Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

Steriade in particular, in her seminal 1994 paper on positional neutralization, cites
the work of Kaun (1993) and Suomi (1983, 1984) on the typology and phonetic
underpinnings of vowel harmony systems. Steriade divides harmony systems into those
which are articulatorily-driven, and those which are perceptually-driven. Perceptually-
driven harmony systems include those based on front/back, round, and ATR distinctions.
It is this which motivates the dictum “bad vowels spread” (Steriade 1994: 23). Kaun
(1993: 73-80) discusses the relative perceptibility of F2-based distinctions vs. F1 based,
concluding that F1 based distinctions are perceptually more robust (probably due to the
higher intensity of F1). Kaun cites as evidence for this the existence of vowel systems
allowing contrasts only along the F1 dimension (the famous “vertical” vowel systems of
Kabardian, Marshallese, and others), and the corresponding non-existence of “horizontal
systems”. Steriade supports this view, noting an insight of Gorecka’s that “all cases of
wide-spread harmony (round, ATR, front) involve featural contrasts that are relatively
hard to identify; on the other hand, height, the most salient vocalic distinction, rarely, if
ever, leads to across-the-board harmony” (Steriade 1994: 23).
If this is correct, then, and height truly is the most salient vocalic distinction, and
if it is correct that “contrast-enhancing” vowel reduction is motivated by the need to
remove perceptually-difficult contrasts from weak positions, then it is utterly perplexing
why all vowel reduction systems, contrast-enhancing or otherwise, should focus so
77