Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:20:01.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A morpheme-based approach to subtractive pluralisation in German dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Björn Köhnlein
Björn Köhnlein*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
*
E-mail: koehnlein.3@osu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various German dialects delete certain word-final plosives in plural forms (e.g. [hʊnt] ‘dog’ vs. [hʊn] ‘dogs’). I claim that this type of subtractive pluralisation is best analysed as an epiphenomenon resulting from the affixation of a disyllabic trochaic foot. This metrical template can create word-final empty-headed syllables; subtraction targets the onset of these syllables. Independent evidence comes from related phenomena, for the first time unified in a comprehensive account. Firstly, all varieties with word-final consonant subtraction delete the same consonants in the onset of post-tonic syllables containing a vowel. Additionally, some dialects display predictable interactions of consonant subtraction with either vowel shortening or the assignment of tonal accent. The proposal in this paper supports the idea that morphology is generally additive, and that subtraction can be derived from prosodic affixation. I thus argue that using more sophisticated independently motivated phonological representations can help to simplify the morphological grammar.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 617 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

For helpful comments and discussion, I would like to thank the anonymous referees, the associate editor and editors of Phonology, as well as Becca Morley and the the ‘Phonies’ discussion group at the Ohio State University. Useful suggestions also came from the participants of the 9th North American Phonology Conference and the 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

REFERENCES

Alles, Konrad (1907–08). Beiträge zur Substantivflexion der oberhessischen Mundarten. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 2. 223–228, 348–377. 3. 129–157.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (2017). Words and paradigms: Peter H. Matthews and the development of morphological theory. Transactions of the Philological Society 115. 1–13.Google Scholar
Bach, Adolf (1921). Die Schärfung in der moselfränkischen Mundart von Arzbach (Unterwesterwaldkreis). Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 45. 266–290.Google Scholar
Barlow, Jessica A. (2005). Sonority effects in the production of consonant clusters by Spanish-speaking children. In Eddington, David (ed.) Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville: Cascadilla. 1–14.Google Scholar
Bayer-Weghake, Marion, Simon, Elke & Herbst, Oliver (eds.) (2008). Sprachatlas von Unterfranken (SUF). Vol. 3: Formengeographie I (Nomen und Pronomen). Formengeographie II (Verb). Heidelberg. http://udi.germanistik.uni-wuerzburg.de/wp/projekte/sprachatlas-von-unterfranken/band-3/.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine (2013). Empirical evidence for laryngeal features: aspirating vs. true voice languages. JL 49. 259–284.Google Scholar
Bellmann, Günter, Herrgen, Joachim & Schmidt, Jürgen Erich (eds.) (2002). Mittelrheinischer Sprachatlas. Vol. 5: Morphologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. www.regionalsprache.de.Google Scholar
Bergenholtz, Henning & Mugdan, Joachim (1979). Einführung in die Morphologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In Trommer, (2012). 8–83.Google Scholar
Birkenes, Magnus Breder (2011). Subtraktive Nominalmorphologie im Westmitteldeutschen? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 78. 115–154.Google Scholar
Birkenes, Magnus Breder (2014). Subtraktive Nominalmorphologie in den Dialekten des Deutschen: ein Beitrag zur Interaktion von Phonologie und Morphologie. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. (2007). The grammar of words: an introduction to linguistic morphology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter (2012). Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer (2012). 427–495.Google Scholar
Cavirani, Edoardo & van Oostendorp, Marc (2017). On silent markedness. In Samuels, Bridget D. (ed.) Beyond markedness in formal phonology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 101–120.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène (2011). Final consonants. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 848–872.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Cho, Mi-Hui (2003). The distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English and Korean: an alignment approach with typological implications. Linguistics 41. 607–652.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19. 1–32.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Girnth, Heiko (2000). Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Grammatikalisierung am Beispiel des Westmitteldeutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris & Wiese, Richard (1996). Zero morphology and constraint interaction: subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. Yearbook of Morphology 1995. 143–159.Google Scholar
Haas, Walter (1988). Zur Morphologie der Mundart von Ebsdorf im Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan (1992). Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hamann, Silke & Downing, Laura J. (2017). *NT revisited again: an approach to postnasal laryngeal alternations with perceptual Cue constraints. JL 53. 85–112.Google Scholar
Harris, John (2013). Wide-domain r-effects in English. JL 49. 329–365.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Gussmann, Edmund (2002). Word-final onsets. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 1–42. Available as ROA-575 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Sims, Andrea D. (2010). Understanding morphology. 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2009). Introductory phonology. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heilig, Otto (1898). Grammatik der ostfränkischen Mundart des Taubergrundes und der Nachbarmundarten. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben (2012). The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents. In Botma, Bert & Noske, Roland (eds.) Phonological explorations: empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues. Berlin: de Gruyter. 223–239.Google Scholar
Holsinger, David J. & Houseman, Paul D. (1999). Lenition in Hessian: cluster reduction and ‘subtractive plurals’. Yearbook of Morphology 1998. 159–174.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick (2012). Lenition in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 773–787.Google Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf (1962). Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Grundzüge des Neuhochdeutschen. Wirkendes Wort 12. 321–331.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2001). On the limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 141–185.Google Scholar
Iosad, Pavel (2016). Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: short-vowel stød in Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19. 221–268.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Ahn, Sang-Cheol (2007). English voicing in dimensional theory. Language Sciences 29. 247–269.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (1995). Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12. 369–396.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2007). Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition. Phonology 24. 121–145.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Audring, Jenny (to appear). Relational morphology in the parallel architecture. In Audring, Jenny & Masini, Francesca (eds.) The Oxford handbook of morphological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1993). Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. NLLT 11. 381–432.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah (2016). Lenition, perception and neutralisation. Phonology 33. 43–85.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang (2018). There's no tone in Cologne: against tone-segment interactions in Franconian. In Kehrein, et al. (2018). 147–194.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang, Köhnlein, Björn, Boersma, Paul & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.) (2018). Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval S. H. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Knaus, Johannes (2003). Subtraktive Pluralformen in deutschen Dialekten. MA thesis, Philipps University Marburg.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2011). Rule reversal revisited: synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2015). The morphological structure of complex place names: the case of Dutch. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18. 183–212.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2016). Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects. Phonology 33. 87–123.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2018). Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian tone accent dialects: a metrical approach. In Kehrein, et al. (2018). 211–235.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (forthcoming). Tonal accents in North and West Germanic. In Page, Richard & Putnam, Mike (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa M. (2001). Consonant strength: phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle (1992). Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-110 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000). The prosody of phase in Rotuman. NLLT 18. 147–197.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory: applying theory to data. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word-structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2012). Stress as a proclitic in Modern Greek. Lingua 122. 1165–1181.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2018). Tone, final devoicing, and assimilation in Moresnet. In Kehrein, et al. (2018). 237–251.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reuter, Elvira (1989). Die Mundart von Horath (Hunsrück): Phonetik und Morphologie. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Ruoff, Arno (1981). Häufigkeitswörterbuch gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Saba Kirchner, Jesse (2010). Minimal Reduplication. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Saba Kirchner, Jesse (2013). Minimal Reduplication and reduplicative exponence. Morphology 23. 227–243.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, V. M. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde: vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich (1986). Die Mittelfränkischen Tonakzente (Rheinische Akzentuierung). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Seiler, Guido (2008). How to do things with moras: variation and change of quantity alternations across Upper German dialects. Paper presented at the International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.Google Scholar
Seiler, Guido (2009). Sound change or analogy? Monosyllabic lengthening in German and some of its consequences. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12. 229–272.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stonham, John T. (1994). Combinatorial morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2011). Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology. Habilitationsschrift, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (ed.) (2012). The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen & Zimmermann, Eva (2014). Generalised mora affixation and quantity-manipulating morphology. Phonology 31. 463–510.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard (1996). Phonological versus morphological rules: on German Umlaut and Ablaut. JL 32. 113–135.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ulrich (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles (2016). The price of linguistic productivity: how children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva (2017). Morphological length and prosodically defective morphemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar