Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

final syllables would be equally prominent in this respect. The fact that this is not case
should suggest that the proximal cause of Final Strength effects is to be found elsewhere.
From a phonetic point of view, on the other hand, the open syllable/closed
syllable asymmetry is readily explicable. A number of studies, including de Jong and
Zawaydeh (1999) on Jordanian Arabic, Edwards, Beckman and Fletcher 1991, Byrd
2000, and Cho 2001 remark on the propensity for vowels in phrase-final open syllables to
undergo more lengthening than vowels in phrase-final closed syllables. This effect is
generally attributed to the fact that degree of lengthening of a given segment seems to
decrease as distance from the boundary increases. When the final syllable is closed, it is
the final consonant that undergoes stronger lengthening, with the vowel lengthening
somewhat less than it would have were it in absolute domain-final position. Byrd (2000)
draws a connection between this effect and the results of numerous studies (see Chapter
4), including her own, in which domain-initial consonant articulations are strengthened.
Specifically, within a task-dynamic model of speech production, Byrd posits a non-tract
variable she calls a π-gesture, which straddles the boundary between phrases and causes a
local decrease in gestural stiffness, with the effect of lengthening, and conceivably
strengthening (but see Cho 2001 for discussion) the segments to either side of that
boundary. The effect would be strongest on segments closest to the boundary, which
would account for why domain-final vowels and domain-initial consonants are
162