Cover not available
Part of
Germanic Interrelations: Studies in memory of Hans Frede Nielsen
Edited by Stephen Laker, Carla Falluomini, Steffen Krogh, Robert Nedoma and Michael Schulte
[NOWELE Supplement Series 34] 2025
► pp. 50–72

Prosodic complexity and mora counting in North Germanic

 | University of Southern DenmarkOdense
This paper proposes a typology of word-prosodic complexity applied to Modern North Germanic languages, including tonal word accents in Swedish and Norwegian, and different accent systems in Danish dialects (Section 1). This is combined with an analysis of syllable weight operating in mora counting, as proposed by Trubetzkoy to account for the Danish stød. Taking the point of departure in Basbøll’s Non-Stød Model, principles for mora counting in North Germanic are presented and discussed (Section 2). The paper ends by considering some synchronic and diachronic consequences of the proposals, including a discussion of prosodic variation at morpheme boundaries and of stød as a grammaticalized morpheme of singular for nouns (Section 3).
Article outline
  • 1.A typology of word-prosodic complexity, applied to Modern North Germanic
    • 1.1Zooming in on Modern Standard Scandinavian
      • 1.1.1Typology of word-prosodic complexity, degree 1: French (example)
      • 1.1.2Typology of word-prosodic complexity, degree 2: German (example)
      • 1.1.3Typology of word-prosodic complexity, degree 3: Swedish and Norwegian
      • 1.1.4Complexity scale of word prosody, degree 4: Standard Danish
    • 1.2Three examples of word-prosodic complexity in Danish dialects
      • 1.2.1East Slesvig and Als
      • 1.2.2Zealand: Short-vowel-stød
      • 1.2.3West Jutland “stød”
    • 1.3Danish dialects in the typology of word-prosodic complexity
  • 2.Mora counting in North Germanic, and the Danish stød
    • 2.1Trubetzkoy’s moraic account of Danish stød
    • 2.2Mora counting in Danish vs. Swedish and Norwegian
    • 2.3The Non-Stød Model
      • 2.3.1Division of the Danish vocabulary with respect to stød
      • 2.3.2Lexical Non-Stød: Extra-prosodicity and lexical specification {–stød}
      • 2.3.3Word-structure Non-Stød
  • 3.Some consequences of the proposals
    • 3.1Why do we not find word-final long stød-less vowels in Modern Danish?
    • 3.2Stød and non-stød as signals for morpheme boundaries or grammaticalized morphemes for number?
    • 3.3A diachronic perspective: The evolution of Danish /r/ from obstruent to sonorant and its consequences for stød
    • 3.4Rischel (2001) on the origin of stød, seen in relation to the Non-Stød Model
  • 4.Conclusion: Hans Frede Nielsen and Jørgen Rischel on language history
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (38)
References
Basbøll, H. 1988. The Modern Danish stød and phonological weight. In P.-M. Bertinetto & M. Loporcaro (eds.), Certamen Phonologicum. Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting, 119–152. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
1989. Phonological weight and Italian raddoppiamento fonosintattico. Rivista di Linguistica = Italian Journal of Linguistics 1. 5–31.Google Scholar
1998. Nyt om stødet i moderne rigsdansk — om samspillet mellem lydstruktur og ordgrammatik. Danske Studier 1998, 33–86. Copenhagen: Reitzel.Google Scholar
2005. The phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Stød, diachrony and the non-stød model. North-Western European Language Evolution 54/55. 147–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Monosyllables and prosody: The sonority syllable meets the word. In Th. Stolz, N. Nau & C. Stroh (eds.), Monosyllables: From phonology to typology, 13–41. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Danish stød as evidence for grammaticalization of suffixal positions in word structure. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 46. 137–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022a. Danish Stød in the light of morae, the weight law and sonority (strength): A personal view. In P. Noël Aziz Hanna & L. C. Smith (eds.), Linguistic preferences [Festschrift Theo Vennemann], 143–170. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2022b. Morphology-prosody interaction in Danish — challenging the foundation of word-structure in Basbøll’s Non-Stød Model (2008). Poster presented at the 22nd International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, September 1–4, 2022.
2023. Phonology and phonetics, a recurrent theme in European structuralisms: The case of Otto Jespersen and André Martinet. In L. Cigana & F. Gregersen (eds.), Structuralism as one — structuralism as many. Studies in structuralisms. Scientia Danica, Series H, Humanistica. 8. Vol. 21, 317–364. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
2023 (published online ahead of print). Herslund on Danish suprasegmentals: An appraisal and a comparison. In L. S. Lundquist and H. Høeg Müller (eds.), Le génie des langues. In memory of Michael Herslund. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague vol. XXXVI. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, H., L. Kjærbæk & C. Lambertsen. 2011. The Danish noun plural landscape. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 43. 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjerrum, M. 1948. Felstedmaalets tonale Accenter. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus. Den Danske Ordbog. [URL]
Brink, L., J. Lund, S. Heger & J. N. Jørgensen. 1991. Den store danske udtaleordbog. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Ejskjær, I. 1969. Kortvokalstødet i sjællandsk. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
1990. Stød and pitch accent in the Danish dialects. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22. 49–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grønnum, N. 2023. Three quarters of a century of phonetic research on common Danish stød. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 46(3). 299–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gårding, E. 1977. The Scandinavian word accents. Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 11. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. M. 1990. Dansk udtale. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1967. On the rules of Norwegian tonality. Language 43. 185–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. The Scandinavian languages. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Hjortdal, A., J. Frid & M. Roll. 2022. Phonetic and phonological cues to prediction: Neurophysiology of Danish stød. Journal of Phonetics 94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1890. Danias lydskrift. Dania 1. 33–79.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 1999. Quantity in Norwegian syllable structure. In H. van der Hulst & N. Ritter (eds.), The syllable: views and facts, 631–650. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011. Quantity in Old Norse and modern peninsular North Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14. 47–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroman, E. 1947. Musikalsk Akcent i Dansk. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F. 2000. The Early Runic language of Scandinavia. Studies in Germanic dialect geography. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Ringgaard, K. 1960. Vestjysk stød. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus.Google Scholar
1973. Danske dialekter. En kortfattet oversigt. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag (1s edn. 1969).Google Scholar
Rischel, J. 1996. Har forskningen i dansk sproghistorie en fremtid? Danske Studier 91 [Universitetsjubilæets Danske Samfund 542]: 5–21.Google Scholar
2001. Om stødets opkomst. In J. Rischel & H. Basbøll (eds.), Tre indlæg om stødet = Pluridicta 38, 16–25. Department of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense.Google Scholar
2008. A unified theory of Nordic i-Umlaut, Syncope, and Stød. North-Western European Language Evolution 54/55. 191–235. Reprinted in Rischel 2009, 273–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Sound Structure in language. Ed. by N. Grønnum, F. Gregersen & H. Basbøll. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1935. Anleitung zu phonologischen Beschreibungen. Prague: Édition du Cercle linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar
1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie = Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague VII.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Larruscaín, M. 2021. Complementary length in Danish. Why not? In I. Youssef & M. Vázquez-Larruscaín (eds.), Perspectives on Nordic Phonology: Selected papers from the Fifth Fonologi i Norden Meeting, University of South-Eastern Norway. Nordlyd 45(1). 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Th. 1988. Preference laws and syllable structure — and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar