DISTINCTIVE [VOICE] DOES NOT IMPLY REGRESSIVE ASSIMILATION:EVIDENCE FROM SWEDISH

  • Catherine Ringen
  • Pétur Helgason
Keywords: Distinctive Features, Laryngeal Features, Optimality Theory, Prevoicing, Regressive Assimilation, [spread glottis], Swedish, [voice], Voice Assimilation.

Abstract

In a recent paper, van Rooy & Wissing (2001) distinguish between the "broad interpretation" and the "narrow interpretation" of the feature [voice]. According to the broad interpretation, languages with a two way [voice] contrast may implement this contrast phonetically with any two of the following: voice onset precedes plosive release (prevoicing), voice onset immediately follows plosive release, voice onset substantially lags behind plosive release. According to the narrow interpretation, [voice] is employed only in languages with prevoicing in word-intial stops. According to van Rooy & Wissing, languages with prevoicing always have only regressive voice assimilation. The purpose of this paper is twofold: First we show that Swedish employs the feature [voice] on the narrow interpretation, but does not have regressive voice assimilation. Second, we present an OT account of the Swedish data which involves both features [voice] and [spread glottis].

Author Biographies

Catherine Ringen
Department of Linguistics University of lowa
Pétur Helgason
Department of Linguistics & Philology Uppsala University
Published
19-01-2009
How to Cite
Ringen, C., & Helgason, P. (2009). DISTINCTIVE [VOICE] DOES NOT IMPLY REGRESSIVE ASSIMILATION:EVIDENCE FROM SWEDISH. International Journal of English Studies, 4(2), 53-71. Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/47981