Book contents
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
- Part II Typology
- Part III Case Studies
- 7 Persistence and Change in Stem Prominence in Dene (Athabaskan) Languages
- 8 Spanish Word Stress
- 9 Metrically Conditioned Pitch Accent in Uspanteko
- 10 Focus Prosody in Kagoshima Japanese
- 11 Where Is the Dutch Stress System?
- 12 Morphologically Assigned Accent and an Initial Three-Syllable Window in Ese’eja
- 13 The Scales-and-Parameters Approach to Morpheme-Specific Exceptions in Accent Assignment
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
11 - Where Is the Dutch Stress System?
Some New Data
from Part III - Case Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2018
Book contents
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
- Part II Typology
- Part III Case Studies
- 7 Persistence and Change in Stem Prominence in Dene (Athabaskan) Languages
- 8 Spanish Word Stress
- 9 Metrically Conditioned Pitch Accent in Uspanteko
- 10 Focus Prosody in Kagoshima Japanese
- 11 Where Is the Dutch Stress System?
- 12 Morphologically Assigned Accent and an Initial Three-Syllable Window in Ese’eja
- 13 The Scales-and-Parameters Approach to Morpheme-Specific Exceptions in Accent Assignment
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
There is an extensive body of theoretical work on the Dutch stress system, which is, however, mostly built on inspection of existing, sometimes rather exotic, words as found, for example, in dictionaries. In this chapter, van Oostendorp and Köhnlein confront these theories with new data from two online experiments in which participants had to indicate the most likely location for stress in biblical names or nonsense words respectively. The results partially confirm the claims already gathered in earlier work: there is a strong preference for stress on penultimate syllables and quantity plays a role in establishing the preferred location of stress. On the other hand, the way in which quantity works out is slightly different from what previous literature suggests. Furthermore, the authors report that they have not found strong evidence for the so-called three-syllable window.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Study of Word Stress and AccentTheories, Methods and Data, pp. 346 - 360Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Booij, G. (1999). Morpheme structure constraints and the phonotactics of Dutch. In van Hulst, H. and Ritter, N. (eds.) The Syllable: Views and Facts. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–68.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2009). Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in Dutch. In Hanson, K. and Inkelas, S. (eds.) The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 181–98.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2014). Possible and impossible exceptions in Dutch word stress. In van Hulst, H. (ed.) Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge University Press, 276–96.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F., Köhnlein, B. and van Oostendorp, M. (2013). Dutch stress assignment in biblical names: General patterns and sociolinguistic variation in a large-scale web survey. Paper presented at the workshop on ‘Word stress: dialectal variation and perception’ the International Congress of Linguists (ICL), Genève.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1989). A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (2000). Stem stress and peak correspondence in Dutch. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F., van de Weijer, J. and Dekkers, J. (eds.) Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition. Oxford University Press, 121–50.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2015). The morphological structure of complex place names: The case of Dutch. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 183–212.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2016). Word stress. www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-(1402)(0545)(8521)(1203)0.Google Scholar
Nouveau, D. (1994). Language acquisition, metrical theory, and optimality: A case study of Dutch word stress. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van. (1997). Lexicale variatie in optimaliteitstheorie. Nederlandse Taalkunde 2: 133–54.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van. (2012). Quantity and the three-syllable window in Dutch word stress. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 343–58.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. and Zonneveld, W. (1989a). Klemtoon en metrische fonologie. Muiderberg:Coutinho.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. and Zonneveld, W. (1989b). Stress, diphthongs, [r] in Dutch. In Bennis, H. and van Kemenade, A. (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, W. (1993). Schwa, superheavies, stress and syllables in Dutch. The Linguistic Review 10: 61–110.Google Scholar