Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

k. Nawuri (Kwa) (Casali 1995)
Inventory: /i, , e, , a, , o, , u/
Reduction: Underlying short, front vowels centralize: /i, , e, / -> [, , , ].
Resistance: Does not apply to absolute word-initial vowels (presumably due to
increased duration, cf. Russian vowel reduction). Does not apply to vowels in phrasefinal
position.
Casali notes that in word-internal syllables, centralization is obligatory, even in
very deliberate speech. To (phrase-medial) word-final vowels centralization applies
“postlexically”. Kirchner (1998) uses Nawuri centralization as an argument for the need
to treat even universally non-contrastive phonetic properties such as the additional
duration of final vowels as phonological. His reasons are as follows: There is a lexical
process of left-to-right rounding harmony targeting high non-front vowels which applies
from root-to-prefix and holds as a static generalization within roots as well. This
rounding harmony does apply to prefixes which undergo centralization (i.e. become non-
front), but (of course) does not apply to absolute word-initial prefix vowels (which fail to
undergo centralization. Kirchner argues from this that since the output of centralization
conditions phonological rounding harmony, centralization (which is sensitive to
subphonemic durational variations) cannot be “relegated” to the phonetic component, and
problem is in the nature of the deletion process itself. Syncope, at least in many Arabic dialects is similar to
French schwa deletion in that it is restricted in that it only targets vowels in open syllables. While final
open syllable resistance is therefore possibly due to final phonetic prominence, final closed syllable
resistance is more likely a consequence of syllable structure.
148