Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:39:19.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Final Obstruent Voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Alan C. L. Yu
Alan C. L. Yu*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, 1010 E. 59th St., Chicago, IL 60637 [aclyu@uchicago.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Lezgian, a Nakh-Daghestanian language, final and preconsonantal ejectives and voiceless unaspirated obstruents are voiced in certain monosyllabic nouns. This article offers acoustic evidence confirming that the two coda-voicing series are indeed voiced in final position. Based on comparative evidence, it is demonstrated that this phonetically aberrant neutralization pattern is the result of a series of phonetically natural sound changes. Such ‘crazy rules’ (Bach & Harms 1972) undermine any direct phonetic licensing approach to phonology, such as LICENSING BY CUE (Steriade 1997).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 73 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 493–539.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Harms, Robert. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. by Stockwell, Robert and Macaulay, Ronald, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Banksira, Degif Petros. 2000. Sound mutations: The morphophonology of Chaha. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2002. Positional neutralization: A phonologization approach to typological patterns. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1993. Klamath laryngeal phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 59. 237–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004a. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004b. Antigemination: Natural or unnatural history. Berkeley Linguistics Society 29, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74. 508–56.10.1353/lan.1998.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, and Garrett, Andrew. 2004. The evolution of metathesis. Phonetically based phonology, ed. by Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual derives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew. 1970. Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica 22. 129–59.10.1159/000259312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A., and Charles-Luce, Jan. 1984. Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics 12. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolbey, Andrew, and Hansson, Gunnar. 1999. The source of naturalness in synchronic phonology. Chicago Linguistics Society 35. 59–69.Google Scholar
Fallon, Paul D. 1995. Synchronic and diachronic typology: The case of ejective voicing. Berkeley Linguistics Society 21. 105–16.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios I. 1999. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gerfen, Chip. 2001. A critical view of licensing by cue: Codas and obstruents in Eastern Andalusian Spanish. Segmental phonology in optimality theory: Constraints and representations, ed. by Lombardi, Linda, 183–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511570582.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giginejshvili, B. K. 1977. Sravnitel'naja fonetika dagestanskix jazykov. Tbilisi: Tbilisi University.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark, and Reiss, Charles. 2000. ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 157–69.10.1162/002438900554334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. Lezgian grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1: General papers, ed. by Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick, and Wheatley, Kathleen M., 243–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Stivers, Tanya. 1996. Postnasal voicing. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, MS.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Johnson, Keith (eds.) 2001. The role of speech perception in phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2001. The limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited. In Hume & Johnson, 141–85.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Orhan; and Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. by Roca, Iggy, 393–418. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236894.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23. 265–340.10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00023-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An optimality theoretic approach. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya. 2001. Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, and diachrony. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia, Linker, Wendy; and Huffman, Marie. 1983. Patterns in allophone distribution for voiced and voiceless stops. Journal of Phonetics 11. 277–90.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30827-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr, and Kodzasov, Sandro. 1990. Sopostavitel'noe izučenie dagestanskix jazykov. Imja. Fonetika. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kingston, John. 1985. The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal events. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Analogy as optimization: ‘Exceptions’ to Sievers' law in Gothic. Analogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology, ed. by Lahiri, Aditi, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808933.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2004. Paradigm effects and opacity. Stanford: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 2000. Geminate inalterability and lenition. Language 76. 509–45.10.2307/417134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
MacEachern, Margaret. 1997. Laryngeal cooccurrence restriction. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1999.]Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993.79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory (University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 2000. Change, chance, and optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meilanova, U., and Talibov, B. 1987. ‘Preruptives’ in the consonant system of the Lezgian language. Annual of Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics 14. 263–70.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2002. Turkish/h/deletion: Evidence for the interplay of speech perception and phonology. North Eastern Linguistic Society 32. 383–402.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistic Society 17. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origins of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. The production of speech, ed. by MacNeilage, Peter F., 189–216. New York: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, ed. by Jones, Charles, 237–78. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Orgun, Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology: A declarative theory of phonology-morphology interleaving. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ and Boulder, CO: Rutgers University and University of Colorado, MS.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon, and Walker, Rachel. 2001. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. San Diego and Los Angeles: University of California, San Diego and University of Southern California, MS.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 1984. Remarks on the case system of the Lezgian languages. Folia Slavica 7. 302–21.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 1994. Udi. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 4.2. ed. by Smeets, Rieks, 447–514. New York: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1995. Phase and recoverability. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 2000. Hypothesis concerning the phonetic and functional origins of tone displacement in Zulu. Studies in African Linguistics 29. 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 2004. Pitch discrimination during breathy versus modal phonation. Papers in laboratory phonology 6, ed by John Local, Richard Ogden, and Rosalind Temple. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Positional neutralization. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, MS.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Licensing retroflexion. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, MS.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, MS.Google Scholar
Straight, Henry Stephen. 1976. The acquisition of Maya phonology: Variation in Yucatec child language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Topuria, G. V. 1974. On one regularity in the system of preruptives in the Lezgian language. Annual of Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics 1. 180–84.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1931. Die Konsonantensysteme der Ostkaukasischen Sprachen. Caucasica 7. 1–52.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 1999. Nasalization, neutral segments and opacity effects. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 2000.]Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1989. Feature geometry and co-occurrence restrictions. Phonology 6. 349–74.10.1017/S0952675700001068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2000. Stress assignment in Tohono O'odham. Phonology 17. 117–35.10.1017/S0952675700003845CrossRefGoogle Scholar