A consonant pronounced without the larynx vibrating.

“Voiceless” redirects here. For other uses, see Voiceless (disambiguation) .

This article, much like a poorly constructed alibi, includes a list of general references , but it’s conspicuously lacking in the precise, damning evidence of corresponding inline citations . It’s an oversight that frankly, makes one question the entire premise. Please, for the love of clarity, help to improve this article by introducing more rigorous and specific citations. (August 2008) ( Learn how and when to remove this message )

Voiceless ◌̥ ◌̊ Encoding Entity (decimal) ̥ Unicode • (hex) U+0325

In the rather dry and often tedious field of linguistics , voicelessness refers to the distinct property of sounds being produced without the larynx engaging in its usual rhythmic vibration. From a phonological standpoint, it’s a specific type of phonation , standing in stark contrast to other states of the larynx. However, some pedantic souls argue that the very word “phonation” implies voicing , and therefore, voicelessness is merely the absence of phonation. A semantic quibble, perhaps, but one that reveals a certain… dedication to precision.

The esteemed International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) furnishes us with a generous array of distinct letters for many voiceless and modally voiced consonant pairs. These are most notably found among the obstruents —the stops, fricatives, and affricates—such as the familiar [p b], [t d], [k ɡ], [q ɢ], [c ɟ], [f v], and [s z]. Beyond these primary distinctions, the IPA also employs diacritics to denote voicelessness. The most common are U+ 0325 ◌̥ COMBINING RING BELOW and U+ 030A ◌̊ COMBINING RING ABOVE. The latter is reserved for letters that possess a descender . These diacritics are typically applied to letters that represent sounds that are prototypically voiced, such as vowels and sonorant consonants . Examples include [ḁ] for a voiceless schwa, [l̥] for a voiceless ’l’, and [ŋ̊] for a voiceless velar nasal. It’s worth noting that in the Russian application of the IPA, the diacritic for voicing can be inverted to signify voicelessness, for instance, ⟨ṋ⟩. [1]

Voiceless Vowels and Other Sonorants

Sonorants , a category that encompasses sounds like vowels and nasals , are, in the vast majority of the world’s languages, inherently voiced. Yet, as is often the case with linguistic rules, there are exceptions. In certain languages, sonorants can indeed be voiceless, though this often occurs allophonically , meaning it’s a variation of a sound dependent on its context. A prime example can be found in the Japanese word [sukiyaki]. It’s pronounced [sɯ̥kijaki], and to an untrained English ear, it might even sound akin to [skijaki]. However, a closer observation reveals the subtle compression of the lips, a visual cue for the production of the voiceless [ɯ̥]. citation needed A remarkably similar phenomenon occurs in English words such as “peculiar” ([pʰə̥ˈkj̊uːliɚ]) and “potato” ([pʰə̥ˈtʰeɪ̯ɾoʊ̯]), where the vowels adjacent to voiceless stops can become partially or fully voiceless.

Voiceless vowels also manifest as an areal feature, a linguistic characteristic shared across a geographical region, in the languages of the American Southwest , including tongues like Hopi and Keres . This trait extends to the Great Basin , encompassing all the Numic languages , and further into the Great Plains . Here, they are present not only in the Numic language Comanche but also in the Algonquian language Cheyenne , and the Caddoan language Arikara . An outlier in Micronesia , the Woleaian language also exhibits voiceless vowels, a stark contrast to its neighboring languages, which tend to simply omit them entirely.

Reports of contrastively voiceless vowels—meaning they serve to distinguish word meanings, not just appear in specific phonetic environments—have surfaced numerous times, yet they remain persistently unverified (L&M 1996:315). It’s a persistent rumor in the linguistic world, like a ghost in the machine.

Sonorants can also be contrastively voiceless, not merely environmentally determined. Standard Tibetan , for instance, boasts a voiceless /l̥/ in the Lhasa dialect. This sound bears a resemblance to, but is produced with less friction than, the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative /ɬ/ found in Welsh . Crucially, it stands in phonemic contrast to a modally voiced /l/. The Welsh language itself provides a rich palette of contrasting voiceless sonorants: /m, m̥/, /n, n̥/, /ŋ, ŋ̊/, and even /r, r̥/, the last often represented orthographically as “rh”.

Delving into the intricacies of Moksha , we find an even more unusual sound: a voiceless palatal approximant /j̊/, transliterated in Cyrillic as ⟨й х ⟩ (jh). This accompanies the existing voiceless lateral and trilled /l̥/ and /r̥/ (rendered as ⟨л х⟩ lh and ⟨р х⟩ rh, respectively). These latter two sounds possess palatalized counterparts, /l̥ʲ/ and /r̥ʲ/ (represented by ⟨ль х⟩ and ⟨рьх⟩). The Kildin Sami language also features a voiceless palatal approximant /j̊/, denoted by ⟨ҋ ⟩.

Lack of Voicing Contrast in Obstruents

A significant number of languages opt out of maintaining a distinction between voiced and voiceless obstruents —that is, stops, affricates, and fricatives. This is a pervasive characteristic of nearly all Australian languages and is remarkably widespread in other linguistic families as well, appearing in languages such as Mandarin Chinese , Korean , Danish , Estonian , and the diverse Polynesian languages .

In many of these languages, obstruents adopt a chameleon-like behavior: they are realized as voiced sounds when situated in voiced environments—think between vowels or between a vowel and a nasal—and revert to their voiceless counterparts in other positions, such as word-initially or word-finally, or when adjacent to another obstruent. This pattern holds true for Dravidian and Australian languages, as well as Korean. However, it’s notably absent in Mandarin and Polynesian languages. Typically, linguists transcribe these variable sounds using the IPA symbols for voiceless consonants. Yet, for Australian languages, there’s a curious tendency to employ the letters designated for voiced consonants.

It appears that “voicelessness” itself is not a monolithic concept across these languages. In some, like the Polynesian languages, the vocal folds are compelled to actively open, facilitating an unimpeded, silent airstream. This state is occasionally referred to as a “breathed phonation,” a term that, understandably, can be confused with breathy voice . In contrast, in many Australian languages, voicing simply ceases during the closure phase of a stop consonant (as few Australian languages possess any other obstruent type). This cessation occurs due to insufficient airflow to sustain vibration. If the vocal folds happen to open in these instances, it’s typically due to passive relaxation rather than active effort.

Consequently, Polynesian stops are documented as being held for longer durations than their Australian counterparts and are rarely voiced. Australian stops, on the other hand, are more prone to exhibiting voiced variants (L&M 1996:53). It’s for this reason that these languages are often described as having no phonemically voiceless consonants at all.

In the linguistic landscape of Southeast Asia , when stops occur at the very end of a word, they are invariably voiceless. This is attributed to the glottis being closed, not open, during their production. Some phoneticians classify these sounds as “unphonated” (lacking phonation), considering “breathed” voicelessness to be a form of phonation itself. [2]

The consonants of Yidiny are characterized by a complete absence of underlyingly voiceless consonants. [3]