2020
DOI: 10.1353/lan.2020.0022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Final obstruent voicing in Lakota: Phonetic evidence and phonological implications

Abstract: Final obstruent devoicing is common in the world's languages and constitutes a clear case of parallel phonological evolution. Final obstruent voicing, in contrast, is claimed to be rare or nonexistent. Two distinct theoretical approaches crystalize around obstruent voicing patterns. Traditional markedness accounts view these sound patterns as consequences of universal markedness constraints prohibiting voicing, or favoring voicelessness, in final position, and predict that final obstruent voicing does not exis… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, some languages have word-final devoicing of voiced obstruents (e.g., German, Dutch), while others allow both voiced and voiceless obstruents in word-final position (e.g., English). No language, as far as we know, employs a word-final voicing rule ( Reiss, 2017 ; although see Blevins et al, 2020 for a potential recent counterexample).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, some languages have word-final devoicing of voiced obstruents (e.g., German, Dutch), while others allow both voiced and voiceless obstruents in word-final position (e.g., English). No language, as far as we know, employs a word-final voicing rule ( Reiss, 2017 ; although see Blevins et al, 2020 for a potential recent counterexample).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, one of the most convincing cases against unnatural alternations in synchronic grammars is that of final (de)voicing. While final devoicing is a highly common and phonetically motivated process Steriade 1997; Iverson & Salmons 2011 its unnatural counterpart -final voicing -is not attested in any language as a synchronic process (Kiparsky 2006(Kiparsky , 2008; for a possible exception, see Yu 2004;de Lacy 2002;Blevins et al 2020). This has led some scholars to conclude that final voicing is an impossible synchronic alternation (Kiparsky, 2006(Kiparsky, , 2008.…”
Section: On Naturalnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An extreme example of this is examined in Blevins (2017aBlevins ( , 2020, with a targeted typology of languages that have a regular sound change of cluster-splitting epenthesis of #TRV >> #TVRV, T an oral stop, and R a sonorant consonant. While this phonological process is well known from studies of loan word phonology (Fleischhacker 2001(Fleischhacker , 2005 where it is typically attributed to the effects of Universal Grammar in the absence of complex onsets in the target language, cluster-splitting epenthesis as regular sound change 9 See Beguš (2020: 530, fn.12), where Blevins et al (2020) is said to have "limited data on alternations and no data on productivity". This is disconcerting since we emphasize that the synchronic alternations formalized in (5) and exemplified in of that work, "are regular and, as far as we can tell, productive" occurring both in new compounds, as well as in words that have undergone (optional, post-lexical, fast-speech) loss of final unstressed vowels (p. 308).…”
Section: The Role Of Contact In Rare Sound Patternsmentioning
confidence: 99%