Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

section). A second generalization which emerges from Gordon’s survey and is mirrored
in my own is that the devoicing of word-final vowels in a language implies the devoicing
of phrase-final vowels, while the reverse is not true: there are many languages in which
only phrase-final vowels are subject to devoicing (and deletion, most likely a later
consequence). This pattern falls out directly from the phonetic facts discussed above
concerning the regular extreme lowering of subglottal pressure in phrase- (but not word-)
final syllables. From a diachronic point of view, this almost certainly means (as it does
for word-final consonant devoicing), that the pattern gets its start in phrase-final position,
and is extended only subsequently to phrase-internal word-final vowels. In this respect
devoicing mirrors the final strength effects discussed above in following what is the usual
view of the development of word-edge phonology in traditional historical linguistics.
From this diachronic scenario an important prediction concerning both the
strengthening and devoicing patterns emerges. Gordon notes in his description of final
devoicing that just as with final strengthening above, in a great number of cases the effect
is optional or gradient, with degree of devoicing occurring along a continuum from fully
voiced to fully devoiced. Any single instance of devoicing would then be a function of
other phonetic factors, such as emphasis, preceding consonant, speech rate, and the like.
that Turkish does not actually constitute an exception in this regard. Word-final stressed high vowels in
Turkish are in fact frequently realized voiceless, particularly when the preceding consonant is a
(phonetically) aspirated obstruent (Orhan Orgun, p.c.). In Turkish, stress is cued by higher F0. Amplitude
and duration increases are not correlates of final stress (Konrot 1981).
193