Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:01:11.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic Conditions on Allomorph Selection in Dutch Derivational Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2004

Carol Fehringer
Carol Fehringer
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle School of Modern Languages, University of Newcastle, NE1 7RU, United KingdomCarol.Fehringer@ncl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the distribution of schwa-initial versus schwa-less allomorphs in specific areas of Dutch derivational morphology, with particular reference to Shannon's (1991) argument that schwa epenthesis is motivated by the need to improve poor syllable contacts. The present paper makes two basic claims. First, although optimization of syllable contacts may play a role in certain segmental constraints on the distribution of schwa, its main motivation is prosodic. That is to say, schwa-less suffix allomorphs follow a branching foot. If the foot is non-branching, schwa is inserted as a linking element to make it branch. Furthermore, it is also argued that monosyllabic feet can be branching, so that “heavy” syllables of this type pattern in the same way as two syllables. The second claim made here is that these prosodic conditions on schwa allomorphy are best formulated not in terms of a rule but rather as a schema in the sense of Bybee and Slobin 1982.I would like to thank Michael Wardle and Ricardo Bermudez-Otero for their very helpful advice and comments. I am also grateful to the following native speakers of Dutch for their cooperation: Arachne van der Eijk, Roel Vismans, Henriette Louwerse, Christy Irosemito, Willemien Reckman, Maarten Dijkstra, and Philip van der Eijk. Thanks also to an anonymous JGL reader for valuable feedback.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 297 - 324
Copyright
© 2003 Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Booij Geert. 1995 The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Booij Geert. 1999 Morpheme structure constraints and the phonotactics of Dutch. In van der Hulst and Ritter (eds.), 53– 68.
Bybee Joan L., and Dan I. Slobin. 1982 Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58. 265– 289.Google Scholar
Chapman Carol. 1993 Überlänge in North Saxon Low German: Evidence for the metrical foot. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 60. 129– 157.Google Scholar
van Dale. 1999 Van Dale groot woordenboek der nederlandse taal. 13th edn. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.
Dresher B. Elan, and Aditi Lahiri. 1991 The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 251– 286.Google Scholar
Dressler Wolfgang U. 1989 Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42. 3– 10.Google Scholar
Ewen Colin J. 1982 The internal structure of complex segments. The structure of phonological representations (part 2), ed. by Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 27– 68. Dordrecht: Foris.
Geerts G., W. Haseryn, J. de Rooij, and M. C. van den Toorn (eds.). 1984 Algemene nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Gussenhoven Carlos. 1993 The Dutch foot and the chanted call. Journal of Linguistics 29. 37– 63.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven Carlos. To appear. Vowel duration, syllable quantity, and stress in Dutch. The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hulst van der Harry. 1984 Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hulst van der Harry, and Nancy A. Ritter. 1991 Theories of the syllable. In van der Hulst and Ritter (eds.), 13– 52.
Hulst van der Harry, and Nancy A. Ritter (eds.). 1991 The syllable. Views and facts. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Institute of Dutch Lexicology. 1996 Thirty-eight- million word corpus. Available online at http://www.inl.nl.
Keating Patricia. 1991 Coronal places of articulation. The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence, ed. by Carole Paradis and Jean-François Prunet, 29– 48. San Diego: Academic Press.
Kooij Jan G. 1977 Schwa insertion in Dutch: Phonology or morphology? Phonologica 1976, ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and Thomas Herok, 65– 70. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Kooij Jan G. 1982 Epenthetische schwa: Processen, regels, domeinen. Spektator 11. 315– 325.Google Scholar
Liberman Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977 On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249– 336.Google Scholar
Pinker Steven. 1999 Words and rules. The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
Schönfeld Moritz. 1947 Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Thieme: Zutphen.
Selkirk Elisabeth O. 1984 On the major class features and syllable theory. Language sound structure, ed. by Mark Aronoff and Richard T. Oehrle, 107– 136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shannon Thomas F. 1991 On the relation between morphology and syllable structure: Universal preference laws in Dutch. The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989, ed. by Thomas F. Shannon and Johan P. Snapper, 173– 205. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Vennemann Theo. 1988 Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zec Draga. 1995 Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12. 85– 129.Google Scholar
Zonneveld Wim. 1993 Schwa, superheavies, stress, and syllables in Dutch. The Linguistic Review 10. 61– 110.Google Scholar