The English prefix 'in-' (meaning 'not') surfaces as 'im-' in 'impossible' and 'il-' in 'illegal,' but remains 'in-' in 'indirect.' What type of assimilation is operating, and in which direction?
AProgressive assimilation — the nasal copies features from the preceding vowel /ɪ/
BRegressive assimilation — the nasal copies the place of articulation of the following consonant
CTotal assimilation — the nasal becomes completely identical to the following consonant in all features
DProgressive assimilation — the following consonant copies the nasality feature from the prefix nasal
This is regressive (anticipatory) assimilation: the *following* sound influences the *preceding* sound. The underlying nasal /n/ is coronal (alveolar), but before the bilabial /p/ in 'impossible,' it assimilates to labial place, becoming [m]. Before the lateral /l/ in 'illegal,' it assimilates fully to lateral. The nasal 'looks ahead' at the upcoming consonant and borrows its place feature — regressive because the influence flows backward (right to left). Before /d/ in 'indirect,' /d/ is also coronal, so /n/ stays [n] — no change is needed. Option C (total assimilation) would require the nasal to become identical in *all* features, not just place.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
In English, the plural suffix has an underlying form /z/, but surfaces as [s] in 'cats' and [z] in 'dogs.' What phonological process is operating?
ARegressive place assimilation — the suffix borrows the place of articulation of the final root consonant
BProgressive voicing assimilation — the suffix adopts the voicing specification of the final consonant of the root
CTotal assimilation — the suffix becomes fully identical to the final consonant of the root in all features
DDissimilation — the suffix contrasts with the voicing of the root's final consonant to avoid repetition
This is progressive voicing assimilation: the *preceding* sound influences the *following* one. The root-final consonant /t/ in 'cat' is [-voice], and this voicing value spreads forward onto the suffix, making /z/ surface as [s]. The root-final /g/ in 'dog' is [+voice], so the suffix remains [z]. The direction is progressive (left to right): the preceding segment's feature propagates onto the following one. Note this is specifically voicing (not place), so option A is wrong — the place of /t/ is not copied. Option C (total assimilation) would require the suffix to become identical to /t/ in every feature, producing /tts/, which doesn't happen.
Question 3 True / False
In regressive assimilation, the preceding (earlier) sound influences the following (later) sound.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is the most common direction-of-assimilation confusion. Regressive assimilation means the *following* sound influences the *preceding* one — the influence flows backward (right to left). The term 'regressive' refers to the direction of influence: the cause is downstream and the effect is upstream. This is also called *anticipatory* assimilation — the preceding sound anticipates features of the upcoming sound. Progressive assimilation is the reverse: the preceding sound influences the following one, with influence flowing forward (left to right). The English plural example ([kæts] vs [dɒgz]) is progressive; the 'in-/im-/il-' example is regressive.
Question 4 True / False
Assimilation is a regular, rule-governed phonological process that applies predictably based on the phonological context of neighboring sounds.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Assimilation is systematic, not random. The 'in-' prefix always surfaces as [m] before bilabials and always as [n] before coronals — with no exceptions in native English vocabulary. The English plural suffix always devoices after voiceless consonants and remains voiced after voiced ones. These patterns can be stated as formal phonological rules of the form A → B / C __ D ('sound A becomes B when preceded by C and followed by D'). The fact that assimilation is regular is what allows it to extend automatically to new words — a nonce word ending in /p/ will automatically take the plural [s], not [z], because the rule applies productively.
Question 5 Short Answer
What articulatory motivation underlies assimilation, and how does this motivation help explain why regressive (anticipatory) assimilation tends to be more common across the world's languages than progressive assimilation?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Assimilation is motivated by articulatory efficiency: producing two adjacent sounds requires transitioning between different articulatory configurations, and that transition costs muscular effort. If neighboring sounds share features (e.g., both bilabial, or both voiced), the tongue and lips do not need to change position between them, reducing the physical cost of articulation. Regressive assimilation tends to be more common because speakers plan upcoming sounds in advance — the articulatory system begins preparing for the next sound before the current one is finished. This anticipatory co-articulation means the features of the upcoming sound 'bleed back' into the current sound during its production. Progressive assimilation does occur (as in the English plural), but the forward-planning nature of speech production makes anticipation of future sounds the more natural direction.
This articulatory efficiency account explains not just assimilation but many other phonological processes: deletion of difficult consonant clusters, vowel harmony in Turkish and Finnish (vowels throughout a word share front/back features), and nasal spread in some languages. The common thread is reduction of articulatory cost. Understanding the phonetic motivation helps you predict which features are most likely to assimilate (place and voicing are common; manner features less so) and in which contexts.