Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

5.3. Does “anything go” in phonology?
What I am arguing here, then, is that while categorical patterns of positional
neutralization are best understood in their typological dimension through the
phonologization approach applied throughout this study, in synchrony the best approach
to the implementation of phonologized PN is one that accomplishes the substitution of
one abstract category for another without reference to or concern for phonetic reality.
Phonetic factors in synchrony could of course influence patterns of PN by leading to
further phonologizations, perhaps disrupting patterns in some way. It is not, however,
necessary for the phonetics to continue to provide formal justification in synchrony for
the existence of the patterns it creates.
This view prompts an obvious question: since phonology contains no restrictions
on the phonetic content of the patterns it implements (whether these be present up front in
the constraint system or set back in grounding conditions), is it the case that as far as the
phonology is concerned, anything goes? The fact that the vast majority of phonological
patterns appear to be phonetically “natural”, or “grounded” or “motivated” seems to
argue otherwise. As I have argued throughout this study, however, this on its own means
nothing. In fact, this would be the case with or without phonetic restrictions operating in
the phonological grammar. Phonological patterns appear to be “natural” because the
primary source of phonological patterns in diachrony literally is natural. Phonological
364