2. Consonant Inventory

3. Distribution of Consonants  All consonants can be in the onset, i.e. begin a word.  Not all consonants can be in coda position.  /h/  /ŋ/ ?  /p ʰ / ?

4. Neutralization  Neutralization is a type of alternation in which “one phoneme is turned into a sound that exists independently as a phoneme of the language” (Hayes, 2005, p. 128)

5. Why Neutralization?  In Danish, neutralization of the labial oral stops is the result of a process of lenition —or weakening.  From Vennemann, cited in Hyman (1975, p. 165): A segment X is said to be weaker than a segment Y if Y goes through an X stage on its way to zero.

6. Lenition  Lavoie (2001) categorizes lenition according to four different phonetic properties—  as deletion  as an increase in sonority  as a decrease in effort  as a decrease in duration and magnitude.  Szigetvári (2008) argues that there are two clear directions through which a sound can undergo lenition–  sonorization  decomplexification

7. Linear Phonology  By constructing phonological rules based on linear models of phonology, we can capture the process of lenition and account for neutralization.

8. De-aspiration

9. Data

10. Why isn’t there more neutralization?  Because there are more rules!  These rules affect the unaspirated stops which likewise change in form, thereby preventing neutralization for the alveolar and velars in syllable-final position.

11. Approximantization

13. Derivations

14. Conclusions  The advantage of using a linear rule-based model in addressing neutralization is that it can account for every surface form with precision.  But… the overall process of lenition is lost!

15. Can OT explain lenition?  Kirchner (2001) has proposed a LAZY constraint in Optimality Theory, which states that “within the limits imposed by other constraints, as little effort as possible will be exerted in the pronunciation of any given sound” (Bauer, 2008, p. 608).

16. My Question  If lenition is defined as moving toward Ø, and in the Danish data we say a movement toward NO CODA… …then wouldn’t all of these different surface forms (de- aspiration, approximantization) be a result of the same constraint, whether one or multiple?  But, is a LAZY constraint too vast or oversimplified?  Whereas today the order of the constraint rankings are often perceived as being adjustable, is it worth investigating whether the rankings themselves are likewise moving, not static—not absolute– and could such a framework be implemented in a formalized theory?