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-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T03:22:17.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Quantity in Germanic Languages

from Part I - Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
B. Richard Page
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

This chapter provides a typological overview of segmental quantity in Germanic languages. It begins with an overview of basic terminology, different ways of representing quantity, and the effects of different diachronic processes (e.g., open syllable lengthening and degemination) on the occurrence of contrastive segmental quantity. After a presentation of Riad’s (1995) typology of quantity, the chapter describes North and West Germanic language varieties that preserve both vowel and consonant quantity, varieties that retain only consonant quantity and varieties that retain only vowel quantity. Also included are discussions of complementary quantity, syllable cut and evidence that some Germanic varieties no longer have contrastive segmental quantity.

Keywords

quantitysegmental lengthsyllable weightcomplementary quantityvowel tensenessgeminationdegeminationopen syllable lengtheningfortis consonantslenis consonantsSwedishSwedish dialectsFenno-SwedishNorwegianNorwegian dialectsGermanCentral BavarianAlemannicThurgovianDutch
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 97 - 118
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

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. and Murray, R. W. 2004. “Bavarian isochrony without mora-counting,” Paper presented at Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference 10. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Bannert, R. 1976. Mittelbairsiche Phonologie auf akustischer und perzeptorischer Grundlage. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Bannert, R. 1977. “Quantität im Mittelbairischen: Komplementäre Länge von Vokal und Konsonant.” In Dressler, W. U. and Pfeffer, O. E. (eds.), Phonologica 1976: Akten der dritten Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung, Wien, 1–4. September 1976. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck: 261–270.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. and Wagner, J. 1985. Kontrastive Phonologie des Deutschen und Dänischen: Segmentale Wortphonologie und -phonetik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1998. Das Vokalsystem der deutschen Standardsprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Davis, S. 2011. “Quantity.” In Goldsmith, J, Riggle, J., and Yu, A. C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell:103–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieth, E. 1950. Vademekum der Phonetik. Phonetische Grundlagen für das wissenschaftliche und praktsiche Studium der Sprachen Unter Mitwirkung von Rudolf Brunner. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. and Lahiri, A. 1991. “The Germanic Foot: Metrical Coherence in Old English,” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 251–286.Google Scholar
Duden 1990. Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache, 3. edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fleischer, J. and Schmid, S. 2006. “Zurich German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulop, S. 1994. Acoustic correlates of the fortis/lenis contrast in Swiss German plosives. Calgary Working Paper in Linguistics 16: 55–63.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 2000. “Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in Dutch,” ROA-381.Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1977. “Tenseness, vowel shift, and the phonology of back vowels in Modern English,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 611–626.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1997. “Vowel quantity and syllabification in English,” Language 73: 1–17.Google Scholar
Harling-Kranck, G.1998. Från Pyttis till Nedervettil. Helsingfors.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1989. “Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heusler, A. 1888. Der alemannische Konsonantismus in der Mundart von Basel-stadt. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Hinderling, R. 1980. “Lenis und Fortis im Bairischen,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 47: 23–51.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2008. “Fenno-Swedish quantity: Contrast in Stratal OT.” In Vaux, B. and Nevins, A (eds.), Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena. Oxford University Press: 185–219.Google Scholar
Kleber, F. 2017. “Complementary length in vowel-consonant sequences: Acoustic and perceptual evidence for a sound change in progress in Bavarian German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association: 1–22. doi:10.1017/S0025100317000238.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1990. “German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20. 1: 48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18: 109–145.Google Scholar
Krech, E.-M., Kurka, E. and Stelzig, H. 1982. Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2011. “Quantity in Old Norse and modern peninsular North Germanic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 47–80.Google Scholar
Kufner, H. L. 1957. “Zur Phonologie einer mittelbairischen Mundart,” Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 25: 175–184.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. and Koreman, J. 1988. “Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch,” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7: 217–228.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. and Kraehenmann, A. 2004. “On maintaining and extending contrasts: Notker’s Anlautgesetz,” Transactions of the Philological Society 102: 1–55.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 335–442.Google Scholar
Levander, L. 1925. Dalmålet: Beskrivning och historia, Volume I. Uppsala: Appelbergs boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Martens, C. and Martens, P. 1961. Phonetik der deutschen Sprache. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Mees, I. and Collins, B. 1983. “A phonetic description of Standard Dutch,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 13: 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, W. G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. 1986. “Sandhi in Swiss German dialects.” In Andersen, H. (ed.), Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 385–392.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. 1972. Production and Perception of Vowel Duration: A Study of Durational Properties of Vowels in Dutch. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Odden, D. 2011. “The representation of vowel length.” In van Oostendoorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online, www.companiontophonology.com.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 1995. Vowel Quality and Phonological Projection. Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection: A Theory of Feature Content and Prosodic Structure. Studies in Generative Grammar 47. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Page, B. R. 2006. “The diachrony and synchrony of vowel quantity in English and Dutch,” Diachronica 23: 61–104.Google Scholar
Penzl, H. 1955. “Zur Erklärung von Notkers Anlautgesetz 2. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 86: 196–210.Google Scholar
Pfalz, A. 1911. “Phonetische Beobachtungen an der Mundart des Marchfeldes in Nieder-Österreich,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten.Google Scholar
Pfalz, A. 1913. Die Mundart des Marchfeldes. Vienna: Hölder. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Vol. 170, 6th Abhandlung.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1974. Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Dehnungs- und Kürzungsvorgänge im Deutschen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Restle, D. 2003. Silbenschnitt – Quantität – Kopplung. Munich: Wilhelm Funk.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 1992. Structures in Germanic Prosody: A Diachronic Study with Special Reference to the Nordic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 1995. “The quantity shift in Germanic: A typology,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 42: 159–184.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 2013. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rowley, A. A. 1989. “North Bavarian.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. London: Routledge: 417–437.Google Scholar
Sanders, W. 1972. “Hochdeutsch /ä/ — ‘Ghostphonem’ oder Sprachphänomen?,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 93: 37–58.Google Scholar
Schaeffler, F. 2005. Phonological Quantity in Swedish Dialects: Typological Aspects, Phonetic Variation and Diachronic Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
Scheutz, H. 1985. Strukturen der Lautveränderung: Variationslinguistische Studien zur Theorie und Empirie sprachlicher Wandlungsprozesse am Beispiel des Mittelbairischen von Ulrichsberg/Oberösterreich. Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich 10. Vienna: Wilhelm Braunmüller.Google Scholar
Seiler, G. 2005. “On the development of the Bavarian quantity system,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Germanic Linguistic and Semiotic Analysis 10: 102–129.Google Scholar
Seiler, G. 2009. “Sound change or analogy? Monosyllabic lengthening in German and some of its consequences,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 229–272.Google Scholar
Siebs, T. 1969. “Siebs. Deutsche Aussprache: Reine und gemäßigte Hochlautung mit Aussprachewörterbuch.” In de Boor, H., Moser, H, and Winkler, C. (eds.), 19. edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. 1876. Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, H. 2000. Silbenschnitt in deutschen Dialekten. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, H. 2002. “Ein akustisches Korrelat des Silbenschnitts: Formen des Intensitätsverlauf in Silbenschnitt- und Tonakzentsprachen.” In Auer, P., Gilles, P., and Spiekermann, H. (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Linguistische Arbeiten 463. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 181–200.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S.1995. “The decline of the foot as a supersyllabic mora-counting unit in Early Germanic,” Transactions of the Philological Society 93: 227–272.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 7.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2000. “From quantity to syllable cut: On so-called lengthening in the Germanic languages,” Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica 12: 251–282.Google Scholar
Wängler, H-H. 1974. Grundriß einer Phonetik des Deutschen: Mit einer allgemeinen Einführung in die Phonetik. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Wiesinger, P. 1990. “The central and southern Bavarian dialects in Bavaria and Austria.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German. London: Routledge: 438–519.Google Scholar
Willi, U. 1995. “‘Lenis’ und ‘fortis’ im Zürichdeutschen aus phonetischer Sicht.” In Löffler, H. (ed.), Alemannische Dialektforschung. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Tübingen and Basel: Francke: 253–265.Google Scholar
Willi, U. 1996. Die segmentale Dauer als phonetischer Parameter von ‘fortis’ und ‘lenis’ bei Plosiven im Zürichdeutschen. Eine akustische und perzeptorische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Winteler, J. 1876. Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt. Leipzig: Winter.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
×