Hubbry Logo
Consonant voicing and devoicingConsonant voicing and devoicingMain
Open search
Consonant voicing and devoicing
Community hub
Consonant voicing and devoicing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Consonant voicing and devoicing
Consonant voicing and devoicing
Consonant voicing and devoicing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Sound change and alternation
Metathesis
Lenition
Fortition
Epenthesis
Elision
Transphonologization
Assimilation
Dissimilation
Sandhi
Synalepha
Other types

This article contains phonetic transcriptions in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA. For the distinction between [ ], / / and ⟨ ⟩, see IPA § Brackets and transcription delimiters.

In phonology, voicing (or sonorization) is a sound change where a voiceless consonant becomes voiced due to the influence of its phonological environment; shift in the opposite direction is referred to as devoicing or surdization. Most commonly, the change is a result of sound assimilation with an adjacent sound of opposite voicing, but it can also occur word-finally or in contact with a specific vowel.

For example, the English suffix -s is pronounced [s] when it follows a voiceless phoneme (cats), and [z] when it follows a voiced phoneme (dogs).[1] This type of assimilation is called progressive, where the second consonant assimilates to the first; regressive assimilation goes in the opposite direction, as can be seen in have to [hæftə].

English

[edit]

English no longer has a productive process of voicing stem-final fricatives when forming noun-verb pairs or plural nouns, but there are still examples of voicing from earlier in the history of English:

  • belief ([f]) – believe ([v])
  • shelf ([f]) – shelve ([v])
  • grief ([f]) – grieve ([v])
  • life ([f]) – live ([v])
  • proof ([f]) – prove ([v])
  • strife ([f]) – strive ([v])
  • thief ([f]) – thieve ([v])
  • bath ([θ]) - bathe ([ð])
  • breath ([θ]) - breathe ([ð])
  • mouth ([θ], n.) – mouth ([ð], vb.)
  • sheath ([θ]) - sheathe ([ð])
  • wreath ([θ]) - wreathe ([ð])
  • advice ([s]) – advise ([z])
  • house ([s], n.) – house ([z], vb.)
  • use ([s], n.) – use ([z], vb.)

Synchronically, the assimilation at morpheme boundaries is still productive, such as in:[2]

  • cat + s → cats
  • dog + s → dogs ([ɡz])
  • miss + ed → missed ([st])
  • whizz + ed → whizzed ([zd])

The voicing alternation found in plural formation is losing ground in the modern language,[citation needed]. Of the alternations listed below many speakers retain only the [f-v] pattern, which is supported by the orthography. This voicing of /f/ is a relic of Old English, at a time when the unvoiced consonants between voiced vowels were 'colored' by an allophonic voicing (lenition) rule /f/ → [v]. As the language became more analytic and less inflectional, final vowels or syllables stopped being pronounced. For example, modern knives is a one syllable word instead of a two syllable word, with the vowel e not pronounced and no longer part of the word's structure. The voicing alternation between [f] and [v] occurs now as realizations of separate phonemes /f/ and /v/. The alternation pattern is well maintained for the items listed immediately below, but its loss as a productive allophonic rule permits its abandonment for new usages of even well-established terms: while leaf~leaves in reference to 'outgrowth of plant stem' remains vigorous, the Toronto ice hockey team is uncontroversially named the Maple Leafs.

  • knife – knives
  • leaf – leaves
  • wife – wives
  • wolf – wolves

The following mutations are optional:[citation needed]

  • bath ([θ]) - baths ([ð])
  • mouth ([θ]) - mouths ([ð])
  • oath ([θ]) - oaths ([ð])
  • path ([θ]) - paths ([ð])
  • youth ([θ]) - youths ([ð])
  • house ([s]) – houses ([z])

Sonorants (/l r w j/) following aspirated fortis plosives (that is, /p t k/ in the onsets of stressed syllables unless preceded by /s/) are devoiced such as in please, crack, twin, and pewter.[3]

Several varieties of English have a productive synchronic rule of /t/-voicing whereby intervocalic /t/ not followed by a stressed vowel is realized as voiced alveolar flap [ɾ], as in tutor, with the first /t/ pronounced as voiceless aspirated [tʰ] and the second as voiced [ɾ]. Voiced phoneme /d/ can also emerge as [ɾ], so that tutor and Tudor may be homophones, both with [ɾ] (the voiceless identity of word-internal /t/ in tutor is manifested in tutorial, where stress shift assures [tʰ]).

In other languages

[edit]

Voicing assimilation

[edit]
Main article: Assimilation (linguistics)

In many languages, including Polish and Russian, there is anticipatory assimilation of unvoiced obstruents immediately before voiced obstruents. For example, Russian просьба 'request' is pronounced /ˈprozʲbə/ (instead of */ˈprosʲbə/) and Polish prośba 'request' is pronounced /ˈprɔʑba/ (instead of */ˈprɔɕba/). The process can cross word boundaries as well: Russian дочь бы /ˈdod͡ʑ bɨ/ 'daughter would'. The opposite type of anticipatory assimilation happens to voiced obstruents before unvoiced ones: обсыпать /ɐpˈs̪ɨpətʲ/.

In Italian, /s/ before a voiced consonant is pronounced [z] within any phonological word: sbaglio [ˈzbaʎʎo] 'mistake', slitta [ˈzlitta] 'sled', snello [ˈznɛllo] 'slender'. The rule applies across morpheme boundaries (disdire [dizˈdiːre] 'cancel') and word boundaries (lapis nero [ˌlaːpizˈneːro] 'black pencil'). This voicing is productive and so it applies also to borrowings, not only to native lexicon: snob [znɔb].

Final devoicing

[edit]
Main article: Final-obstruent devoicing

Final devoicing is a systematic phonological process occurring in languages such as German, Dutch, Polish, Russian and Catalan.[4][page needed] Such languages have voiced obstruents in the syllable coda or at the end of a word become voiceless.

Initial voicing

[edit]

Initial voicing is a process of historical sound change in which voiceless consonants become voiced at the beginning of a word. For example, modern German sagen [ˈzaːɡn̩], Yiddish זאָגן [ˈzɔɡn̩], and Dutch zeggen [ˈzɛɣə] (all "say") all begin with [z], which derives from [s] in an earlier stage of Germanic, as is still attested in English say, Swedish säga [ˈsɛjːa], and Icelandic segja [ˈseiːja]. Some English dialects were affected as well, but it is rare in Modern English. One example is fox (with the original consonant) compared to vixen (with a voiced consonant).

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Consonant voicing and devoicing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Consonant voicing is a fundamental phonetic and phonological feature in which the vocal folds vibrate during the production of a sound, creating a voiced such as /b/, /d/, or /g/, in contrast to voiceless like /p/, /t/, or /k/, where no such vibration occurs. Devoicing, conversely, is the phonological process whereby a voiced loses its voicing and is articulated as voiceless, often triggered by specific contextual environments such as adjacency to a voiceless or word-final position. This phenomenon is a type of assimilation that enhances ease of articulation by aligning the voicing of adjacent segments. In many languages, the voicing contrast serves as a primary phonemic distinction, enabling speakers to differentiate words based solely on whether a consonant is voiced or voiceless; for instance, in English, "pat" [/pæt/] contrasts with "bat" [/bæt/], where the initial stop's voicing changes the meaning. Voiced consonants typically occur in syllable-initial positions before vowels, while voiceless ones are favored in syllable-final or preconsonantal contexts, reflecting universal tendencies in sound production influenced by aerodynamic factors like airflow and vocal fold tension. The feature [voice] is binary in phonological representations, allowing rules to spread voicing progressively (from left to right) or regressively (from right to left) across segments. Devoicing manifests in various forms across languages, with final obstruent devoicing being particularly widespread, where word-final voiced obstruents (stops or fricatives) are realized as voiceless; examples include German "Hund" [/hʊnt/] "dog" and Russian words like underlying /sad/ "garden" surfacing as [sat] in isolation. In Turkish, devoicing is allophonic for plosives, with underlying voiceless stops remaining voiceless syllable-finally (e.g., "kap" [kap] "pot"), but voiced forms appearing intervocalically (e.g., "kaba" [kaba] "to the pot"), illustrating how voicing can be predictable rather than contrastive in certain inventories. Regressive devoicing, as in English "please" [/pliz/] realized as [plɪs], occurs when a voiced consonant assimilates to a following voiceless one, promoting perceptual clarity and articulatory efficiency. Cross-linguistically, voicing and devoicing patterns reveal typological patterns, such as the prevalence of word-internal voicing assimilation in languages like Dutch (e.g., /afbelə/ → [avbɛlə] "ring off") and the resistance to word-internal devoicing in most systems, challenging theories of voice as a privative rather than binary feature. These processes are not only phonological but also phonetically grounded, with devoicing often linked to reduced vocal fold vibration in less sonorous environments, influencing , variation, and historical sound changes.

Phonological Foundations

Voicing and Devoicing Basics

Voicing refers to the of the vocal folds during the articulation of a , resulting in sounds such as /b/, /d/, and /g/, which are classified as voiced, in contrast to voiceless consonants like /p/, /t/, and /k/, where the vocal folds remain apart and do not vibrate. This distinction arises from the physiological mechanism of , where from the lungs causes the vocal folds to in voiced consonants, adding a periodic component to the sound. Devoicing, conversely, occurs when a voiced loses this vocal fold , rendering it voiceless in specific phonological environments, such as when the is insufficient to sustain . Phonetically, voicing is observable through acoustic analysis tools like waveforms and spectrograms. Voiced consonants produce periodic signals characterized by regular, repeating patterns in the waveform due to vocal fold cycles, whereas voiceless consonants generate aperiodic signals resembling noise without such regularity. In spectrograms, this manifests as dense vertical striations across low frequencies for voiced sounds, representing the harmonic structure from vocal fold vibration, in contrast to the random, unstructured energy bursts typical of voiceless sounds. In phonological theory, voicing functions as a binary that can differentiate lexical items within a language's inventory, enabling contrasts that convey meaning. For instance, in English, the "bat" /bæt/ (voiced initial ) and "pat" /pæt/ (voiceless initial ) illustrates how voicing alone alters word identity. This feature's role is systematic, as languages exploit it to build phonemic oppositions, with voiced obstruents often pairing against voiceless counterparts in stop and series. Cross-linguistically, voicing exhibits universal tendencies toward greater stability in intervocalic positions, where the surrounding vowels facilitate sustained vocal fold vibration and reduce articulatory effort for maintenance. In contrast, voicing is more susceptible to change at prosodic edges, such as word boundaries, or adjacent to obstruents, due to aerodynamic and articulatory pressures that favor voiceless realizations in those contexts.

Types of Voicing Processes

Voicing processes in phonology are broadly categorized by their direction of influence, with progressive and regressive assimilation representing the primary types. In regressive voicing, a following sound triggers voicing in a preceding consonant, resulting in a right-to-left spread of the [voice] feature. This process ensures feature agreement across obstruent clusters, often leading to complete neutralization of voicing contrasts in the affected position. Progressive voicing, by contrast, involves a preceding sound influencing the voicing of a subsequent one, typically in a left-to-right manner. Regressive voicing assimilation is the more common direction observed typologically. These processes can further be distinguished by the extent of voicing change, either complete or partial. Complete voicing entails a full shift from voiceless to voiced, such as a stop transitioning from to with sustained vocal fold vibration throughout the closure. Partial voicing, however, involves incomplete vibration, where the exhibits lax articulation but only intermittent or reduced voicing, often as an optional variant in assimilation contexts. This distinction arises from the binary nature of the [voice] feature, where spreading can fully delink and relink specifications or result in phonetic realization. Voicing processes are closely linked to and , where voicing serves as a weakening mechanism in less sonorous environments. In , voiceless obstruents voice intervocalically due to reduced articulatory effort and increased sonority, a driven by contextual rather than universal unmarkedness. This is the second most prevalent type after spirantization, occurring in 39 of 230 documented processes across 153 languages. , conversely, may involve devoicing in strong positions like onsets to enhance perceptual contrast, suppressing voicing to maintain hierarchies. Typologically, assimilation dominates voicing processes, appearing as a default mechanism in numerous languages through progressive or regressive spreading, while spontaneous voicing—untriggered changes without adjacent influence—is comparatively rare. Cross-linguistic surveys highlight regressive assimilation as particularly widespread, with gaps in the typology (e.g., certain trigger-target combinations) attributable to implicational hierarchies in feature behavior. Positional neutralization often provides the for these types, though detailed mechanisms are addressed elsewhere.

Mechanisms of Change

Voicing Assimilation

Voicing assimilation refers to a phonological in which the voicing feature of one spreads to an adjacent , causing them to agree in voicing. This typically occurs among s, where a voiceless may become voiced or a voiced one devoiced to match its neighbor. There are two primary types: regressive (anticipatory) assimilation, where the first changes to match the voicing of the following one, and progressive (perseverative) assimilation, where the second changes to match the preceding one. In regressive assimilation, common in languages like Russian, a voiced before a voiceless one devoice, as in /lodka/ '' realized as [lotka] with the /d/ devoicing to match the following /k/. Progressive assimilation is rarer and often morphologically conditioned, as in English plural formation where the /s/ voices to after voiced stems, e.g., /dɒg + s/ → [dɒgz] 'dogs', but remains after voiceless ones like /kæt + s/ → [kæts] 'cats'. In , voicing assimilation is modeled as the spreading of the [+voice] or [-voice] feature across adjacent segments on a laryngeal tier, linking it to multiple skeletal positions while delinking the original specification if necessary. This representation captures the feature's , allowing it to associate with neighboring without affecting the entire segment, as seen in the extension of voicing from one obstruent to another in cluster agreement. Voicing assimilation is generally local, occurring between adjacent consonants, though rare long-distance cases exist in some systems; it is often blocked by vowels or consonants, which do not participate in voicing agreement due to their inherent sonority. For instance, assimilation skips over sonorants in certain clusters but halts at vowels, preserving contrasts across boundaries. Acoustic studies reveal that assimilated sequences show adjusted glottal pulsing durations, with longer voicing lead times before voiced obstruents facilitating perceptual cues; transitions in fricatives, for example, provide evidence of voicing category shifts, as listeners identify pre-voiceless fricatives as more voiceless based on these transitions. Cross-linguistically, regressive voicing assimilation is more frequent, particularly in like Polish and Dutch, where it applies broadly to clusters without additional restrictions, whereas progressive assimilation is less common and typically limited by morphological or positional constraints.

Positional Effects on Voicing

Positional effects on voicing refer to phonological processes where the location of a within a word, , or influences its voicing state independently of adjacent segments. These effects often arise from perceptual or articulatory constraints associated with specific positions, leading to systematic alternations or neutralizations of voicing contrasts. In many languages, such positional rules result in the loss of phonemic distinctions, creating allophonic variation where voiced and voiceless consonants merge in form but remain distinct underlyingly. Final devoicing is a prevalent positional effect whereby voiced obstruents—consonants like stops and fricatives that are produced with significant airflow obstruction—become voiceless at the end of a word. This process can be formally represented as the rule C[+voice, -sonorant] → [-voice] / ___ #, where the voicing feature is neutralized in word-final position due to reduced perceptual salience for voicing cues at boundaries. Final devoicing exemplifies positional neutralization, as the contrast between voiced and voiceless obstruents is suspended word-finally, often resulting in voiceless allophones for underlying voiced phonemes. This neutralization is driven by articulatory factors, such as the difficulty in maintaining vocal fold vibration without subsequent vocalic support. Intervocalic voicing involves voiceless fricatives becoming voiced when flanked by vowels, as seen in allophonic processes like Spanish /f/ realized as [β] between vowels, motivated by the facilitative from surrounding sonorants that promotes glottal vibration. These intervocalic changes highlight how medial positions favor voicing due to sustained subglottal pressure. The role of syllable structure further modulates these effects, with coda positions (syllable-final) predisposing obstruents to devoicing more than onsets (syllable-initial), owing to differences in mechanics. In codas, the closure occurs without immediate pulmonic outflow support from a following , leading to rapid decay in intraoral pressure and difficulty sustaining voicing during the closure phase. Onsets, by contrast, benefit from anticipatory buildup, preserving voicing contrasts more robustly. Overall, positional neutralization of voicing contrasts in non-prominent sites like codas or word edges leads to allophonic distributions, where the underlying phonemic distinction is preserved but surface realizations converge, often reflecting universal aerodynamic and perceptual pressures.

English Examples

Alternations in Morphology

In English morphology, voicing alternations commonly occur in inflectional suffixes, where the realization of the suffix depends on the voicing of the preceding stem-final consonant. For plural formation, the suffix /s/ appears as voiceless after voiceless consonants, as in "cats" [kæts], but as voiced after voiced consonants, as in "dogs" [dɒɡz]. This pattern reflects a regressive voicing assimilation, ensuring agreement in voicing between the stem and the suffix. Similarly, in regular formation, the -ed is realized as voiceless following voiceless consonants, exemplified by "walked" [wɔːkt], and as voiced following voiced consonants, as in "played" [pleɪd]. This alternation also stems from voicing assimilation to the stem's final , a rule formalized in generative as applying to obstruent suffixes after non-sibilant obstruents. Historical voicing shifts in English morphology include alternations between voiceless /f/ and voiced /v/ in certain noun pairs, such as the singular "" [liːf] and plural "leaves" [liːvz], which originated from allophonic variation in Old English fricatives that later phonemicized. These shifts, once productive, have become lexicalized in , preserved in a small set of irregular forms. The productivity of such voicing alternations has declined in contemporary English, with speakers increasingly favoring regularized voiceless forms even after voiced stems; for instance, "hoofs" [huːfs] competes with or replaces the traditional "hooves" [huːvz], reflecting analogical leveling and loss of the historical rule's systematic application. This erosion is evident in variable stem-final voicing, particularly in dialects, where the alternation is no longer fully productive. Overall, these morphological alternations are governed by a phonological rule whereby the voicing of the suffix matches that of the base stem's final obstruent, promoting perceptual ease and historical continuity, though modern usage shows simplification toward uniform voiceless realizations.

Cross-Word Boundary Effects

In connected speech, English exhibits cross-word boundary effects where consonant voicing undergoes alteration due to the influence of adjacent sounds in phrases, distinct from intra-word morphological processes. One prominent phenomenon is the devoicing of /z/ before voiceless consonants, known as external sandhi. For instance, in the phrase "has to," the underlying /z/ in "has" surfaces as before the voiceless /t/ of "to," yielding [hæs tə] rather than [hæz tə]. This regressive devoicing facilitates smoother articulation across boundaries and is variable in casual speech, often more pronounced in rapid tempos. Voicing assimilation across word boundaries is less systematic for fricatives before nasals, though partial coarticulation may occur in casual speech, such as slight voicing of /s/ in phrases like "this name" [ðɪz neɪm]. This is optional and context-dependent, enhancing coarticulation but not a productive regressive rule in standard varieties. represents a voicing-related where intervocalic /t/ (and /d/) neutralizes to a voiced alveolar flap [ɾ] in , especially across morpheme or word boundaries in . Exemplified in words like "" as [ˈwɔɾɚ] or phrases like "" as [ɡɛɾ aʊt], this involves voicing of /t/ due to the flap's brief closure and surrounding vocalic environment, contrasting with the voiceless aspiration of isolated /t/. Acoustic studies confirm high flapping rates (over 90% in post-stressed contexts), underscoring its role in rhythmic fluency. Dialectal variations further modulate these boundary effects, particularly in plurals. For nouns ending in /θ/, such as "bath," the plural "baths" is typically [bɑːθs], but may optionally voice to [bɑːðz] in some varieties, with the voiceless form more prevalent in southern dialects to maintain contrast. This variability reflects historical patterns and prosodic influences at phrase edges. Resyllabification in also impacts voicing perception by reallocating consonants across word boundaries, altering their syllabic affiliation and thus their voicing cues. For example, in "at all," the /t/ may resyllabify as the onset of "all," potentially leading to and perceived voicing in , while listeners infer voicing based on preceding —a cue longer before voiced obstruents. Perceptual experiments show that such resyllabification enhances voicing ambiguity resolution, with rate effects amplifying the influence in faster speech.

Examples in Other Languages

Final Devoicing Patterns

Final devoicing, a positional neutralization where word-final obstruents lose voicing, is prominent in several Germanic and Slavic languages, as well as in Catalan. In these languages, underlying voiced obstruents surface as voiceless in absolute final position, often leading to mergers in the inventory, though the contrast may recover in non-final contexts such as suffixes or compounds. In German, all word-final obstruents devoice, affecting stops and fricatives alike, with the process applying across the native to enforce voiceless codas. For instance, the noun Hund 'dog' (underlying /hʊnd/) is realized as [hʊnt] in isolation, but the voiced reappears in inflected forms like Hunde [ˈhʊndə] 'dogs' or compounds such as Hundefutter [ˈhʊnd.fʊtɐ] 'dog food', where the obstruent is no longer word-final. Dutch mirrors this pattern closely, devoicing syllable-final voiced obstruents (/b, d, ɡ, v, z, ɣ/) to their voiceless counterparts (/p, t, k, f, s, x/), a rule that holds for both simple and complex codas. The word bad 'bath' (underlying /bɑd/), for example, surfaces as [bɑt] word-finally, whereas the plural baden [ˈbɑdə(n)] preserves the voiced in onset position. Slavic languages like Polish and Russian also feature robust final devoicing, resulting in complete or near-complete neutralization of the laryngeal contrast for obstruents in word-final position. In Polish, voiced obstruents devoice word-finally, but the language exhibits regressive voicing assimilation within obstruent clusters, where the voicing of the rightmost obstruent determines the cluster's specification, interacting with final devoicing to devoice entire final clusters if the final member is underlyingly voiced. For example, kot 'cat' (underlying /kɔt/, with voiceless /t/) remains [kɔt] in isolation and [kɔtɨ] in the plural koty, illustrating the stability of voiceless finals; however, underlyingly voiced finals like in dług 'long' (underlying /dwuɡ/) surface as [dwu k] word-finally, with the [ɡ] devoiced to , while długie [ˈdwu ɡʲɛ] 'long' (neut. pl.) recovers the voicing. Russian demonstrates even stricter neutralization, where word-final obstruents devoice categorically at the prosodic word boundary, eliminating the voiced-voiceless distinction entirely in this position and feeding regressive assimilation in final clusters. Minimal pairs such as gorod 'city' (underlying /ɡorod/, realized [ɡɐˈrot] with final ) and grot 'trench' (underlying /ɡrot/, also [ɡrot]) are homophonous word-finally due to this merger, with no phonetic cues distinguishing them in isolation. In Catalan, final obstruent devoicing neutralizes the voice contrast word-finally, but the process is often partial phonetically, with incomplete neutralization evidenced by subtle durational cues, and stops may involve aspiration or unrelease in some dialects. Underlying voiced stops surface as voiceless word-finally, as in groc 'yellow' (underlying /ɡroɡ/), pronounced [ɡɾɔk] with final , contrasting with groga [ɡɾɔɰə] (fem.), where the [ɡ] remains voiced; fricatives similarly devoice, such as underlying /ʒ/ surfacing as the voiceless affricate [ʧ] in boig 'mad' (underlying /boʒ/), realized [bɔʧ]. This positional effect aligns with broader Romance patterns but shows variability in realization across dialects.

Progressive and Regressive Voicing

Voicing assimilation can occur in two primary directions: progressive (perseverative), where a consonant's voicing feature influences a following , and regressive (anticipatory), where a following influences the voicing of a preceding one. These processes are common in clusters and across word boundaries in many languages, facilitating smoother articulation by reducing contrasts between adjacent sounds. Regressive assimilation is particularly prevalent in , while progressive assimilation appears in agglutinative systems like Turkish. In Polish, regressive voicing assimilation operates within obstruent clusters, causing a preceding voiceless fricative to voice when followed by a voiced stop. For instance, the word prośba 'request' is underlyingly /prɔɕba/ but realized as [prɔʑba], where the voiceless /ɕ/ assimilates to the voiced /b/, becoming [ʑ]. This right-to-left spread of [+voice] applies regressively, ensuring obstruent harmony in clusters, as detailed in analyses of Polish phonology. Russian exhibits a similar regressive pattern, where obstruents voice or devoice to match the voicing of a following obstruent, often across or word boundaries. A classic example is the verb sdelat' 'to do', pronounced [zʲdʲelatʲ] rather than [sʲdelatʲ], with the initial /s/ voicing to before the voiced /d/. This assimilation is regressive and applies obligatorily in sequences, contributing to the language's phonological uniformity, as evidenced in phonetic studies of Russian . In Italian, regressive voicing assimilation affects coronal fricatives like /s/ in onset clusters before voiced consonants, particularly in compounds or lexical items. The word sbaglio 'mistake' is realized as [zbaʎʎo], with /s/ voicing to in anticipation of the following /b/. This process highlights anticipatory adaptation in Romance , where the [+voice] feature spreads leftward to harmonize the cluster. Turkish demonstrates progressive voicing assimilation, where the voicing of a preceding obstruent determines the voicing of a following one, especially in suffixation. For example, in at bekle 'wait for the horse', the voiceless /t/ of at causes the initial /b/ of bekle to devoice to in fluent speech, yielding [ap bekle]. This left-to-right spread of [-voice] is a hallmark of Turkish obstruent harmony, applying progressively within or across words to maintain consistency. Such assimilation processes are often constrained by intervening segments, preventing long-distance effects. In Spanish, for instance, /s/ undergoes regressive voicing to before a voiced like /b/ only in direct adjacency, as in mismo [ˈmizmo]; however, an intervening blocks this, so es bueno remains [es ˈβweno] without voicing of /s/. This locality constraint underscores how prosodic structure limits the scope of voicing spread in .

Historical and Dialectal Variations

In the , a notable historical development involves the voicing of word-initial /s/ to before vowels, as seen in Modern Standard German words like sagen [ˈzaːɡən] 'to say', derived from Proto-Indo-European *sekʷ- via Proto-Germanic *sagjaną with an initial voiceless /s/. This voicing emerged during the transition from to around the 15th-16th centuries, where intervocalic and initial /s/ before vowels systematically acquired voice, distinguishing northern dialects from southern ones that retained . In , final devoicing represents an evolution from Proto-Slavic, where underlying voice contrasts in obstruents were maintained but gradually neutralized in word-final position through phonologization of utterance-final phonetic devoicing. In Russian, this process, common across most East and West Slavic languages (except Ukrainian), developed post-Proto-Slavic around the 9th-10th centuries following the loss of weak jers, leading to surface voiceless finals like [sat] for underlying /sad/ 'garden', with contrasts recovered morphologically in nominative-accusative alternations. Dialectal variations highlight synchronic differences in voicing processes. In Scottish Gaelic, initial mutations such as and eclipsis typically involve voicing shifts (e.g., /p/ to or /b/), but certain dialects exhibit incomplete neutralization or contextual devoicing of mutated fricatives in initial position, contributing to variable realization across regions like Lewis. In dialects, flapping of intervocalic /t/ and /d/ to [ɾ] functions as a voicing variant, where underlying voiceless /t/ (as in ) acquires voice through , though acoustic cues may incompletely distinguish it from /d/-derived flaps. Language contact has induced voicing adaptations in borrowings, particularly in Japanese, where English loanwords undergo (sequential voicing) in compounds, adding voice to initial obstruents of the second element for euphonic integration (e.g., ice cream as aisu kuriimu potentially voicing to guriimu in extended compounds, overriding Lyman's Law constraints in some cases). This reflects a historical pattern of contact-driven assimilation since the influx of Western terms. Theoretically, historical devoicing features prominently in chain shifts like (First Germanic Consonant Shift, ca. 500 BCE), where Proto-Indo-European voiced stops *b d g devoiced to Proto-Germanic voiceless *p t k, pulling from the fricativization of voiceless stops (*p t k > *f θ x) to preserve contrasts and avoid mergers across the obstruent series. This push-pull mechanism exemplifies how devoicing propagates system-wide to maintain phonemic distinctions.

References

  1. https://pressbooks.utrgv.edu/engl6360/chapter/voicing/
  2. http://www.unm.edu/~atneel/shs303/lec_cons_parameters.html
  3. https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/05lect06b.html
  4. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/phonology/turkish/turk_plosive1.html
  5. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/keating/keating1984.pdf
  6. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-900-introduction-to-linguistics-fall-2012/f305bb4cff88d8643ef77a3c2ab6b92a_MIT24_900F12_Phonologysum.pdf
  7. https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-alan-prince/hold/wetzels-mascaro.pdf
  8. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=stcloud_ling
  9. https://julietteblevins.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2013/04/VLSonHiermsrev-1.pdf
  10. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/adam/files/phonetics.ppt.pdf
  11. https://accent.gmu.edu/finalobsdev.html
  12. https://works.swarthmore.edu/context/fac-linguistics/article/1057/viewcontent/Phonetics.pdf
  13. https://isle.hanover.edu/isle2/Ch12Speech/Ch12VOT.html
  14. https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/courses/ling200_2004sum1/LING200/Phonology.pdf
  15. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/sound/chapter4.pdf
  16. https://julietteblevins.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2016/10/Blevins2006b-SynopsisEvolutionaryPhonology.pdf
  17. https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/cbjorn/Bjorndahl_MOLT2015_Handout.pdf
  18. https://users.castle.unc.edu/~jlsmith/home/pdf/lenfort.pdf
  19. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=commdis_fac
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-international-phonetic-association/article/regressive-voicing-assimilation-production-and-perception-studies/07931E0DF9EE1F7D52946CAB9F7DD2BA
  21. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/246-0298/roa-246-lombardi-3.pdf
  22. https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/194543/?sequence=1
  23. https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman/papers/2014-hyman-howauto.pdf
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-phonology/localassimilation-and-constraint-interaction/5D15A6FB1F6A168C8EA96115755FC388
  25. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/steriade/contrastive-gesture.pdf
  26. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/303-0399/roa-303-grijzenhout-2.pdf
  27. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10121067/1/Final_devoicing_Principles_an.pdf
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000070
  29. https://web.mit.edu/morrishalle/pubworks/papers/1968_Chomsky_Halle_The_Sound_Pattern_of_English.pdf
  30. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/110/docs/irregular-nouns.html
  31. https://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/AlbrightHayes02.pdf
  32. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics/article/an-explanation-for-the-early-phonemicisation-of-a-voice-contrast-in-english-fricatives1/C01ACEF32D1E95CB71CC411AA3C77E65
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/variable-stemfinal-fricative-voicing-in-american-english-plurals-different-pa-s-of-change/96DFB2D4138C8355783B85BE502803AB
  34. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=osu1104430793&disposition=inline
  35. https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/downloads/k0698999b?locale=en
  36. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2472474
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000458
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/corpus-phonology-of-english/corpusbased-study-of-t-flapping-in-american-english-broadcast-speech/5F03DDDCF2302FEBB48190B3CE916FF8
  39. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2062/71/3/article-p259.xml
  40. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/Resyllab/Resyllabification.html
  41. https://zaspil.leibniz-zas.de/article/download/157/156/302
  42. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_2749.pdf
  43. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/274-0798/roa-274-fery-2.pdf
  44. https://taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14020545834274290
  45. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/phonology/article/perspectives-on-final-laryngeal-neutralisation-new-evidence-from-polish/0B86550AA5072A309E4C99BFB50B7387
  46. https://jayepadgett.sites.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/300/2015/10/role_prosody.pdf
  47. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/phonology/catalan/cat_voice2.html
  48. https://zsigae.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/zsiga_localassimilation_2011.pdf
  49. http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/gladney/Elementary_Polish/001_Introduction.html
  50. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781614515135.79/html
  51. https://brucehayes.org/papers/HayesRussianVoicingAssimilation1984.pdf
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447096900376
  53. https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/romance-linguistics/assets/uploads/paoli/Booklet_P&P_right.pdf
  54. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/larp/6/paper3191.pdf
  55. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-961
  56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26535071
  57. https://www.isca-archive.org/speechprosody_2014/padgett14_speechprosody.pdf
  58. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/files/14472089/IOSAD_Right_at_the_Left_Edge.pdf
  59. https://www.aaronbraver.com/downloads/papers/braver-lingua-flapping.pdf
  60. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110197686.1.177/html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.