Phonetic Variation in German Fricative Voicing: Implications for Phonological Theory
This paper reports on the result of an experiment that was designed to test the different predictions
of two phonological analyses of German fricative voicing. In spite of the fact that there is
considerable variation in voicing, we argue that the results support only one of the analyses.
Jessen & Ringen (2002) argue that the contrast in German stops is one of [spread glottis] (sg) vs.
no laryngeal specification. Hence, there is no syllable-final devoicing of stops: all stops are voiceless
unless (variably) voiced by passive voicing when between sonorants. However, their analysis says
nothing about fricatives. Unlike stops, German fricatives do contrast for voicing in word-initial
position (wir [v] 'we', vier [f] 'four'), and there is a clear voice contrast in intervocalic position as well
(Gräs-er [z] 'grass PL', Füß-e [s] 'foot PL') (Jessen 1998). Hence, it might be suggested that although
there is no coda devoicing of stops in German, there is coda devoicing of fricatives (Gras [s] ('SG').
An analysis that bans [voice] for obstruents in coda position (Ito & Mester 1998) and one that
preserves [voice] only in pre-sonorant position (Steriade 1997, Padgett 1995, Lombardi 1999,
Beckman 1998) make similar predictions about devoicing of fricatives. For example, both accounts
predict the devoicing of /z/ in verloste [s]`raffle 1SG/3SG PAST' < verlo/z+t/e (cf. verlosen [z], INF).
Specifically, the underlyingly voiced fricative is devoiced by the coda devoicing analysis because it is
in a coda, and by the positional faithfulness account because it is not in pre-sonorant position.
However, the two accounts differ in crucial cases where an underlying voiced fricative occurs
before a sonorant consonant, as in gruslig 'spooky' (cf. gruseln [z] 'to spook') and fasrig 'fibrous' (cf.
Faser [z] 'fiber'), and where [zl] and [zr] are not possible onsets. Here, if speakers produce [z] rather
than [s], we have evidence that there is no coda devoicing because the syllabification must be
gru[z.l]ig, fa[z.r]ig. In contrast, the voiced pronunciation is predicted by an analysis with faithfulness
to voicing in pre-sonorant position. (A possible pronunciation with a syllabic sonorant consonant is
consistent with either analysis.)
36 native speakers of Standard German, both male and female, were recorded in a sound-treated
room in Bielefeld, Germany. Subjects read a list of sentences, some containing words with the
relevant structure (fasrig, etc.). Acoustic examination based on spectrograms and waveforms revealed
variability across speakers and target words in the phonetic realization of the relevant phonologically
voiced fricatives: both voiceless and voiced realizations occurred frequently, with voiced tokens
occurring more frequently than voiceless ones.
We argue that even though there is substantial variation in the voicing of an input voiced fricative
in pre-sonorant position, the variation can be understood in the positional faithfulness analysis as
variable (phonetic) failure to achieve voicing in segments in which voicing is difficult. There is no
comparable explanation available for the coda devoicing analysis. Specifically, proponents of the coda
devoicing analysis claim that, in words like gruslig, the feature [voice] should not surface because the
fricative occurs in coda position. However, they might claim that the coda fricative could still be
(variably) voiced, as it is in our data, due to variable voicing of fricatives between sonorants, which
occurs in the phonetics. But such an alternative account would not work for the following reason.
When the control items (e.g. wässrig 'full of water') were examined acoustically, it turned out that the
fricatives /s/ in these words are systematically voiceless. If a phonetic process of fricative voicing
between sonorants occurs, why would words like wässrig be systematically excluded from such a
process? The different phonological category of words like gruslig on the one hand (phonologically
voiced) and words like gruslig on the other hand (phonologically voiceless) cannot be responsible,
since due to coda devoicing the alveolar fricatives in both words would be left without a [voice]
specification.
It might seem that the coda devoicing analysis could assume Fric-sg (Fricatives are [sg], Vaux
1998), in order to prevent the non-alternating voiceless fricatives from being subject to passive
voicing. This analysis derives a [sg] fricative in (1) which is immune to passive voicing, as desired,
assuming that phonetic passive voicing occurs only with non-sg obstruents. However, as shown in (2),
this analysis will not be able to account for the voiced realizations of input voiced fricatives.
Conclusion: If the coda devoicing analysis includes FRIC-sg, the results are problematic. In the
case of gruslig, the grammar produces an output with a voiceless [sg] fricative--fine for the tokens
which are voiceless, but totally inconsistent with an attempt to account for the voiced tokens with
phonetic intersonorant passive voicing. A grammar without FRIC-sg also fails to conform to the
attested phonetic data, as it predicts passive voicing of voiceless fricatives, such as the /s/ of wässrig,
which never exhibit variable voicing.
(1) Coda Devoicing, assuming FRIC-SG; unspecified input fricative
*VOICODA FRIC-SG ID[sg] *VOIOBS *SG
wä/s/r-ig *VOI/SG
wä[ssg].rig * *
wä[z].rig *! * *
wä[s].rig *!
sg
wä[z ].rig *! * * * *
(2) Coda Devoicing, assuming FRIC-SG; voiced input fricative
*VOICODA FRIC-SG ID[sg] *VOIOBS *SG
gru/z/l+ig *VOI/SG
gru[ssg].lig * *
gru[z].lig *! * *
gru[s].lig *!
gru[zsg].lig *! * * * *
REFERENCES
Beckman, Jill N. (1998) Positional Faithfulness. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts. Published
1999 by Garland Publishing.
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester (1998) "Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese," ms.
University of California at Santa Cruz. [ROA-211255--0498].
Jessen, Michael (1998) Phonetics and Phonology of Tense and Lax Obstruents in German.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jessen, Michael & Catherine Ringen (2002) "Laryngeal features in German," Phonology 19.2:189-
218.
Lombardi, Linda (1999) "Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory,"
NLLT 17:276-302.
Padgett, J. (1995) "Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation" in K. Suzuki & D. Elsinga,
eds., Proceedings of the Southwest Optimality Theory Workshop, The University of Arizona
Coyote Papers, Tucson, AZ, 145-183.
Steriade, Donca (1997) "Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization", ms. UCLA.
Vaux, Bert (1998) "The laryngeal specifications of fricatives," Linguistic Inquiry 29.3:497-512.