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.

One the other hand, many instances <strong>of</strong> vowel devoicing are clearly phonological, due<br />

either to surface contrast with voiced vowels or interaction with other processes in the<br />

system which are believed to be phonological (Gordon 1998: 96). The prediction then is<br />

this: Where final vowel devoicing has been generalized from the position in which it is<br />

phonetically-motivated (phrase-final) to a position in which it is not (or perhaps less)<br />

phonetically-motivated (word-final), it should no longer retain the gradient character it<br />

may have had in the beginning, which is to say, it must be phonologized. Here the term<br />

“phonologization” must be understood specifically in the sense <strong>of</strong> the Hyman (1976),<br />

where it refers to the transition <strong>of</strong> a given phonetic feature from intrinsic to extrinsic<br />

implementation in a given environment, but does not necessarily imply phonemicization.<br />

Interestingly, in the case <strong>of</strong> voiceless vowels, as Gordon notes, the phonemicization <strong>of</strong><br />

the contrast is certainly logically possible, though there seem to be no completely<br />

uncontroversial instances <strong>of</strong> its occurrence 87 . Again, in its intrinsic state, a phonetic<br />

feature is realized automatically, as a function <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> another feature, and in<br />

this sense need not be considered intentional (or commanded, as Hyman puts it). 88 In the<br />

87 In Turkana, one <strong>of</strong> the strongest cases, for example, voiced and voiceless vowels are certainly contrasted<br />

on the surface in final syllables. Dimmendaal and Breedveld (1986) ultimately argue, however, that this<br />

contrast is a derived effect stemming from underlying lexical tone specifications. The analysis is somewhat<br />

abstract, perhaps, but clear enough.<br />

88 Hyman’s example is the relatively minor F0 perturbations in the onsets <strong>of</strong> vowels caused by the voicing<br />

<strong>of</strong> the preceding consonant where tone is not contrastive. Such automatic features can be used as cues for<br />

the phonological distinction <strong>of</strong> which they are a direct function, but this is a distinct issue.<br />

194

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!