Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-7tp2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-06T03:03:36.729Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Phonetic evidence on phonology–morphosyntax interactions: Sibilant voicing in Quito Spanish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2013

University of Manchester
Leiden University
Leiden University
Leiden University & The Meertens Institute, Amsterdam
Authors’ addresses: (Strycharczuk) School of Languages, Linguistics and Culture, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL,
(Van 't Veer)Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The
(Bruil)Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The
(Linke)Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands & The Meertens Institute, PO Box 94264, 1090 GG Amsterdam, The


This paper presents new experimental data on Quito Spanish /s/-voicing, which has attracted considerable interest from theoretical phonologists owing to the overapplication of voicing to word-final pre-vocalic /s/. Bermúdez-Otero (2011) singles out Quito /s/-voicing as an important test case for discriminating between two competing theories of phonology–morphosyntax interactions: Output–output correspondence and cyclicity. Overapplication in /s/-voicing cannot be captured using correspondence relationship to a base form, which challenges Output–output correspondence as a theory of opacity. However, the argument only holds insofar as word-final pre-vocalic /s/-voicing is considered phonological, as Output–output correspondence can account for /s/-voicing assuming that it only applies in the phonetics (Colina 2009). We discuss the diverging empirical predictions concerning categoricity and gradience in the surface realisation of voicing processes. We further test these predictions based on acoustic data from seven speakers of Quito Spanish. Evidence from speech rate manipulations shows that some speakers produce more voicing during frication at normal speech rate, compared to fast, maintaining a stable voicing ratio across different speech rates. We argue that for these speakers, /s/-voicing is optional but categorical, and so it ought to be analysed as phonological. This result presents a challenge to the Output–output correspondence approach, but can be accommodated within cyclicity.

Research Article
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.)



We would like to thank the speakers for their participation in the experiment. We are also grateful to Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Yuni Kim, Koen Sebregts and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their comments and suggestions. The research reported on in this article has been made possible thanks to a doctoral grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC, to the first author, a grant from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), project number 360-75-000, to the second and forth author, and a grant from the NWO, project number 360-70-320, to the third author.



Alvord, Scott M. (ed.). 2011. 5th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Romance Phonology. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Barry, Martin C. 1992. Palatalisation, assimilation and gestural weakening in connected speech. Speech Communication 11, 393400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas & Maechler, Martin. 2009. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes., accessed 13 August 2010. R package version 0.999375-32.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007. Diachronic phonology. In Lacy, Paul de (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 497517. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), 20192048.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Honeybone, Patrick & Salmons, Joseph C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Cycles and continua: On unidirectionality and gradualness in language change. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), Handbook on the history of English: Rethinking and extending approaches and methods, 691720. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 4586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2009. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.12)., accessed 15 October 2009.Google Scholar
Box, George E. P. & Cox, David R.. 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B (Methodological)) 26, 211252.Google Scholar
Bradley, Travis. 2005. Sibilant voicing in Highland Ecuadorian Spanish. Lingua (gem.) 2, 2942.Google Scholar
Bradley, Travis & Delforge, Ann Marie. 2006. Systemic contrast and the diachrony of Spanish sibilant voicing. In Gess, Randall & Arteaga, Deborah (eds.), Historical Romance linguistics: Retrospectives and perspectives, 1952. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celata, Chiara, Calamai, Silvia, Ricci, Irene & Bertini, Chiara. 2013. Nasal place assimilation between phonetics and phonology: An EPG study of Italian nasal-to-velar clusters. Journal of Phonetics 41, 88100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Whitney. 2011. The intervocalic voicing of /s/ in Ecuadorian Spanish. In 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 5764. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 1993. Nasalization in English: Phonology or phonetics. Phonology 10, 4382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 2006. Is there gradient phonology? In Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspective, 2544. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 2009. Sibilant voicing in Ecuadorian Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, Bruca & Amalia, Arvaniti (eds.). 1995. Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV, 315333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William E. & Danly, Martha. 1981. Segmental and temporal aspects of utterance-final lengthening. Phonetica 38, 106115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, Thomas H. & House, Arthur S.. 1988. A note on the durations of fricatives in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84, 19321935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuartero Torres, Néstor. 2001. Voicing assimilation in Catalan and English. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Ellis, Lucy & Hardcastle, William J.. 2002. Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: Evidence from EPG and EMA data. Journal of Phonetics 30, 373396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), 21152136.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, [R.] Harald. 2006. The functionality of incomplete neutralization in Dutch: The case of past-tense formation. In Goldstein, Louis M., Whalen, Douglas & Best, Catherine T. (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence (Phonology and Phonetics 4), 2749. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward Stanton. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward Stanton. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forrez, Gabriël. 1966. Relevante parameters van de stemhebbende fricatief /z/. Eindhoven: Inst. Perceptie Onderzoek Verslag.Google Scholar
García, Christina. 2011. Intervocalic /s/ voicing in the Spanish of Loja, Ecuador. Master's thesis, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradoville, Micheal Stepehen. 2011. Validity in measurements of fricative voicing: Evidence from Argentine Spanish. In Alvord, (ed.), 5974.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holst, Tara & Nolan, Francis. 1995. The influence of syntactic structure on [s] to [ʃ] assimilation. In Arvaniti, Connell (eds.), 315333.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt & Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15, 651674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
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
Jessen, Michael. 2009. Instability in the production and perception of intervocalic closure voicing as a cue to bdg vs. ptk in German. Folia Linguistica 38, 2742.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1988. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5, 275292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1990. Phonetic representations in a generative grammar. Journal of Phonetics 18, 321334.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1996. The phonology–phonetics interface. In Kleinhenz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in phonology (Studia Grammatica 41), 262278. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, vol. 1, 131175. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 83138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, Dennis H. 1975. Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. Journal of Phonetics 3, 129140.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1, 8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change: Cognitive and cultural factors. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1973. Features of the larynx. Journal of Phonetics 1, 7383.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lipski, John M. 1989. /s/-voicing in Ecuadoran Spanish: Patterns and principles of consonantal modification. Lingua 79, 4971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 2000. Boundary disputes: The distinction between phonetic and phonological sound patterns. In Burton-Roberts, Noel, Carr, Philip & Docherty, Gerard J. (eds.), Phonological knowledge, 245272. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis, Holst, Tara & Kühnert, Barbara. 1996. Modelling [s] to [ʃ] accommodation in English. Journal of Phonetics 24, 113137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, P. F. (ed.), The production of speech, 189216. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2006. The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34, 516530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Scholar
Rácz, Péter. 2011. To err is human – rich memory language models and t-glottalisation in English. Presented at Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP8).Google Scholar
Robinson, Kimball L. 1979. On the voicing of intervocalic s in the Ecuadorian Highlands. Romance Philology 33, 132143.Google Scholar
Robinson, Kimball L. 2012. The dialectology of syllabification: A review of variation in the Ecuadorian Highlands. Romance Philology 66, 115145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Kevin. Forthcoming. Contextual and non-contextual prosodic minimality. In Fainleib, Lena, LaCara, Nicholas & Park, Yangsook (eds.), 41st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 41). Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Lauren B. & Willis, Erik W.. 2011. Systematic investigation of voicing assimilation of Spanish /s/ in Mexico City. In , Alvord (ed.), 120.Google Scholar
Slis, Iman Hans & Cohen, Antonie. 1969a. On the complex regulating the voiced–voiceless distinction I. Language and Speech 12, 80102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slis, Iman Hans & Cohen, Antonie. 1969b. On the complex regulating the voiced–voiceless distinction II. Language and Speech 12, 137155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solé, Maria-Josep. 1992. Phonetic and phonological processes: The case of nasalization. Language and Speech 35, 2943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 1995. Spatio-temporal patterns of velopharyngeal action in phonetic and phonological nasalization. Language and Speech 38, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2010. Effects of syllable position on sound change: An aerodynamic study of final fricative weakening. Journal of Phonetics 38, 289305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Fujimura, Osamu. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21, 291311.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Blumstein, Sheila E., Glicksman, Laura, Burton, Martha & Kurowski, Kathleen. 1992. Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of voicing in fricatives and fricative clusters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91, 29793000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strycharczuk, Patrycja. 2012. Phonetics–phonology interactions in pre-sonorant voicing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Harald Baayen, R.. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24, 135178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Benjamin V. & Warner, Natasha. 2010. What it means to be phonetic or phonological: The case of Romanian devoiced nasals. Phonology 27, 289324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.). 2011. Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, John R. & Keating, Patricia A.. 1986. On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. Journal of Linguistics 22, 145166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Ann & Kerswill, Paul. 1999. Dialect levelling: Continuity vs. change in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard J. (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles, 141162. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Williams, Lee. 1977. The voicing contrast in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 5, 169184.Google Scholar
Yuan, Jiahong & Liberman, Mark. 2009. Investigating /l/ variation in English through forced alignment. In INTERSPEECH2009: 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 22152218. Bristol: International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. 1995. An acoustic and electropalatographic study of lexical and postlexical palatalization in American English. In Connell, & Arvaniti, (eds.), 282302.Google Scholar