Cover not available
Part of
All Things Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces
Edited by Sedigheh Moradi, Marcia Haag, Janie Rees-Miller and Andrija Petrovic
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 353] 2021
► pp. 99–116

Chapter 6
Stem constancy under the microscope

A systematic language comparison of types and limitations of stem spelling

| Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
| Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
Writing systems show variation in stem spellings, for example with double consonant letters. In German, the double consonant is always preserved (e.g., rennen – rennt, “to run – runs”), while in Dutch it is not (rennen – rent). In English <nn> is normally not preserved (running – run), though in French it varies: bonne – bon (“well” feminine – masculine), donner – donne (“to give – (I) give”). There are different regularities for double consonant spellings in all four languages; thus, stem constancy varies in strength depending on the language. In order to develop a typology of writing systems, language-specific types and limitations of stem constancy need to be described in greater detail. This chapter will do this by examining the above-mentioned four languages. It will compare the strength and degree of systematicity of stem constancy, as well as issues of frequency. Mark Aronoff was always interested in spelling systems and he is a morphologist – so this chapter is dedicated to Mark.
Keywords: graphemics, visible morphology, stem spellings, stem constancy, German, Dutch, English, French
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Stem constancy
    • 2.1Means of stem constancy
    • 2.2Domain-dependent limitations of stem constancy
    • 2.3Positional localization of deviations
    • 2.4Systematicity of deviations
      • German
      • English
      • Dutch
      • French
      • Types of stem deviations in language comparison
  • 3.Summary and preview of future research
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.353.06het
References (35)
References
Aronoff, Mark, Kristian Berg & Vera Heyer. 2016. Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing. The Mental Lexicon 11(2). 164–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian. 2013. Graphemic alternations in English as a reflex of morphological structure. Morphology 23(4). 387–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Sichtbare Flexionsmorphologie im Englischen und Deutschen: Der Umgang mit Variation in der Schreibung von Stämmen und Affixen. In Nanna Fuhrhop, Renata Szczepaniak & Karsten Schmidt (eds.), Sichtbare und hörbare Morphologie, 9–42. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Die Graphematik der Morpheme im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian, Franziska Buchmann, Katharina Dybiec & Nanna Fuhrhop. 2014. Morphological spellings in English. Written Language and Literacy 17(2). 282–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian & Nanna Fuhrhop. 2011. Komplexe Silbenkernschreibungen im Englischen im Vergleich mit dem Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 228. 443–466.Google Scholar
BNC (2007). The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). BNC Consortium, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Available online at [URL]
Carney, Edward. 1994. A survey of English spelling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Catach, Nina. 2003. L’orthographe française, 3rd edn. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
CLARIN.SI (2017). Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure/ Le Monde Corpus (Release 28.10.2017). Ljubljana: Jožef Stefan Institute. Available online at [URL]
Cummings, Donald W. 1988. American English spelling: An informal description. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael. 2011. Linguistic typology and the study of language. In Jae J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 43–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Schryver, Johan & Anneke Neijt. 2012. Handboek spelling. Mechelen: Plantyn.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2016. Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik, 5th edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Eichinger, Ludwig M. 2012. Deutsch im Sprachvergleich: Grammatische Kontraste und Konvergenzen. In Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Deutsch im Sprachvergleich: grammatische Kontraste und Konvergenzen, vvi–xvi. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2016. Der Buchstabe und die Schriftstruktur des Wortes. In Angelika Wöllstein (ed.), Duden – die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch, 9th edn., 61–94. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2020. Visible verbal morphology: Morpheme constancy in Germanic and Romance verbal inflection. Morphology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Sichtbare Morphologie in der Flexion der starken und unregelmäßigen Verben im Deutschen und Englischen. In Nanna Fuhrhop, Renata Szczepaniak & Karsten Schmidt (eds.), Sichtbare und hörbare Morphologie, 43–76. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Graphematik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich. In Angelika Wöllstein, Mechthild Habermann, Manfred Krifka & Peter Gallmann (eds.), Grammatiktheorie und Empirie in der germanistischen Linguistik, 587–616. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna, Franziska Buchmann & Kristian Berg. 2011. The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable: Evidence from German and English. Written Language and Literacy 14(2). 275–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 58–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage: Grammaire française, 14th edn. Brüssel: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.). 2001. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, Volume 1. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IDS (2014). Deutsches Referenzkorpus/ Archiv der Korpora geschriebener Gegenwartssprache 2014-I (Release 15.04.2014). Mannheim: Institut für deutsche Sprache. Available online at [URL]
König, Ekkehard. 2012. Zur Standortbestimmung der Kontrastiven Linguistik innerhalb der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft. In Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Deutsch im Sprachvergleich: grammatische Kontraste und Konvergenzen, 13–40. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, Christer. 2001. Skandinavische Schriftsysteme im Vergleich. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisenburg, Trudel. 1996. Romanische Schriftsysteme im Vergleich: Eine diachrone Studie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin. 2013. Das Konzept des morphologischen Prinzips und seine Rolle in einer modularen Schriftsystemtheorie. In Martin Neef & Carmen Scherer (eds.), Die Schnittstelle von Morphologie und geschriebener Sprache, 9–38. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 1999. Zur Funktionalität von Suppletion. In Matthias Butt (ed.), Variation und Stabilität in der Wortstruktur: Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Erwerb und Varietäten des Deutschen und anderer Sprachen, 77–101. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Nunn, Anneke M. 1998. Dutch orthography. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013. The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Theory and applications of natural language processing, 219–247. Berlin & Hildesheim: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar