Advertisement

Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited

  • Ulrike DomahsEmail author
  • Ingo Plag
  • Rebecca Carroll
Original Paper

Abstract

English, German, and Dutch show very similar word stress patterns, in that word stress is not fixed to a certain position within a word, but realized within the final three syllables. There is, however, no consensus on the actual stress-assigning algorithms and the role of quantity (e.g., Kiparsky 1982; Wiese 2000; Hayes 1995; Giegerich 1985, 1992; Trommelen and Zonneveld 1999a, b). Existing studies are methodologically problematic since they largely depend on convenience samples of existing words and do not test their claims with new words. Using mixed effects regression and classification trees as analytical tools, this paper presents the results of a production experiment with pseudowords and an analysis of large random samples as found in the CELEX lexical database. It is shown that stress assignment is sensitive to syllabic weight in all three languages, though in slightly different ways. The implications of these results for the metrical structure of the three languages are discussed.

Keywords

Germanic word stress quantity-sensitivity pseudoword production task corpus analysis metrical prosody 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alber, Birgit. 1997. Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction. In Phonology in progress: Progress in phonology, ed. Gert Booij and J. van de Weijer, 1–45. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
  2. Albright, Adam. 2009. Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26: 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arciuli, Joanne, Padraic Monaghan, and Nada Seva. 2010. Learning to assign lexical stress during reading aloud: Corpus, behavioural and computational investigations. Journal of Memory and Language 63: 180–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2011. Towards an exemplar-based model of English compound stress. Journal of Linguistics 47(3): 549–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baayen, Harald R. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baayen, Harald R., Richard Piepenbrock, and L. Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  7. Baayen, R.H., D.J. Davidson, and D.M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates, D., D. Sarkar, M. Bates, and L. Matrix. 2007. The lme4 package. R Package Version 2(4): 1.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Booij, Geert. 1999. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Booij, Geert, and Jerzy Rubach. 1992. Lexical phonology. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. William Bright, 293–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burzio, Luigi. 1987. English stress. In Certamen Phonologicum: Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting, ed. Pier M. Bertinetto and Michele Loporcaro, 153–175. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
  13. Burzio, Luigi. 1991. English vowel length and foot structure. In Certamen Phonologicum II. Papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology Meeting, ed. Pier M. Bertinetto and Michael Kenstowicz, 121–145. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
  14. Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  16. Cutler, Anne, and Dennis Norris. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 113–121.Google Scholar
  17. Cutler, Anne, and Wilma van Donselaar. 2001. Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech 44: 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daelemans, Walter, Steven Gillis, and Gert Durieux. 1994. The acquisition of stress: a data-oriented approach. Computational Linguistics 20: 421–451.Google Scholar
  19. Domahs, Ulrike, Richard Wiese, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, and Matthias Schlesewsky. 2008. The processing of German word stress: Evidence for the prosodic hierarchy. Phonology 25(1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenberg, Peter. 1991. Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10: 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernestus, Mirjam, and R. Harald Baayen. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ernestus, Miriam, and Anneke Neijt. 2008. Word length and the location of primary word stress in Dutch, German, and English. Linguistics 46(3): 507–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Féry, Caroline. 1986. Metrische Phonologie und Wortakzent im Deutschen. Studium Linguistik 20: 16–43.Google Scholar
  24. Féry, Caroline. 1998. German word stress in Optimality Theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 101–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giegerich, Heinz. 1985. Metrical phonology and phonological structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Giegerich, Heinz. 1992. English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guion, Susan G., J.J. Clark, Tetsuo Harada, and Ratree P. Wayland. 2003. Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words. Language and Speech 46(4): 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gupta, Prahlad, and Dave Touretzky. 1994. Connectionist models and linguistic theory: Investigations of stress systems in language. Cognitive Science 18: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2009. Vowel duration, syllable quantity, and stress in Dutch. In The nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. Hanson Kristin and Inkelas Sharon, 181–198. Cambridge, MA/London, UK: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, Tracy A. 1992. Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hammond, Michael. 2004. Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology. International Journal of English Studies 4: 1–24.Google Scholar
  32. Hayes, Bruce. 1982. Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 227–276.Google Scholar
  33. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hothorn, Torsten and Achim Zeileis. 2012. Partykit: A Toolkit for Recursive Partytioning. Version 0.1-4.Google Scholar
  35. Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  36. Janßen [Domahs], Ulrike, and Frank Domahs. 2008. Going on with optimised feet: Evidence for the interaction between segmental and metrical structure in phonological encoding from a case of primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 22(11): 1157–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Janßen [Domahs], Ulrike. 2003. Untersuchungen zum Wortakzent im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Düsseldorf. Available (September 2012) http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=972217770&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=972217770.pdf
  38. Jessen, Michael. 1999. German. In Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, ed. Harry van der Hulst, 515–545. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Kager, René. 1989. A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation. (= Linguistic Models 14). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Kaltenbacher, Erika. 1994. Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents: Zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13: 20–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kass, G.V. 1980. An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. Applied Statistics 29(2): 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In The structure of phonological representations, vol. 1, ed. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 131–175. Doordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  43. Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2: 83–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knaus, Johannes, and Ulrike Domahs. 2009. Experimental evidence for optimal and minimal metrical structure of German word prosody. Lingua 119: 1396–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lahiri, Aditi, and Jacques Koreman. 1988. Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch. Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 217–228.Google Scholar
  46. Liberman, Marc Y., and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Lingustic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
  47. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 236–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plag, Ingo. 2010. Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwisenschaft 29(2): 243–282.Google Scholar
  50. Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter, Sabine Lappe, and Maria Braun. 2008. The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84(4): 760–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University Technical Report No. 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  52. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Vienna: Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.Google Scholar
  53. Ramers, Karl Heinz 1992. Ambisilbische Konsonanten im Deutschen. In Silbenphonologie des Deutschen, ed. Peter Eisenberg, Karl Heinz Ramers, and Heinz Vater 246–283 Tübingen: Narr (= Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 42).Google Scholar
  54. Rietveld, Toni, Joop Kerkhoff, and Carlos Gussenhoven. 2004. Word prosodic structure and vowel duration in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32: 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roca, Iggy. 1992. Constraining extrametricality. In Phonologica 1988, ed. Wolfgang Dressler, Hans Lüschutzky, Oskar Pfeiffer, and John Rennison, 239–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Röttger, Timo, Ulrike Domahs, Marion Grande, and Frank Domahs. 2012. Structural factors affecting the assignment of word stress in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24(1): 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, Philip T., and Robert G. Baker. 1976. The influence of English spelling on pronunciation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15: 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trommelen, Mieke, and Wim Zonneveld. 1989. Klemtoon en Metrische Fonologie. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
  59. Trommelen, Mike, and Wim Zonneveld. 1999a. English. In Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, ed. Harry van der Hulst, 478–491. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  60. Trommelen, Mike, and Wim Zonneveld. 1999b. Dutch. In Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, ed. Harry van der Hulst, 492–515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  61. van der Hulst, Harry G. 1984. Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  62. Van der Hulst, Harry G. 2003. Dutch syllable structure meets Government Phonology. In A new century of phonology and phonological theory: A festschrift for professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. Honma Takeru, Okazaki Masao, Tabata Toshiyuki, and Tanaka Shin-ichi, 313–343. Tokyo, Japan: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
  63. van Donselaar, Wilma, Mariëtte Koster, and Anne Cutler. 2005. Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A 58: 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Oostendorp, Marc. 1995. Vowel quality and syllable projection. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  65. Vennemann, Theo. 1990. Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German. Chicago Linguistic Society 26(2): 399–412.Google Scholar
  66. Vennemann, Theo. 1991. Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard German. In Certamen Phonologicum II: Papers from the Cortona Phonology Meeting 1990, ed. Pier M. Bertinetto, Michael Kenstowicz, and Michele Loporcaro, 211–245. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
  67. Vennemann, Theo. 1995. Der Zusammenbruch der Metrik im Spätmittelalter und sein Einfluss auf die Metrik. In Quantitätsproblematik und Metrik, ed. Hans Fix, 185–223. Amsterdam: Radopi. Greifswalder Symposion zur germanistischen Grammatik.Google Scholar
  68. Wiese, Richard. 2000. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1970. Der Fremdwortakzent im Deutschen. Linguistics 56: 87–108.Google Scholar
  70. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1980. Der deutsche Wortakzent: Fakten - Regeln - Prinzipien. Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen Akzenttheorie. Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3: 299–318.Google Scholar
  71. Zevin, Jason, and Marc Joanisse. 2000. Stress assignment in nonword reading. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences 41B: S5.Google Scholar
  72. Zonneveld, Wim, and Dominique Nouveau. 2004. Child word stress competence: an experimental approach. In Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. René Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 369–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für deutsche Sprache und LiteraturUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.English Language and LinguisticsUniversity of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Department of Dutch StudiesUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  4. 4.Institut für deutsche Sprache und LiteraturUniversität zu KölnKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations