The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics 2020
DOI: 10.1017/9781108378291.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Germanic Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results therefore indicate that the transfer effect is a phonetic one rather than being at the phonological level. In this interpretation, WA is specified for [voice] but has a phonetic enhancement (Salmons 2020) in the form of a spread glottis gesture for the voiceless series, similar to what Avery & Idsardi (2001) argue for Japanese. 2 The voiceless stops do not get voiced in word-medial position because of this spread glottis gesture.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Our results therefore indicate that the transfer effect is a phonetic one rather than being at the phonological level. In this interpretation, WA is specified for [voice] but has a phonetic enhancement (Salmons 2020) in the form of a spread glottis gesture for the voiceless series, similar to what Avery & Idsardi (2001) argue for Japanese. 2 The voiceless stops do not get voiced in word-medial position because of this spread glottis gesture.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Features that are active in phonological processes mark the relevant phoneme(s). Therefore we look to the directionality of laryngeal assimilations to determine whether we should consider aspiration or voicing as the relevant contrast between t and d. For Norwegian, as well as for most of Germanic (Iverson & Salmons 1995, Allen 2016, Salmons 2020, the so-called 'voiceless' or fortis consonants are active, spreading their 'voicelessness' to the inactive 'voiced' consonants in relevant environments, as in trygg [t h ɾ̥ ʏɡ] 'safe (M.SG/F.SG)' vs. trygt [t h ɾ̥ ʏkt] 'safe-N.SG' (cf. *[t h ɾ̥ ʏɡd]).…”
Section: Phonological Representations: Events Features and Precedencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…*[t h ɾ̥ ʏɡd]). 5 Fortis consonants are aspirated initially and may induce both progressive and regressive sonorant devoicing (Kristoffersen 2000, Allen 2016). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the feature [voice] has any active role in assimilatory processes in Norwegian.…”
Section: Phonological Representations: Events Features and Precedencementioning
confidence: 99%