Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-ssw5r Total loading time: 0.478 Render date: 2022-08-11T12:02:31.114Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Jason Brown*
University of Auckland


Current typologies of voice assimilation between obstruents include languages that exhibit either assimilation to voicelessness (a type of emergence of the unmarked effect) or onset-controlled patterns, where the value controlling the change is in the onset obstruent. In either case, this type of local assimilation is considered to result in (contextually) unmarked structures. This article presents data that highlights a previously unrecognised pattern: assimilation resulting in voicing (an ‘emergence of the marked’ effect). This pattern has implications for how markedness is expressed in grammar. It is argued here that voicing is a privative feature, and that faithfulness constraints regulating the feature [voice] yield a rich typology that includes emergence of both marked and unmarked patterns. In addition, this typology yields benefits that are lost if voicing is considered a binary feature. This is illustrated by extending the dynamics of this voicing typology to other laryngeal features, such as [spread glottis].

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)



Thanks go first and foremost to Sam Mandal for constant discussion of the content of the paper, as well as for providing Bangla data; the work presented here was originally inspired by Mandal (2013). Thanks also to Chris Golston, Zoe Lippsett, Francis McWhannell, Miriam Meyerhoff, Nina Riikonen, three anonymous reviewers and an associate editor for reading and commenting extensively on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks are also due to audiences at the MARCS Institute at the University of Western Sydney, Macquarie University and the University of Auckland, and in particular to Cathi Best, Katherine Demuth, Michael Procter and Jason Shaw for helpful feedback. Much of this work was completed as a visiting researcher at the MARCS Institute; the support from that institution is gratefully acknowledged. The following individuals contributed valuable data or help with data: Shelome Gooden, Susanna Kirby, Peter Patrick, Paroma Sanyal, Jason Shaw, K. G. Vijayakrishnan and Catherine Watson. I am grateful to the editors for helpful comments, guidance and direction on the manuscript. All errors are my own.


Abu-Mansour, Mahasen (1996). Voice as a privative feature: assimilation in Arabic. In Eid, Mushira (ed.) Perspectives in Arabic Linguistics VIII. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 201231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D. (1917). The phonetics of the Bengali language. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London 1. 7984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1979). On the subsequent development of the ‘standard theory’ in phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 230.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter (1996). The representation of voicing contrasts. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter & Idsardi, William J. (2001). Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement. In Hall (2001). 4170.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter & Rice, Keren (1989). Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6. 179200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (1999). Assimilation to the unmarked. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6:1. 116.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Helgason, Pétur, McMurray, Bob & Ringen, Catherine (2011). Rate effects on Swedish VOT: evidence for phonological overspecification. JPh 39. 3949.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine (2013). Empirical evidence for laryngeal features: aspirating vs. true voice languages. JL 49. 259284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berendsen, Egon (1983). Final devoicing, assimilation, and subject clitics in Dutch. In Bennis, Hans & van Lessen Kloeke, W. U. S. (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris. 2129.Google Scholar
Biswas, Sailendra (2000). Samsad Bengali–English dictionary. 3rd edn. Calcutta: Sahitya Samsad.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 117166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliese, Loren F. (1981). A generative grammar of Afar. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni (2000). Word-faithfulness and the direction of assimilations. The Linguistic Review 17. 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 219252.Google Scholar
Butska, Luba (1998). Faithfulness to [voice] in Ukrainian: an analysis of voicing alternations in Optimality Theory. In Artstein, Ron & Holler, Madeleine (eds.) RuLing Papers 1: Working Papers from Rutgers University. New Brunswick: Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University. 5973.Google Scholar
Causley, Trisha (1997). Identity and featural correspondence: the Athapaskan case. NELS 27. 93105.Google Scholar
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (1926). The origin and development of the Bengali language. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu (1990a). Parameters of consonantal assimilation. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu (1990b). A typology of voicing assimilation. WCCFL 9. 141155.Google Scholar
Dan, Mina (2012). A sonority survey of the monosyllables in Bangla. In Otsuka, Hitomi, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina (eds.) More morphologies. Bochum: Brockmeyer. 6788.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devonish, Hubert & Harry, Otelemate G. (2008). Jamaican Creole and Jamaican English: phonology. In Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.) Varieties of English: the Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 256289.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J. (1992). The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Berlin & New York: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbert, Samuel H. & Pukui, Mary Kawena (1979). Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. & Chowdhury, Munier (1960). The phonemes of Bengali. Lg 36. 2259.Google Scholar
Gooden, Shelome & Donnelly, Erin (2009). The phonetics of implosive consonants in Jamaican Creole. Paper presented at the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference/83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund (1992). Resyllabification and delinking: the case of Polish voicing. LI 23. 2956.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie (2007). Laryngeal underspecification and Richness of the Base. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik & Krämer, Martin (eds.) Freedom of analysis? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1134.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie (2009). Laryngeal neutralization in Breton: loss of voice and loss of contrast. In Mailhot, Frédéric (ed.) Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Available (August 2016) at Scholar
Hall, T. Alan (ed.) (2001). Distinctive feature theory. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. Alan (2007). Comparative markedness vs. standard faithfulness theory: a typological comparison. Ms, Indiana University. Available as ROA-942 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1994). English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (1993). A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Lahiri, Aditi (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. NLLT 9. 4796.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2013). OTSoft 2.3.2. Software package. Scholar
Helgason, Pétur & Ringen, Catherine (2008). Voicing and aspiration in Swedish stops. JPh 36. 607628.Google Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. (1976). Khasi initial clusters. In Jenner, Philip N., Thompson, Laurence C. & Starosta, Stanley (eds.) (1976). Austroasiatic studies. Part 1. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 523538.Google Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. (1989–90). Khasi clusters and Greenberg's universals. Mon-Khmer Studies 18–19. 6166.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick (2005). Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case of laryngeal specifications. In van Oostendorp, Marc & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) The internal organization of phonological segments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 319354.Google Scholar
Houlihan, Kathleen (1977). On aspiration and deaspiration processes. In Eckman, Fred R. (ed.) Current themes in linguistics: bilingualism, experimental linguistics, and language typologies. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. 215239.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2004). Harmonic scales as faithfulness. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49. 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Tserdanelis, Georgios (2002). Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19. 441458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (1995). Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12. 369396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2003). Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2007). Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition. Phonology 24. 121145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2011). Final devoicing and final laryngeal neutralization. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 16221643.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael (1998). Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine (2002). Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19. 189218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René, van der Feest, Suzanne V. H., Fikkert, Paula, Kerkhoff, Annemarie & Zamuner, Tania S. (2007). Representations of [voice]: evidence from acquisition. In van de Weijer, & van der Torre, (2007). 4180.Google Scholar
Kar, Somdev (2012). Voicing agreement in Bangla word-medial consonant clusters. Indian Linguistics 73. 175184.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1984). Phonetic and phonological representation of stop consonant voicing. Lg 60. 286319.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, Abu-Mansour, Mahasen & Törkenczy, Miklós (2003). Two notes on laryngeal licensing. In Ploch, Stefan (ed.) Living on the edge: 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 259282.Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Lg 70. 419454.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2006). The amphichronic program vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 217236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. (1984). Phonetic explanation in phonology: the feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica 41. 150174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg & Rice, Keren (1995). A correspondence account of coalescence. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 211223.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (eds.) (2016). Ethnologue: languages of the world. 19th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Available at Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Abramson, Arthur S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20. 384422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloret, Maria-Rosa (1995). The representation of glottals in Oromo. Phonology 12. 257280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1991). Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1995). Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness. NLLT 13. 3974.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. NLLT 17. 267302.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (2001). Why Place and Voice are different: constraint-specific alternations in Optimality Theory. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.) Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25. 271319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24. 333379.Google Scholar
Mandal, Sam (2013). Place assimilation in Bangla: interactions among adjacent coronal obstruents. MA thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Mandal, Sam (ms). Voice assimilation in Bangla. University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1995). A reduction and spreading theory of voicing and other sound effects. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 267328.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin & Itô, Junko (1989). Feature predictability and underspecification: palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Lg 65. 258293.Google Scholar
Odden, David (2005). Introducing phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (1999). Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC̥ effects. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 310343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Olga, Plapp, Rosemary, Ringen, Catherine & Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd (2006). Voice and aspiration: evidence from Russian, Hungarian, German, Swedish, and Turkish. The Linguistic Review 23. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas (2004). A note on tonal markedness in Yoruba. Phonology 21. 409425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren (1994). Peripheral in consonants. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 39. 191216.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (2007). Markedness in phonology. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringen, Catherine & van Dommelen, Wim A. (2013). Quantity and laryngeal contrasts in Norwegian. JPh 41. 479490.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine & Helgason, Pétur (2004). Distinctive [voice] does not imply regressive assimilation: evidence from Swedish. International Journal of English Studies 4:2. 5371.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine & Kulikov, Vladimir (2012). Voicing in Russian stops: cross-linguistic implications. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 20. 269286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooy, Bertus van & Wissing, Daan (2001). Distinctive [voice] implies regressive voicing assimilation. In Hall (2001). 295334.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1996). Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish. LI 27. 69110.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette (2004). A grammar of Mosetén. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savà, Graziano (2005). A grammar of Ts'amakko. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Siptár, Péter & Törkenczy, Miklós (2000). The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ternes, Elmar (1970). Grammaire structural du Breton de l’île de Groix. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Thompson, Hanne-Ruth (2012). Bengali. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes (1985). Frisian reference grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert & Samuels, Bridget (2005). Laryngeal markedness and aspiration. Phonology 22. 395436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijayakrishnan, K. G. (2003). Weakening processes in the optimality framework. In van de Weijer, Jeroen, van Heuven, Vincent J. & van der Hulst, Harry (eds.) The phonological spectrum. Vol. 1: Segmental structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 241255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). The accents of English. Vol. 2: The British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weijer, Jeroen van de & van der Torre, Erik Jan (eds.) (2007). Voicing in Dutch: (de)voicing – phonology, phonetics, and psycholinguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo & Mascaró, Joan (2001). The typology of voicing and devoicing. Lg 77. 207244.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2004). Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian: phonetics and history. Lg 80. 7397.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jie (2000). Non-contrastive features and categorical patterning in Chinese diminutive suffixation: Max[F] or Ident[F]? Phonology 17. 427478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1998). Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim (1983). Lexical and phonological properties of Dutch voicing assimilation. In van der Broecke, Marcel, van Heuven, Vincent & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) Sound structures: studies for Antonie Cohen. Dordrecht: Foris. 297312.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim (2007). Issues in Dutch devoicing: positional faithfulness, positional markedness, and local conjunction. In van de Weijer, & van der Torre, (2007). 140.Google Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure 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 or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology*
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

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

Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology*
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

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

Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology*
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *