Two-way laryngeal systems are classified by Laryngeal Realism into [voice] languages (or “L-systems”, e.g., Slavic, Romance) and [spread glottis] ([sg]; or aspiration) languages (or “H-systems”, e.g., the typical Germanic pattern). More recently, Cyran (2014) has proposed Laryngeal Relativism (LR), claiming that phonetic interpretation is arbitrary, and as a result, two phonetically identical systems, even two dialects of a language, may turn out to diverge phonologically. His example is Polish: while Warsaw Polish represents the typical [voice]/L-system, he analyses phonetically identical Cracow Polish as an H-system (counter to Laryngeal Realism’s uniform classification of Slavic languages). However, in the “classical” version of [sg] languages (e.g., English), no laryngeal activity in the form of any kind of spreading is attested, which suggests the absence of any source element and, instead, a dominant role of obstruency (|h|). We, therefore, arrive at a three-way typology: h-systems, H-systems and L-systems. At the same time, arbitrary phonetic interpretation in LR predicts the existence of, e.g., h-systems with virtually no aspiration in the fortis series. We claim that this is indeed the characterisation of Italian. Using data from potential feature spreading situations, elicited in loanword and foreign accent settings, we show that Italian is an h-system, exhibiting no true laryngeal activity.

In the literature of laryngeal phonology Romance languages are considered voice languages, exhibiting a binary distinction between a voiced lenis and a voiceless fortis set of obstruents. Voice languages are characterised by regressive voice assimilation (RVA) due to the phonological activity of [voice]. Italian manifests a process similar to RVA, called preconsonantal s-voicing; that is, /s/ becomes voiced before voiced consonants. Since /sC/ is the only obstruent cluster in Italian phonotactics, Italian seems to fulfil the requirements for being a prototypical voice language. However, this paper argues that s-voicing is not an instance of RVA, at least from a synchronic phonological point of view. RVA and Italian preconsonantal s-voicing essentially differ at every level of a synchronic comparison: in the input, in the trigger, in the domain of application and in the frequency of the processes. In Italian only sibilant fricatives may undergo voicing before consonants; however, other obstruents (which mostly appear in loanwords) do not assimilate for [voice]. Italian preconsonantal s-voicing does not take place at the word boundary or at morpheme boundaries, and it seems to be optional is new loanwords; thus, it is not a postlexical process like RVA. The synchronic differences between the two phenomena are analysed in Classical Optimality Theory. The laryngeal system of Italian prefers faithfulness over markedness, which means that non-/sC/ obstruent clusters surface with underlying voice values; while the voicing of /s/ before voiced consonants is seen as phonetic and not phonological.