Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T22:47:22.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Typology of Voicing and Devoicing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

W. Leo Wetzels  and
Joan Mascaró
W. Leo Wetzels*
Affiliation:
Free University Amsterdam
Joan Mascaró*
Affiliation:
Autonomous University of Barcelona
*
Wetzels, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, Groesbeekseweg 40, 6524DD Nijmegen, Netherlands [w.wetzels@chello.nl]
Mascaró, Filologia Catalana, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain [joan.mascaro@uab.es]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides empirical evidence against the claims that [voice] is a privative feature and that word-internal devoicing can occur in a language without word-final devoicing. The study of voice patterns in a number of languages shows that the feature value [– voice] although it is the unmarked value of the laryngeal feature [voice], can be active phonologically in a fashion parallel to the marked value [+ voice]. Across languages, voice assimilation may occur independently of devoicing and, although it normally affects both [+voice] and [– voice], it may affect only one value in some languages.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 207 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 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

Abu-Mansour Mahasan, Asan. 1996. Voice as a privative feature: Assimilation in Arabic. Perspectives on Arabic linguistics 8, ed. by Eid, Mushira, 201–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agard, F. 1958. Structural sketch of Rumanian. Language monograph 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John. 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. North Eastern Linguistic Society 27. 17–32.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Solomon A. 1979. Yiddish: A survey and a grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Burquest, Donald A. 1998. Phonological analysis: A functional approach. 2nd edn. Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana. 1997. The phonology and morphology of Romanian glides and diphthongs: A constraint-based approach. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-Mee Y. 1990a. Parameters of consonantal assimilation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-Mee Y. 1990b. A typology of voicing assimilation. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 9. 141–55.Google Scholar
Costa, Januacele F. da. 1999. Ya:thê, a última língua nativa no nordeste do Brasil: Aspectos morfo-fonológicos e morfo-sintáticos. Recife, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Centro de Artes e Comunicação, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras e Lingüística dissertation.Google Scholar
Danyenko, Andrii, and Vakulenko, Serhii. 1995. Ukrainian. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1995. Consonant clusters and phonological syllables in French. Lingua 9. 1–26.Google Scholar
de Souza, Tania C. 1991. The case of consonantal harmony in Bakairi language (Carib). Revista D.E.L.T.A. 7 (1)295-332.Google Scholar
de Souza, Tania C. 1995. O traço tonoro em Bakairi. Estudos fonológicos das línguas indígenas Brasileiras, ed. by Wetzels, W. Leo, 000-000. Rio de Janiero: UFRJ university Press.Google Scholar
Dols, Nicolau, and Wheeler, Max. 1995. El consonantisme final del mallorquí i el llicenciament d'obertures. Caplletra 19. 51–63.Google Scholar
Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. 1989. Le parler berbère chleuh d'Imdlawn (Maroc): segments et syllabation. Paris: University of Paris VIII (Saint-Denis) dissertation.Google Scholar
Francard, Michel, and Morin, Yves-Charles. 1986. Sandhi in Walloon. Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe, ed. by Andersen, Henning, 453–74. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110858532.453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukazawa, Haruka, and Kitahara, Mafuyu. 2001. Domain-relative faithfulness and the OCP: Rendaku revisited. Issues in Japanese phonology and morphology, ed. by van, Jeroen Weijer, de and Nishihara, Tetsuo. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Stevens, Kenneth. 1971. A note on laryngeal features. Quarterly Progress Report, Research Laboratory of Electronics 101. 198–211. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Harms, R. 1973. Some non-rules in English. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Harrell, Richard. 1962. A short reference grammar of Moroccan Arabic. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hellberg, Staffan. 1974. Graphonemic rules in phonology: Studies in the expression component of Swedish. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Hodge, Carleton T. 1946. Serbo-Croatian phonemes. Language 22. 112–20.10.2307/410345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Carleton T., and Jankovic, J. 1965. Serbo-Croatian, basic course, vols. 1 & 2. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. North Eastern Linguistic Society 25. 287–302.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71. 763–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 49–73.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1996. Structural economy and OCP interactions in local domains. Paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 1996, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1998. Markedness and word structure. Santa Cruz: University of California, MS. [ROA-255-0498].Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., and Salmons, Joseph C. 1995. Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12. 369–96.10.1017/S0952675700002566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, D. 1987. The grammar of the Yiddish language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. The structure of phonological representations, (part 2), ed. by Hulst, H. vander and Smith, N., 131–75. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1994. Remarks on markedness. Trilateral phonology weekend 2. Santa Cruz: University of California.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. 1977. Einfürung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Krech, Eva-Maria (ed.) 1982. Grosses Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995a. Laryngeal features and privativity. Linguistic Review 12. 35–59.10.1515/tlir.1995.12.1.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995b. Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 39–74.10.1007/BF00992778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995c. Why place and voice are different: Constraint interactions and featural faithfulness in optimality theory. College Park: University of Maryland, MS. [ROA-105].Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1996a. Postlexical rules and the status of privative features. Phonology 13.1.1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1996b. Restrictions on the direction of voicing assimilation: An OT account. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 88–102.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:267–302.10.1023/A:1006182130229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1981. On the maximal cluster approach to syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12:575–604.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham. 1986. Rumanian. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1987. A reduction and spreading theory of voicing and other sound effects. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma, MS. (Reprint, 1995. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2)267-328).Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin, and Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65. 258–93.10.2307/415333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1961. Manual de pronunciación española. 10th edn. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory. New Brunswick, NJ and Boulder, CO: Rutgers University and University of Colorado, MS.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon D. 1986. Línguas Brasileiras: Para o conhecimento das linguas indígenas. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1996. Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 69–110.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1996. Phonology: Theory and description. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. Handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John, 114–74. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Los Angeles: UCLA, MS.Google Scholar
Tǎtaru, A. 1975. A contrastive study of the pronunciation of Rumanian and English: A general comparison of their systems, and a special comparison of their occlusive consonants. Bonn: University of Bonn dissertation.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke, and Zonneveld, Wim. (1979). Inleiding in de generatieve fonologie. Muiderberg, Netherlands: Dick Coutinho.Google Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1996. Patterns of reduplication in Lushootseed. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
van Lessen Kloeke, W. U. S. 1982. Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C.(1982). Accents of English 2: The British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo. 1985. The historical phonology of intrusive stops: A non-linear description. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 30:285–333.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo. 1997. Bakairi and the feature ‘voice’. Homenagem a Aryon Dall'Igna Rodrigues. Boletim da Associaçao Brasileira de Lingüística. 20.21–34.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1977. Sanskrit grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur (Studia Grammatica 8). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zilynσkyj, Ivan. 1979. A phonetic description of the Ukrainian language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar