Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

inherently problematic from a production point of view, is nonetheless potentially
vulnerable to perceptually-driven reanalysis, due to the conflicting acoustic results of
these patterns (essentially the obscuring of strengthening by low amplitude, non-modal
phonation and devoicing). This vulnerability can ultimately lead to phonologization of a
situation with very different articulatory characteristics. Leaving aside the Russian
pattern which has only minor devoicing toward the end of the lengthened vowel, suppose
we have a language in which the laryngeal specifications and subglottal pressure in
phrase-final position are such that they frequently result in the devoicing of a significant
portion of an otherwise lengthened short vowel (i.e., the supralaryngeal gestures of which
are slowed and enhanced in some respects, and which perhaps is realized as fully or
almost fully voiced in some percentage of its instantiations). Again, there is no particular
reason that the implementation of final lengthening should not coexist with the severe
drop in subglottal pressure or even with the devoicing pattern. Of course, if devoicing
becomes frequent enough and lengthy enough, there will be little acoustic evidence left
for the lengthening or strengthening gestures of phrase-final vowels (or for accurate
identification of any kind for that matter). This situation could easily lead to reanalysis by
the listener, with phonologization of the devoicing, such that the target articulation of a
phrase-final vowel should now contain the active devoicing plan discussed above. At this
point voicelessness is no longer a function of subglottal pressure, and as a targeted
207