Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016
Edited by Jenny Audring and Sander Lestrade
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 33] 2016
► pp. 106–120

Voicing distinctions in the Dutch-German dialect continuum

| Meertens Instituut
This study investigates the phonetics and phonology of voicing distinctions in the Dutch-German dialect continuum, which forms a transition zone between voicing and aspiration systems. Two phonological approaches to represent this contrast exist in the literature: a [±voice] approach and Laryngeal Realism. The implementation of the change between the two language types in the transition zone will provide new insights in the nature of the phonological representation of the contrast. In this paper I will locate the transition zone by looking at phonetic overlap between VOT values of fortis and lenis plosives, and I will compare the two phonological approaches, showing that both face analytical problems as they cannot explain the variation observed in word-initial plosives and plosive clusters.
Keywords: dialectology, phonology, phonetics, Laryngeal Realism, transition zones
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 21 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.08oud
References (19)
References
Alphen, P. M. van & R. Smits. 2004. “Acoustical and perceptual analysis of the voicing distinction in Dutch initial plosives: the role of prevoicing”. Journal of Phonetics 32:4.455–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alphen, Petra M. van. 2007. “Prevoicing in Dutch initial plosives. Production, perception and word recognition”. Voicing in Dutch. (De)voicing – phonology, phonetics and psycholinguistics ed. by J. van de Weijer and E. J. van der Torre, 99–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avery, Peter & William J. Idsardi. 2001. “Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement”. Distinctive feature theory ed. by T. A. Hall, 41–70. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, J., P. Helgason, B. McMurray & C. Ringen. 2011. “Rate effects on Swedish VOT: evidence for phonological overspecification”. Journal of Phonetics 391.39–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, J., M. Jessen & C. Ringen. 2013. “Empirical evidence for laryngeal features: aspirating vs. true voice languages”. Journal of Linguistics 49:2.259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & D. Weenink. 2016. “Praat: doing phonetics by computer”. Version 6.0.12, <[URL]> (24 January 2016).
Braun, Angelika 1996. “Zur regionalen Distribution van VOT im Deutschen”. Untersuchungen zur Stimme und Sprache ed. by A. Braun, 19–32. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1976. “Some data on North German stops and affricates”. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics of the University of Copenhagen (ARIPUC) 101.149-200.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & K. Stevens. 1971. “A note on laryngeal features”. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 1011.198–213.Google Scholar
Hamann, Silke R. & Klaas T. Seinhorst. 2016. Prevoicing in Standard German plosives: Implications for phonological representation? Poster presented at the 13th Old World Conference in Phonology, 15 January, Budapest.
Honeybone, Patrick 2005. “Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case of obstruent laryngeal specifications”. The internal organisation of segments ed. by M. van Oostendorp and J. van de Weijer, 319–354. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. & J. C. Salmons. 1995. “Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic”. Phonology 121.369–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Glottal spreading bias in Germanic”. Linguistische Berichte 1781.135–151.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. & C. Ringen. 2002. “Laryngeal features in German”. Phonology 19:2.189–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, P. A. 1984. “Phonetic and phonological representation of stop consonant voicing”. Language 60:2.286–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindow, Wolfgang, Dieter Möhn, Hermann Niebaum, Dieter Stellmacher, Hans Taubken & Jan Wirrer. 1998. Niederdeutsche Grammatik. Leer: Verlag Schuster.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. & A. S. Abramson. 1964. “A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustic measurements”. Word 20:3.384–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2007. “Exceptions to Final Devoicing”. Voicing in Dutch. (De)voicing – phonology, phonetics and psycholinguistics ed. by J. van de Weijer and E. J. van der Torre, 99–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wetzels, W. L. & J. Mascaró. 2001. “The typology of voicing and devoicing”. Language 77:2.207–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Balogné Bérces, Katalin
2022. Accent boundaries and linguistic continua in the laryngeal subsystems of English. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) 8 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.