Neutralization and Rule Ordering

neutralization

alternation that goes beyond allophonic alternation

when a phoneme turns into a sound that exists independently as an allophone of a separate phoneme of the language

ex: voicing agreement in word-final obstruents (across languages, word-final obstruent sequences tend to agree in voicing)

neutralization in english

[dz] (both voiced) and [ts] (both voiceless), are acceptable at the end of a word

those that disagree are not: [ds] ([d] is voiced, [s] is voiceless) and [tz] ([t] is voiceless, [z] is voiced)

[mips] and [lugz] could be words of english, but [lekd] and [vigt] could not

dynamic neutralization

morphemes alternate to respect the pattern of contextually limited contrast

they change

ex: voicing assimilation

static neutralization

morphemes stay the same, is the opposite of dynamic neutralization

ex: alveolar place enforcement where no final stop clusters may end in anything by [t] or [d]

when they give different results

when does ordering matter when there are two rules?