Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T14:47:58.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Word Stress in Germanic

from Part I - Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Birgit Alber
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Following a typological classification of metrical systems, word stress in most Germanic languages can be described as characterized by trochaic rhythm, rightmost main stress, left-oriented secondary stress, and quantity-sensitivity. Most Germanic languages, after contact with languages of the Romance type and incorporation of vast amounts of loanwords into their lexicon, place main stress on one of the last three syllables of the word. For most of them it has furthermore been observed that heavy syllables influence the assignment of stress, even though not necessarily in all phonological contexts. Exceptions are Icelandic and Faroese, where main stress falls consistently on the leftmost syllable of the word and syllable weight does not play any role in stress assignment. For those Germanic languages for which secondary stress has been described, parsing of left-aligning secondary stress feet can be assumed.

Keywords

EnglishGermanDutchNorwegianDanishSwedishIcelandicFaroeseLatinRomanceFrenchGreekmain stresssecondary stresstrochaiciambicquantity-sensitivityfootnonfinalityextrametricalityloanwordsnonce word experimentProkosch‘s LawERP-experiments
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 73 - 96
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Alber, B. 1997a. Il sistema metrico dei prestiti del tedesco. Aspetti e problemi della teoria prosodica. Ph.D. thesis, University of Padova.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 1997b. “Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction.” In Booij, G. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Phonology in Progress – Progress in Phonology, HIL Phonology Papers III. Holland Academic Graphics: The Hague: 1–45.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 1998. “Stress preservation in German loan words.” In Kehrein and Wiese (eds.): 113–114.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 2001. “Maximizing first positions.” In Féry, C., Green, A. D., and van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5, University of Potsdam: 1–19.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 2005. “Clash, lapse and directionality,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 485–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alber, B., DelBusso, N., and Prince, A. 2016. “From intensional properties to universal support,” Language 92.2: e88–e116.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 1999. “Icelandic and Faroese.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 567–596.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1999. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. 1999. “Swedish.” In van der Hulst (ed.): 554–567.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1994. Principles of English Stress. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row: New York.Google Scholar
Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Domahs, U., Plag, I., and Carroll, R. 2014. “Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 59–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. 2008. “The processing of German word stress: Evidence for the prosodic hierarchy,” Phonology 25: 1–36.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. 2013. “The influence of loanwords on Norwegian and English stress,” Nordlyd 40.1: 55–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duden Aussprachewörterbuch 2005. 6. Auflage. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, and Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 1991. “Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10: 37–64.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 1995. “Alignment, syllable and metrical structure in German,” SfS-Report-02–95, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 1998. “German word stress in Optimality Theory,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 101–142.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. 1998. “Stress and loan words in German,” Rivista di Linguistica 10.2: 355–392.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. 1985. Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure: German and English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Golston, C. and Wiese, R. 1998. “The structure of the German root.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 165–187.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 2002. “A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 491–552.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J-R. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1984. Constraining Metrical Theory: A Modular Theory of Rhythm and Destressing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1999. The Phonology of English: A Prosodic Optimality-Theoretic Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1981. A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der 1984. Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der (ed.) 1999. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der, Goedemans, J-R., and van Zanten, E. (eds.) 2010. A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2001. Metrical and Prosodic Structure in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. ROA-476.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2002. “A restrictive theory of stress,” Phonology 19: 313–360.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2007. “Non-finality and weight-sensitivity,” Phonology 24: 287–334.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2012. “Alignment constraints,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1–48.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. 2016. Layering and Directionality: Metrical Stress in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Itô, J. and Mester, A. 2015. “The perfect prosodic word in Danish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.1: 5–36.Google Scholar
Janßen [Domahs], U. 2003. Untersuchungen zum Wortakzent im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Doctoral dissertation. University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Janßen [Domahs], U. and Domahs, F. 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.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. 1999. “German.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 515–545.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1993. “Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 381–432.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 2007. “Feet and metrical stress.” In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press: 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenbacher, E. 1994. “Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents: Zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und Deutschen,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13: 20–55.Google Scholar
Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.) 1998. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kleiner, S. 2011–2017. Atlas zur Aussprache des deutschen Gebrauchsstandards (AADG). Unter Mitarbeit von Ralf Knöbl. http://prowiki.ids-mannheim.de/bin/view/AADG/.Google Scholar
Knaus, J. Wiese, R., and Domahs, U. 2011. “Secondary stress is distributed rhythmically within words: an EEG study on German.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences 2011. Hong Kong: 1114–1117.Google Scholar
Knaus, J. and Domahs, U. 2009. “Experimental evidence for optimal and minimal metrical structure of German word prosody.” Lingua 119.10: 1396–1413.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lacy, P. de 2007. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 335–422.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. “On stress and linguistic rhythm,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
Lorentz, O. 1996. “Length and correspondence in Scandinavian,” Nordlyd 24: 111–128.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. 1993. “Generalized alignment,” Yearbook of Morphology 1993: 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, H. 2006. Stress Parallels in Modern OT. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pater, J. 2000. “Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints,” Phonology 17: 237–274.Google Scholar
Prince, A. 1983. “Relating to the Grid,” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, A. 1990. “Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization.” In Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society: 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 2004 [1993]. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Riad, T 2013. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, C. 1999. “Norwegian.” In van der Hulst (ed.): 545–553.Google Scholar
Rice, C. 2006. “Norwegian stress and quantity: The implications of loanwords,” Lingua 116: 1171–1194.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. 2009. “On the change of word stress in the history of German,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 131.3: 413–441.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. and Zonneveld, W. 1999. “Dutch.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 492–515.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1990. “Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German.” In Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society: 399–412.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1980. “Der deutsche Wortakzent: Fakten – Regeln – Prinzipien. Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen Akzenttheorie,” Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3: 299–318.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, W. 1999. “Word stress in West-Germanic and North-Germanic Languages: Introduction.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 476–478.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×