%0 Journal Article
%T DISTINCTIVE [VOICE] DOES NOT IMPLY REGRESSIVE ASSIMILATION:EVIDENCE FROM SWEDISH
%A Catherine Ringen
%A P¨¦tur Helgason
%J International Journal of English Studies (IJES)
%D 2004
%I Universidad de Murcia
%R 10.6018/ijes.4.2.47981
%X In a recent paper, van Rooy & Wissing (2001) distinguish between the "broad interpretation" and the "narrow interpretation" of the feature [voice]. According to the broad interpretation, languages with a two way [voice] contrast may implement this contrast phonetically with any two of the following: voice onset precedes plosive release (prevoicing), voice onset immediately follows plosive release, voice onset substantially lags behind plosive release. According to the narrow interpretation, [voice] is employed only in languages with prevoicing in word-intial stops. According to van Rooy & Wissing, languages with prevoicing always have only regressive voice assimilation. The purpose of this paper is twofold: First we show that Swedish employs the feature [voice] on the narrow interpretation, but does not have regressive voice assimilation. Second, we present an OT account of the Swedish data which involves both features [voice] and [spread glottis].
%K Distinctive Features
%K Laryngeal Features
%K Optimality Theory
%K Prevoicing
%K Regressive Assimilation
%K [spread glottis]
%K Swedish
%K [voice]
%K Voice Assimilation.
%U http://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/47981