Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T22:09:36.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Germanic Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology

from Part I - Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Joseph Salmons
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Drawing from a wide range of standard and nonstandard Germanic varieties past and present, this chapter examines the contrast between sounds traditionally written as <p, t, k, f, s> etc. and those written as <b, d, g, v, z>, etc. Following ‘Laryngeal Realism’, two main systems within Germanic are identified: [spread glottis] or Glottal Width languages like Icelandic, German and English on the one hand and [voice] or Glottal Tension languages like Dutch, Frisian and Yiddish on the other. The two differ phonetically — notably by aspiration of /p, t, k/ in the former and robust glottal pulsing of /b, d, g/ in the latter — but more importantly in terms of phonological activity. For instance, [spread] languages show progressive laryngeal assimilation while [voice] ones show regressive assimilation. Both types can neutralize the distinction in coda or word-final position. A few Germanic varieties have lost a laryngeal distinction and others have transformed the distinction into a contrast based on length.

Keywords

laryngeal featuresphonological activityaspirationvoicingprivativityassimilationneutralization
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 119 - 142
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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.)

References

Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, B.C. 2016. Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology in Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, P. and Idsardi, W. J 2001. “Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement.” In Hall, T. A. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, J., Helgason, P., McMurray, B., and Ringen, C. 2011. “Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification,” Journal of Phonetics 39:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. 2006. “A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology,” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165.Google Scholar
Brown, J. 2016. “Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology,” Phonology 33: 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A., Ebeling, C. L., Eringa, P., Fokkema, K., and van Holk, A. G. F. 1959. Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries: Inleiding tot de modern klankleer. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Collinge, N. E. 1985. The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyran, E. 2011. “Laryngeal realism and laryngeal relativism: Two voicing systems in Polish?,” Studies in Polish Linguistics 6: 45–80.Google Scholar
Docherty, G. J. 2011. The Timing of Voicing in British English Obstruents. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. and Zhang, Xi 2005. “Contrast and phonological activity in Manchu vowel systems,” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 50.1: 45–82.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. and Iverson, G. K 1984. “On the ‘incomplete neutralization’ of German final obstruents,” Phonetica 41: 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. C. 2011. “Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion,” Phonology 28: 1–54.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 1993. “The phonology of German R,” Phonology 10: 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, G. Ó. 2003. “Laryngeal licensing and laryngeal neutralization in Faroese and Icelandic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 45–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. 2009. “Why final obstruent devoicing is weakening.” In Nasukawa, K. and Backley, P (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 9–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgason, P. and Ringen, C. 2008. “Voicing and aspiration in Swedish stops,” Journal of Phonetics 36: 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henton, C., Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. 1992. “Stops in the world’s languages,” Phonetica 49: 65–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hestvik, A. and Durvasula, K. 2016. “Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English,” Brain and Language 152: 28–43.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. F. 2001. “An outline history of West Frisian.” In Munske, H. H. and Århammer, N. (eds.), Handbuch des Friesischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 722–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsinger, D. J. 2008. “Germanic prosody and consonantal strength.” In de Carvalho, J. Brandão, Scheer, T., and Ségéral, P. (eds.), Lenition and Fortition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeybone, P. 2002. Germanic Obstruent Lenition: Some Mutual Implications of Theoretical and Historical Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Honeybone, P. 2005. “Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specifications.” In van Oostendorp, M. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), The Internal organization of Phonological Segments, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 319–354.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 1995. “Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic,” Phonology 12: 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 1999. “Glottal spreading bias in Germanic,” Linguistische Berichte 178: 135–151.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2003a. “Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2003b. “Laryngeal enhancement in Early Germanic,” Phonology 20: 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2007. “Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition,” Phonology 24: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2008. “Germanic aspiration: Phonetic enhancement and language contact,” Sprachwissenschaft 33: 257–278.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2011. “Final devoicing and final laryngeal neutralization.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, B., and Rice, K. (eds.), Companion to Phonology, Vol. III. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online. May 31, 2012: 1622–1643.Google Scholar
Jacewicz, E., Fox, R. A., and Lyle, S. 2009. “Variation in stop consonant voicing in two regional varieties of American English,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39: 313–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, N. G. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1949. “On the identification of phonemic entities.” In Selected Writings I: Phonological Studies.The Hague: Nijhoff: 418–425.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. 1998. Phonetics and Phonology of Tense and Lax Obstruents in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kent, R. D. 1997. Speech Sciences. San Diego: Singular.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. and Stevens, K. N. 2006. “Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain,” Language 82: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kharlamov, V. 2014. “Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences,” Journal of Phonetics 43: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. D. 1980. “The history of final devoicing in Yiddish.” In Herzog, M. I., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., Miron, D., and Wisse, R. (eds.), The Field of Yiddish: Studies in Language, Folklore, and Literature, Fourth Collection. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues: 371–430.Google Scholar
Kingston, J. and Diehl, R. L. 1994. “Phonetic knowledge,” Language 70: 419–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2006. “The Amphichronic Program vs. Evolutionary Phonology,” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleine, A. 2003. “Standard Yiddish,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33: 261–265.Google Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18: 109–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2003. Quantity and Prosodic Asymmetries in Alemannic: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuzla, C., Cho, T., and Ernestus, M. 2007. “Prosodic strengthening of German fricatives in duration and assimilatory devoicing,” Journal of Phonetics 35: 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. 1986. “‘Voicing’ in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees,” Language and Speech 29: 3–11.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. and Abramson, A. 1964. “A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements,” Word 20: 527–565.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. 1995. “Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 39–74.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mihm, A. 2004. “Zur Geschichte der Auslautverhärtung und ihrer Erforschung,” Sprachwissenschaft 29: 133–206.Google Scholar
Mihm, A. 2007. “Theorien der Auslautverhärtung im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Normsetzung und Sprachwirklichkeit,” Deutsche Sprache 35: 95–118.Google Scholar
Miller, D. G. 2019. The Oxford Gothic Grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, W. 2015. “Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems,” Language 91: 308–358.Google Scholar
Park, H., Park, H-J., and Iverson, G. K. 2010. “The frontal and temporal lobe in the identification of laryngeal contrasts,” NeuroReport 21: 474–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinget, A-F. C. H. 2015. The Actuation of Sound Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Piroth, H. G. and Janker, P. M. 2004. “Speaker-dependent differences in voicing and devoicing of German obstruents,” Journal of Phonetics 32: 81–109.Google Scholar
Purnell, T., Raimy, E., and Salmons, J. 2019. “Old English vowels: Diachrony, privativity and phonological representations,” Language, Research reports. 95(4). e447–e473.Google Scholar
Purnell, T. C., Salmons, J., and Tepeli, D. 2005a. “German substrate effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for final fortition,” American Speech 80: 135–164.Google Scholar
Purnell, T. C., Salmons, J., Tepeli, D., Dilara, and Mercer, J. 2005b. “Structured heterogeneity and change in laryngeal phonetics: Upper Midwestern final obstruents,” Journal of English Linguistics 33: 307–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsammy, M. and Strycharczuk, P. 2016. “From phonetic enhancement to phonological underspecification: Hybrid voicing contrast in European Portuguese,” Papers in Historical Phonology 1: 285–315. www.journals.ed.ac.uk/pihph/article/view/1704.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riemersma, T. 1979. Sylabysjerring, nazzeljerring, assymljerring. Ljouwert: Koperative Utjowerij.Google Scholar
Roberge, P. T. 1983. “Those Gothic spirants again,” Indogermanische Forschungen 88: 109–155.Google Scholar
Rooy, B. van and Wissing, D. 2001. “Distinctive [voice] implies regressive voicing assimilation.” In A. Hall, T. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 295–334.Google Scholar
Rowley, A. R. 1989. “East Franconian.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. Stanford University Press: 394–416.Google Scholar
Schifferle, H. P. 2010. “Zunehmende Behauchung: Aspirierte Plosive im modernen Schweizerdeutsch.” In Christen, H., Germann, S., Haas, W., Montefiori, N., and Ruef, H. (eds.), Alemannische Dialektologie: Wege in die Zukunft. Stuttgart: Steiner: 43–55.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. 1893. Grundzüge der Phonetik: Zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Simon, E. 2011. “Laryngeal stop systems in contact: Connecting present-day acquisition findings and historical contact hypotheses,” Diachronica 28: 225–254.Google Scholar
Snoeren, N. D., Hallé, P. A., and Segui, J. 2006. “A voice for the voiceless: Production and perception of assimilated stops in French,” Journal of Phonetics 34: 241–268.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. 1992. “Toward an explanatory account of Thurneysen’s Law in Gothic,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 114: 28–46.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vaux, B. 1998. “The laryngeal specifications of fricatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 497–511.Google Scholar
Warner, N., Good, E., Jongman, A., and Seréno, J. 2006. “Orthographic versus morphological incomplete neutralization effects,” Journal of Phonetics 34: 285–293.Google Scholar
Weijer, J. van de and van der Torre, E. J. (eds.) 2007. Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Max 2008. History of the Yiddish Language. Edited by Glaser, P., translated by Noble, S.. New Haven: Yale University Press/New York: YIVO.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. L. and Mascaró, J. 2001. “The typology of voicing and devoicing,” Language 77: 207–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn. 2000.Google Scholar
Youssef, I. 2010. “Laryngeal assimilation in Buchan Scots,” English Language and Linguistics 14: 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, W. 2007. “Issues in Dutch devoicing: Positional faithfulness, positional markedness, and local conjunction.” In van de Weijer, J. and E. van der Torre, J. (eds.), Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–40.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. 1975. “Settling on an underlying form: The English inflectional endings.” In Cohen, D. and Wirth, J (eds.), Testing Linguistic Hypotheses. Washington: Hemisphere: 129–185.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×