Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T03:51:20.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical Change through Lexical Accumulation: Voicing Cooccurrence Restrictions in Afrikaans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Andries W. Coetzee
Andries W. Coetzee*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan and North-West University (South Africa)
*
Department of Linguistics 440 Lorch Hall University of Michigan 611 Tappan Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 [coetzee@umich.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two explanations are offered in the literature for the origin of lexical patterns of consonantal voicing cooccurrence: (i) speaker-oriented: a cooccurrence pattern may result from voicing assimilation under ease-of-articulation pressures, and (ii) listener-oriented: a cooccurrence pattern may result from systematic misperception by listeners. This article argues for a third possible origin of such patterns: (iii) lexical accumulation: a series of unrelated sound changes may conspire to create a lexical pattern of voicing cooccurrence. Once introduced into the lexicon of some language through any of these three routes, speakers can elevate such a pattern to a grammatical principle. A new voicing cooccurrence pattern in Afrikaans is presented as an example of a pattern that arose via this third route of lexical accumulation. Evidence is also presented that this pattern is being learned as a grammatical constraint by Afrikaans speakers.

Keywords

Afrikaansgrammatical changeobstruent voicingcooccurrence restrictionslexicon

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 2014, pp. 693 - 721
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Learning and learnability in phonology. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., ed. by Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L., 661–90. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Applegate, Richard B. 1972. Ineseño Chumash grammar. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin; and Bolker, Ben. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-2. Online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Downloaded June 9, 2013.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan; and Nevins, Andrew. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 81. 84–125.10.1353/lan.2011.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael, Nevins, Andrew; and Levine, Jonathan. 2012. Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Language 88. 231–68.10.1353/lan.2012.0049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 117–65.10.1515/TL.2006.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1995. Notes on Berawan consonant gemination. Oceanic Linguistics 34. 123–38.10.2307/3623115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2012. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.56. Online: http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bosman, D. b., van der Merwe, I. W.; and Hiemstra, L. M. (eds.) 1984. Tweetalige woordeboek/Bilingual dictionary. 8th rev. and enlarged edn. Cape Town: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Mary. 1999. A crosslinguistic study of consonant-tone interaction. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. 2009. Learning lexical indexation. Phonology 26. 109–45.10.1017/S0952675709001730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries w., Lin, Susan; and Pretorius, Rigardt. 2007. Post-nasal devoicing in Tswana. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, 861–64. Online: http://www.icphs2007.de/.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W., and Pater, Joe. 2008. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 289–337.10.1007/s11049-008-9039-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W., and Pretorius, Rigardt. 2010. Phonetically grounded phonology and sound change: The case of Tswana labial plosives. Journal of Phonetics 38. 404–21.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary s., Burger, Lisa K.; and Svec, William R.. 1997. Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and model. Psychological Review 104. 123–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1999. Speculations on [y]-elision and intersonorantic [υ] in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics (Language genesis) 32. 45–66.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan a., Pierrehumbert, Janet; and Broe, Michael B.. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 179–228.10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.78535.3cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 1998. Eliminating long-distance consonantal spreading. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 223–78.10.1023/A:1005968600965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 1999. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 269–337.10.1023/A:1014942312445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian. 2010. Perceptual distinctness and long-distance laryngeal restrictions. Phonology 27. 435–80.10.1017/S0952675710000217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieshaber, N. J. 1987. Onstemming en/f/-stemgewing van nader beskou. South African Journal of Linguistics 5. 41–67.10.1080/10118063.1987.9724244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001a. The phonologization of production constraints: Evidence from consonant harmony. Chicago Linguistic Society 37. 1. 187–200.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001b. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2004. Long-distance voicing agreement: An evolutionary perspective. Berkeley Linguistics Society 30. 130–41.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2007. On the evolution of consonant harmony: The case of secondary articulation agreement. Phonology 24. 77–120.10.1017/S0952675707001121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2008. Effects of contrast recoverability on the typology of harmony systems. Contrast in phonology: Theory, perception, acquisition, ed. by Avery, Peter B., Dresher, Elan, and Rice, Keren, 115–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2010. Consonant harmony: Long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google 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, Moravscik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Wheatly, Kathleen, 243–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2004. Phonological acquisition in optimality theory: The early stages. Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. by Kager, René, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486418.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and White, James. 2013. Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 45–75.10.1162/LING_a_00119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379–440.10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Zuraw, Kie, Siptár, Péter; and Londe, Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 822–63.10.1353/lan.0.0169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2001. On the limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited. The role ofspeech perception in phonology, ed. by Hume, Elizabeth and Johnson, Keith, 141–85. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. 2010. Analyzing the Amazon Mechanical Turk marketplace. XRDS 17. 16–21.10.1145/1869086.1869094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René, and Shatzman, Keren. 2007. Phonological constraints in speech processing. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007. 99–111.10.1075/avt.24.11kagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkhoff, Annemarie O. 2007. Acquisition of morpho-phonology: The Dutch voicing alternation. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Phonological representations. Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu, 1–136. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. Speech production and speech modeling, ed. by Hardcastle, William J. and Marchal, Alain, 403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lubbe, Johan, and Zonneveld, Wim. 1996. Ontstemming of stemgewing—weer eens oor die v/f-wisseling in Afrikaans. South African Journal of Linguistics 14. 109–17.10.1080/10118063.1996.9724058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112. 243–80.10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00043-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacEachern, Margaret R. 1999. Laryngeal cooccurrence restrictions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara. 2009. Contrast and similarity in consonant harmony processes. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 207–63.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1998. Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. Chicago Linguistic Society 32. 2. 123–50.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.10.1515/thli.29.1-2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127.10.1017/S0952675708001413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1990. Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110874211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ní, , Máire, Chiosáin, and Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. Segmental phonology in optimality theory: Constraints and representations, ed. by Lombardi, Linda, 118–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, ed. by Jones, Charles, 235–78. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2005. Phonetic explanations for sound patterns: Implications for grammars of competence. A figure of speech: A festschrift for John Laver, ed. by Hard-castle, William J. and Beck, Janet Mackenzie, 23–38. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen. 1997. An OT account of laryngealization in Cuzco Quechua. Working Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 41. 1–11.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mary. 2005. Kera tone and voicing. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 61–82.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mary. 2009. Kera tone and voicing interaction. Lingua 119. 846–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Calvez, Rozenn Le, Nadal, Jean-Pierre; and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2006. The acquisition of allophonic rules: Statistical learning with linguistic constraints. Cognition 101. B31–B41.10.1016/j.cognition.2005.10.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philippa, Marlies, Debrabandere, Frans, Quak, Arend, Schoonheim, Tanneke; and van, Nicoline Sijs, der. 2007. Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Qualtrics Labs, Inc. 2012. Qualtrics research suite. Provo, UT. Online: http://www.qualtrics.com.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 2011. Long-distance assimilation of consonants. The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 3: Phonological processes, ed. by van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren, 1811–37. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon, and Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80. 475–531.10.1353/lan.2004.0144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 1978. Bade/Ngizim vowels and syllable structure. Studies in African Linguistics 9. 247–83.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 1997. Changes in obstruent voicing in Bade/Ngizim. Changes in obstruent voicing in Bade/Ngizim: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Myrna f., Saffran, Eleanor m., Bloch, Diane e.; and Dell, Gary s.. 1994. Disordered speech production in aphasic and normal speakers. Brain and Language 47. 52–88.10.1006/brln.1994.1042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shatzman, Keren, and Kager, René. 2007. Arole for phonotactic constraints in speech perception. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, 1409–12. Online: http://www.icphs2007.de/.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep, and Hyman, Larry. 2010. More on post-nasal devoicing: The case of Sekgalagari. Journal of Phonetics 38. 604–15.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2007. Biases and stages in phonological acquisition. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
van de Velde, Hans, Gerritsen, Marinel; and van Hout, Roeland. 1996. The devoicing of fricatives in Standard Dutch: A real-time study based on radio recordings. Language Variation and Change 8. 149–75.10.1017/S0954394500001125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Harst, Sander, van, Hans Velde, de; and Schouten, Bert. 2007. Acoustic characteristics of standard Dutch/γ/. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, 1469–72. Online: http://www.icphs2007.de/.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc. 2003. Ambisyllabicity and fricative voicing in West Germanic dialects. The syllable in optimality theory, ed. by Féry, Caroline and van, Ruben Vijver, de, 304–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wissing, Daan. 1982. Algemene en Afrikaanse Generatiewe Fonologie. Johannesburg: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zamuner, Tania s., Kerkhoff, Annemarie O.; and Fikkert, Paula. 2012. Phonotactics and morphophonology in early child language: Evidence from Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 33. 481–99.10.1017/S0142716411000440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim. 1978. A formal theory of exceptions in generative phonology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.10.1515/9783110859911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaardemaker, Hendrik, and Eijkman, Leonaard P. H.. 1928. Leerboek der Phonetiek, Inzonderheid met Betrekking tot het Standaard-Nederlandsch. Haarlem: ErvenF. Bohn.Google Scholar