Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. 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 Phonetics32:4.455–491. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alphen, Petra M. van.
    2007 “Prevoicing in Dutch initial plosives. Production, perception and word recognition”. Voicing in Dutch. (De)voicing – phonology, phonetics and psycholinguisticsed. by J. van de Weijer and E. J. van der Torre , 99–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.286.05alp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.286.05alp [Google Scholar]
  3. Avery, Peter & William J. Idsardi
    2001 “Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement”. Distinctive feature theoryed. by T. A. Hall , 41–70. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110886672.41
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886672.41 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckman, J. , P. Helgason , B. McMurray & C. Ringen
    2011 “Rate effects on Swedish VOT: evidence for phonological overspecification”. Journal of Phonetics39.39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckman, J. , M. Jessen & C. Ringen
    2013 “Empirical evidence for laryngeal features: aspirating vs. true voice languages”. Journal of Linguistics49:2.259–284. doi: 10.1017/S0022226712000424
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000424 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boersma, P. & D. Weenink
    2016 “Praat: doing phonetics by computer”. Version 6.0.12, www.praat.org (24 January 2016).
  7. Braun, Angelika
    1996 “Zur regionalen Distribution van VOT im Deutschen”. Untersuchungen zur Stimme und Spracheed. by A. Braun , 19–32. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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)10.149-200.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Halle, M. & K. Stevens
    1971 “A note on laryngeal features”. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics101.198–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamann, Silke R. & Klaas T. Seinhorst
    2016 Prevoicing in Standard German plosives: Implications for phonological representation?Poster presented atthe 13th Old World Conference in Phonology, 15 January, Budapest.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Honeybone, Patrick
    2005 “Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case of obstruent laryngeal specifications”. The internal organisation of segmentsed. by M. van Oostendorp and J. van de Weijer , 319–354. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110890402.317
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890402.317 [Google Scholar]
  12. Iverson, G. K. & J. C. Salmons
    1995 “Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic”. Phonology12.369–396. doi: 10.1017/S0952675700002566
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700002566 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1999 “Glottal spreading bias in Germanic”. Linguistische Berichte178.135–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jessen, M. & C. Ringen
    2002 “Laryngeal features in German”. Phonology19:2.189–218. doi: 10.1017/S0952675702004311
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675702004311 [Google Scholar]
  15. Keating, P. A.
    1984 “Phonetic and phonological representation of stop consonant voicing”. Language60:2.286–319. doi: 10.2307/413642
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413642 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lindow, Wolfgang , Dieter Möhn , Hermann Niebaum , Dieter Stellmacher , Hans Taubken & Jan Wirrer
    1998Niederdeutsche Grammatik. Leer: Verlag Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lisker, L. & A. S. Abramson
    1964 “A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustic measurements”. Word20:3.384–422. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830 [Google Scholar]
  18. Oostendorp, Marc van.
    2007 “Exceptions to Final Devoicing”. Voicing in Dutch. (De)voicing – phonology, phonetics and psycholinguisticsed. by J. van de Weijer and E. J. van der Torre , 99–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.286.04oos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.286.04oos [Google Scholar]
  19. Wetzels, W. L. & J. Mascaró
    2001 “The typology of voicing and devoicing”. Language77:2.207–244. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0123
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0123 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dialectology; Laryngeal Realism; phonetics; phonology; transition zones
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error