Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

phonologization state was entirely automatic, subject to no control whatsoever on the part
of the speaker. There is obviously a tremendous amount of variation in just how much
passive final vowel devoicing a given language will tolerate, which variation must be
accounted for through the narrowing or widening of existing target specifications, such as
those controlling subglottal pressure and the durations of the laryngeal states associated
with final vowels. Devoicing in this system may not be specified, but voicing obviously
must be.
The prediction that for final vowel devoicing to generalize beyond the phrase-
final domain, it must first (or simultaneously) have been phonologized is more difficult to
verify, since the vast majority of the languages involved have not been subjected to the
kind of phonetic analysis necessary to determine such a thing (e.g. laryngoscopy, airflow
measurement, etc.). The majority of descriptive sources for their part mention presence or
absence of devoicing in a single sentence often without qualifications as to degree or
domain of application. In addition, the situation is complicated somewhat by the variety
of phonetic circumstances which can lead to vowel devoicing. For instance, while word-
level final vowel devoicing can be considered phonetically unnatural or unmotivated in
that this position is not generally associated with the degree of subglottal pressure
decrease found finally in larger domains, other phonetic properties specific to word-final
position might actually enhance the likelihood or degree of final vowel devoicing. It is
196