br />

Reduction: Unstressed word-internal preconsonantal syllables contain only [] 64<br />

Unstressed word-internal prevocalic syllables contain [i, u, o, e]<br />

Final strength effects: Word-final open syllables show [i, u, o, ]<br />

i. Yakan (Austronesian: Philippines, SW Mindanao, Basilan Island) (Behrens<br />

1975, Flemming 1993)<br />

Inventory: /i, e, a, o, u/<br />

Reduction: Primary stress is penultimate, with secondaries on alternating syllables<br />

preceding. In unstressed syllables /a/ -> [e].<br />

Resistance: In word-final open and closed syllables reduction does not take place (nor<br />

does it in pretonic syllables when the following syllable is also [a]).<br />

j. Maltese (Semitic)(Puech 1978)<br />

Harmony: In Standard Maltese and closely related dialects, there is a left-to-right<br />

rounding harmony which targets all short non-low vowels triggered by [o]. In<br />

Siggieha and Gozitan dialect, harmony affects vowels <strong>of</strong> all heights, affecting<br />

specifications for [back].<br />

Resistance: While in some dialects suffix vowels only harmonize if they are in a final<br />

closed syllable (with no harmony taking place if additional syllables intervening<br />

between the stem and the word-final syllable, even if intervening syllables contain<br />

otherwise-eligible vowels), in no dialect do vowels in final open syllables ever<br />

harmonize. 65 ,<br />

64<br />

Hammond’s analysis admits only one reduced vowel.<br />

65<br />

A possible explanation for this not involving final lengthening directly is that while synchronically all<br />

surface final vowels are short (phonologically), underlyingly they are all long. Maltese has undergone a<br />

common sound change (to be discussed below in 3.6 and 3.7), whereby long final vowels shorten and short<br />

final vowels are deleted. The original length <strong>of</strong> the remaining final vowels could have prevented their<br />

harmonization. Flemming (1993: 21) does not discuss harmony, but notes that final syllables closed and<br />

open are never subject to unstressed vowel deletion in Maltese, and attributes this resistance to final<br />

lengthening. This may ultimately be so, though I see two reasons for skepticism. First is the tendency for<br />

final closed syllables (indeed stronger than for internal closed syllables in some dialects), but not final open<br />

syllables, to undergo harmony, suggesting if anything decreased duration in final closed syllables. Another<br />

147

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!