Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:51:11.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Factors Affecting the Assignment of Word Stress in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2012

Timo B. Röttger ,
Ulrike Domahs ,
Marion Grande  and
Frank Domahs
Timo B. Röttger*
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
Ulrike Domahs*
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Marion Grande*
Affiliation:
RWTH Aachen University Hospital
Frank Domahs*
Affiliation:
University of Marburg/RWTH Aachen University Hospital
*
Timo B. Röttger, Herbert-Levin-Str. 6, D-50931 Köln, Germany, [[email protected]]
Ulrike Domahs, Wilhelm-Röpke-Str. 6a, D-35032 Marburg, Germany, [[email protected]]
Marion Grande, Pauwelsstraße 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany, [email protected]
Frank Domahs, Pauwelsstraße 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims to shed light on regularities underlying German stress assignment. The results of a pseudoword production task suggest that rhyme complexity of the final syllable is a strong predictor of main stress position in German. We also found that antepenult rhyme complexity and orthographic rhyme structure have significant effect on stress assignment. In general, the effects seem to be probabilistic rather than categorical. Our results suggest that phonological theories of German word stress need to allow for multiple probabilistic factors, including syllabic structure of all stressable syllables and orthographic coding.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 07 February 2012 , pp. 53 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2012

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

REFERENCES

Alber, Birgit. 1997. Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction. Phonology in progress: Progress in phonology, ed. by Booij, Gert & van de Weijer, Jeroen, 1–45. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit. 2005. Clash, lapse, and directionality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 485–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arciuli, Joanne, & Cupples, Linda. 2006. The processing of lexical stress during visual word recognition: Typicality effects and orthographic correlates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59. 920–948.Google Scholar
Arciuli, Joanne, & Cupples, Linda. 2007. Would you rather ‘embert a cudsert’ or ‘cudsert an embert’? How spelling patterns at the beginning of English disyllables can cue grammatical category. Mental states. Language and cognitive structures, vol. 2, ed. by Andrea, S. Schalley & Khlentzos, Drew, 213–237. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arciuli, Joanne, Seva, Nada, & Monaghan, Padraic. 2010. Learning to assign lexical stress during reading aloud: Corpus, behavioral, and computational investigations. Journal of Memory and Language 63. 180–196.Google Scholar
Aske, Jon. 1990. Disembodied rules versus patterns in the lexicon. Proceedings from the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra, & Sutton, Laurel A., 30–45. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, & Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to morphology. Probability theory in linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jen, & Jannedy, Stefanie, 229–287. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barkanyi, Zsuzsanna. 2002. A fresh look at quantity sensitivity in Spanish. Linguistics 40. 375–394.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., & Carol, L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, Georg N. & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1983. CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coltheart, Max, Davelaar, Eileen, Torfi Jonasson, Jon, & Besner, Derek. 1977. Access to the internal lexicon. Attention and performance 6, ed. by Stanislav, , 535–555. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine, Alderete, John, Beasley, Tim, & Markman, Vita. 2003. Morphological effects on default stress placement in novel Russian words. Proceedings from the Twenty Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Garding, Gina & Tsujimura, Mimu, 151–164. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Gillis, Steven, & Durieux, Gert. 1994. The acquisition of stress: A data-oriented approach. Computational Linguistics 20. 421–451.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart. 1988. Syllable onsets as a factor in stress rules. Phonology 5. 1–19.Google Scholar
Dogil, Grzegorz, Gvozdanovic, Jadranka, & Kodzasov, Sandro. 1999. Slavic languages. Hulst 1999. 813–876.Google Scholar
Domahs, Frank, De Bleser, Ria, & Eisenberg, Peter. 2001. Silbische Aspekte segmentalen Schreibens—neurolinguistische Evidenz. Linguistische Berichte 185. 13–29.Google Scholar
Domahs, Ulrike, Wiese, Richard, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2008. The processing of German word stress: Evidence for the prosodic hierarchy. Phonology 25. 1–36.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 2000. Spanish stress assignment within the analogical modeling of language. Language 76. 92–109.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 2004. A computational approach to resolving certain issues in Spanish stress placement. Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology, ed. by Face, Timothy L., 95–115. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1991. Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10. 37–64.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort. 3rd edn.Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, & Neijt, Anneke. 2008. Word length and the location of primary word stress in Dutch, German, and English. Linguistics 46. 507–540.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel, & Everett, Keren. 1984. On the relevance of syllable onsets to stress placement. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 705–711.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2000. The role of syllable weight in the perception of Spanish stress. Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium, ed. by Campos, Héctor, Herburger, Elena, Morales-Front, Alfonso, & Walsh, Thomas J., 1–13. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1998. German word stress in Optimality Theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 101–142.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1985. Metrical phonology and phonological structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gómez, Rebecca L. 2007. Statistical learning in infant language development. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gareth, M. Gaskell, 601–616. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guion Susan, G., Clark, J. J., Harada, Tetsuo, & Wayland, Ratree P.. 2003. Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words. Language and Speech 46. 403–427.Google Scholar
Gupta, Prahlad, & Touretzky, David. 1994. Connectionist models and linguistic theory: Investigations of stress systems in language. Cognitive Science 18. 1–50.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 83–105.Google Scholar
Harm, Michael W., & Seidenberg, Marc S.. 1999. Reading acquisition, phonology, and dyslexia: Insights from a connectionist model. Psychological Review 106. 491–528.Google Scholar
Harm, Michael W., & Seidenberg, Marc S.. 2004. Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review 111. 662–720.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry (ed.). 1999. Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janssen [Domahs], Ulrike, & Domahs, Frank. 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. 1157–1175.Google Scholar
Janssen [Domahs], Ulrike. 2003. Untersuchungen zum Wortakzent im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf dissertation.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael. 1999. German. Hulst 1999. 515–545.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1995. The metrical theory of word stress. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 367–402. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaltenbacher, Erika. 1994. Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents: Zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13. 20–55.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael H. 2004. Word onset patterns and lexical stress in English. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 231–244.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael H., Morris, Joanna, & Verrekia, Laura. 1998. Orthographic cues to lexical stress: Effects on naming and lexical decision. Memory and Cognition 26. 822–832.Google Scholar
Knaus, Johannes, & Domahs, Ulrike. 2009. Experimental evidence for optimal and minimal metrical structure of German word prosody. Lingua 119. 1396–1413.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74. 303–335.Google Scholar
Landis, J. Richard, & Koch, Gary G.. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33. 159–174.Google Scholar
Lehfeldt, Werner. 2003. Akzent und Betonung im Russischen. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M., Roelofs, Ardi, & Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral Brain Science 22. 1–38.Google Scholar
Liberman, Marc Y., & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Liberman, Marc Y. 1975. The intonational system of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Mengel, Andreas. 2000. Deutscher Wortakzent. Symbole, Signale. Norderstadt: Books on Demand Gmbh.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina, & IreneVogel, . 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2010. Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwisenschaft 29. 243–282.Google Scholar
Plaut, David C., McClelland, James L., Seidenberg, Marc S., & Patterson, K.. 1996. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 103. 56–115.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rastle, Kathleen, & Coltheart, Max. 2000. Lexical and nonlexical print-to-sound translation of disyllabic words and nonwords . Journal of Memory and Language 42. 342–364.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N., & Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Marc S., & McClelland, James L.. 1989. A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96. 523–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Seva, Nada, Monaghan, Padraic, & Arciuli, Joanne. 2009. Stressing what is important: Orthographic cues and lexical stress assignment. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22. 237–249.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1995. Analogy: A non-rule alternative to neural networks . Rivista di Linguistica 7. 213–232.Google Scholar
Smith, Philip T., & Baker, Robert G.. 1976. The influence of English spelling on pronunciation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15. 267–285.Google Scholar
Tappeiner, E., Domahs, Ulrike, & Domahs, Frank. 2007. Wortakzent im Sprachkontakt Deutsch–Italienisch. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 74. 266–291.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke, & Zonneveld, Wim. 1999. Dutch. Hulst 1999. 493–515.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1990. Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26, vol. 2: The Parasession, ed. by Ziolkowski, Michael, Noske, Manuela, & Deaton, Karen, 399–412. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1991. Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard German. Certamen Phonologicum II: Papers from the Cortona Phonology Meeting 1990, ed. by Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Kenstowicz, Michael, & Loporcaro, Michele, 211–245. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Waltermire, Mark. 2004. The effect of syllable weight on the determination of spoken stress in Spanish. Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, ed. by Face, Timothy L., 171–191. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2000. The phonology of German. 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woods, Anthony, Fletcher, Paul, & Hughes, Arthur. 1986. Statistics in language studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim, Trommelen, Mieke, Jessen, Michael, Bruce, Gösta, & Árnason, Kristjan. 1999. Word stress in West-Germanic and North-Germanic languages. Hulst 1999. 477–603.Google Scholar