Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:31:52.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical evidence for laryngeal features: Aspirating vs. true voice languages1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2013

JILL BECKMAN ,
MICHAEL JESSEN  and
CATHERINE RINGEN
JILL BECKMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
MICHAEL JESSEN*
Affiliation:
Bundeskriminalamt
CATHERINE RINGEN*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
(Beckman) Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA[email protected]
(Jessen) Bundeskriminalamt Sprecher-Erkennung und Tonträgeranalyse, KT54, D-65173 Wiesbaden, Germany[email protected]
(Ringen) Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well known that German utterance-initial lenis stops are voiceless but that German intervocalic (or intersonorant) lenis stops are sometimes produced with voicing. This variable voicing can be understood as passive voicing, voicing that results because of the voiced context, rather than from active voicing gestures by speakers. Thus, speakers are not actively aiming to voice intervocalic stops, just as they are not actively aiming to voice utterance-initial stops (Jessen & Ringen 2002, Jessen 2004). If this is correct, the variable voicing that occurs in aspirating languages should be different from the voicing that occurs in true voice languages (such as Russian), in which speakers are actively aiming to voice both initial and intervocalic lenis stops. Since there is little data on the relative amount of intervocalic voicing in true voice languages, however, it has been difficult to evaluate this prediction. The purpose of this paper is to compare data on the voicing of intervocalic stops in German and English with data on the voicing of intervocalic stops in true voice languages. We find that the differences are substantial, supporting the claim that aspirating languages are not like true voice languages, in which the feature of contrast is [voice].

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 259 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

We have benefitted from comments from the audiences at the 2010 Berkeley Germanic Linguistics Round Table, the 18th and 20th Manchester Phonology Meetings, the Departments of Linguistics at the University of Salzburg, Austria, the University of Iowa, and the Department of Experimental Phonetics, University of Stuttgart, Germany, where portions of earlier versions of this paper were presented. All the spectrograms of Russian are from data collected in St. Petersburg and reported on in Ringen & Kulikov (2012). Our thanks to Pétur Helgason, Vladimir Kulikov, Kari Suomi and two Journal of Linguistics reviewers whose comments have caused revisions that we feel make improvements in this paper. The research of C. Ringen was supported, in part, by a Global Scholar Award from the University of Iowa and an NSF award (BCS00742338). Authors' names are listed in alphabetical order.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, John & Ewen, Colin. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Helgason, Pétur, McMurray, Bob & Ringen, Catherine. 2011. Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification. Journal of Phonetics 39, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine. 2009. German fricatives: Coda devoicing or positional faithfulness? Phonology 26, 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 1993. Nasalization in English: Phonology or phonetics? Phonology 10, 43–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deterding, David & Nolan, Francis. 2007. Aspiration and voicing of Chinese and English plosives. The 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS16), Saarbrücken, 385–388.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard. 1992. The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli & Hirose, Hajime. 1974. A preliminary electromyographic study of labial and laryngeal muscles in Danish stop consonant production. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research 39/40, 231–254.Google Scholar
Gósy, Mária & Ringen, Catherine. 2009. Everything you always wanted to know about voicing in Hungarian. Presented at the International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian 9, Debrecen, Hungary.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan. 1992. Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan. 2001a. Introduction: Phonological representation and phonetic implementation of distinctive features. In , Hall (ed.), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan (ed.). 2001b. Distinctive feature theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Helgason, Pétur & Ringen, Catherine. 2008. Voicing and aspiration in Swedish stops. Journal of Phonetics 36, 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2005. Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specifications. In Oostendorp, Marc van & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), The internal organization of phonological segments, 317–352. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutters, Birgit. 1985. Vocal fold adjustments in aspirated and unaspirated stops in Danish. Phonetica 42, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. The North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25, 287–302.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C.. 1995. Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12, 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C.. 2003. Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15.2, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Wouter. 2004. Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Jensen, John T. 1993. English phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessen, Michael. 1998. Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael. 2001. Phonetic implementation of the distinctive auditory features [voice] and [tense] in stop consonants. In , Hall (ed.), 237–294.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael. 2004. Instability in the production and perception of intervocalic closure voicing as a cue to bdg vs. ptk in German. Folia Linguistica XXXVIII.1/2, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine. 2002. Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1984. Phonetic and phonological representation of stop consonant voicing. Language 60, 286–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1996. The phonology-phonetics interface. In Kleinhenz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in phonology, 262–278. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kessinger, Rachel H. & Blumstein, Sheila E.. 1997. Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time in Thai, French, and English. Journal of Phonetics 25, 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70, 419–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. 1979. Dimensions in the perception of fortis and lenis plosives. Phonetica 36, 332–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, Klaus J. 1984. Phonetic explanation in phonology: The feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica 41, 150–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, Klaus J. 1995. Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Kong, Eun Jong. 2009. The development of phonation-type contrasts in plosives: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Krämer, Martin. 2000. Voicing alternations and underlying representations: The case of Breton. Lingua 110.9, 639–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Vladimir. 2012. Voicing and voice assimilation in Russian stops. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Künzel, Hermann J. 1977. Signalphonetische Untersuchung Deutsch–Französischer Interferenzen im Bereich der Okklusive. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Abramson, Arthur S.. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 20, 384–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995. Dahl's law and privative [voice]. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 365–372.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mester, Armin & Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65, 258–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Olga, Plapp, Rosemary, Ringen, Catherine & Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd. 2006. Voice and aspiration: Evidence from Russian, Hungarian, German, Swedish, and Turkish. The Linguistic Review 23, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursson, Magnús. 1976. Aspiration et activité glottale. Examen expérimental à partir de consonnes islandaises. Phonetica 33, 169–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Bruno H. 1984. Effects of temporal stimulus properties on perception of the [sl]–[spl] distinction. Phonetica 41, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, Keren. 1994. Laryngeal features in Athapaskan languages. Phonology 11, 107–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringen, Catherine & Kulikov, Vladimir. 2012. Voicing in Russian stops: Cross-linguistic implications. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 20.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1990. Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 79–94.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1876. Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Beitkopf und Härtel.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18, 1–18.Google Scholar
Wetzels, Leo & Mascaró, Joan. 2001. The typology of voicing and devoicing. Language 77, 207–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. (1996). The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar