Article published in:
Understanding Writing Systems
Edited by Merijn Beeksma and Martin Neef
[Written Language & Literacy 21:1] 2018
► pp. 89–110

Optimal spaces and hyphens

A constraint-based analysis of compound word formation

| Bergische Universität Wuppertal
The paper deals with the insertion of spaces and hyphens in German. It summarizes the existing optimality-theoretic approach and extends it to capture the use of hyphens. Hyphenation is often excluded in the literature on the writing of complex words, as forms with hyphens are thought to be mere variants of solid forms. The paper offers an alternative view in which hyphens are treated as an intermediate form between solid and open forms and are placed as a result of conflict between constraints which demand or forbid insertion of spaces. The analysis focuses on the products of nominal compounding, which is one of the most productive processes of word formation in German. Firstly, it is shown for which types of compounds hyphenation is optional and obligatory according to the official rules of orthography. Based on this, constraints are postulated, which do not only decide in which cases hyphenation is allowed but also in which positions the hyphens must be placed in the respective compound. Finally, the hyphenation of phrasal compounds and other complex compounds is modeled.
Keywords: spaces, hyphens, open and solid writings, compounds, graphemic words, orthography, optimality theory, numbers, abbreviations, phrasal compounds
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Words, subexpressions, and morphological formations
  • 3.Constraints for SI
    • 3.1OT and written language?
    • 3.2SI in OT
  • 4.Constraints for hyphenation
    • 4.1Obligatory hyphenation based on non-alphabetic subparts
    • 4.2Optional hyphenation
  • 5.The placement of hyphens
  • 6.Hyphenation in phrasal and other complex compounds
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 02 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00011.sym
References
Amtliches Regelwerk
(2017) Deutsche Rechtschreibung. Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis. Aktualisierte Fassung des amtlichen Regelwerks entsprechend den Empfehlungen des Rats für deutsche Rechtschreibung 2016. Mannheim. http://​www​.rechtschreibrat​.com. (Accessed November 9th 2017.)
Archangeli, Diana, Mohanan, K. P. & Pulleyblank, Douglas
(2010) The emergence of Optimality Theory. In Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds.), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, 143–158. Chicago: CSLI.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas
(2012) The cohesiveness of English and German compounds. The Mental Lexicon 7:1. 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian, Buchmann, Franziska, Dybiec, Katharina & Fuhrhop, Nanna
(2014) Morphological spellings in English. Written Language and Literacy 17.2. 282–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernabei, Dante
(2003) Der Bindestrich. Vorschlag zur Systematisierung. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula
(2008) Das Interpunktionssystem des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. (Linguistische Arbeiten 522). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2011) Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. In Ursula Bredel & Tilo Reißig (eds.), Weiterführender Orthographieunterricht, 129–144. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Buchmann, Franziska
(2015) Die Wortzeichen im Deutschen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Dansk Sprognævn
(2012) Retskrivningsordbogen. 4th edition. Copenhagen: Alinea. Cf. also https://​dsn​.dk​/retskrivning. (Accessed November 9th 2017.)
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
(2002) Word. A Typological Framework. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word. A Cross-linguistic Typology, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duden
(2009) Die deutsche Rechtschreibung. 25th edition. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna
(2006) Erfolg versprechend oder erfolgversprechend? Zur Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung. Praxis Deutsch 1981. 48–53.Google Scholar
(2007) Zwischen Wort und Syntagma. Zur grammatischen Fundierung der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Das graphematische Wort (im Deutschen). Eine erste Annäherung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 271. 189–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) System der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung. In Ursula Bredel & Tilo Reißig (eds.), Weiterführender Orthographieunterricht, 107–128. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
(2015) Orthografie. 4th edition. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna & Jörg Peters
(2013) Einführung in die Phonologie und Graphematik. Stuttgart: Metzler. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter
(1999) Wortbegriff und Nomen-Verb-Verbindungen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18.2. 269–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geilfuß-Wolfgang, Jochen
(2002) Optimal hyphenation. In Martin Neef, Anneke Neijt & Richard Sproat (eds.), The Relation of Writing to Spoken Language, 115–130. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hallencreutz, Katharina
(1994) Särskrivning och andra skrivningar i elevspråk. Förhandlingar vid Tjugonde Sammankomsten för Svenskans Beskrivning, 181–189. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Skyll på längden, inte på engelskan. Språkvård 4/011: 4–9.Google Scholar
Heidemann Andersen, Margrethe
(2011) Særskrivning og sammenskrivning i dansk. In Inger Schoonderbeek Hansen & Peter Widell (eds.), 13. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, 43–54. Århus.Google Scholar
Heidemann Andersen, Margrethe & Philip Diderichsen
(2011) Sjældne og sære sammensætninger. Om særskrivninger og sammensætninger i morderne dansk. Nydanske Sprogstudier 411: 40–65.Google Scholar
Heller, Klaus
(2000) „Binde-Strich“ und „Zergliederungs-Sucht“. Sprachreport 11: 26–27.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
(1994a) Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
(1994b) Das lexikalische Fundament der Unterscheidung von obligatorischen und fakultativen Ergänzungen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 22.3. 284–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Warum wir zusammenschreiben nicht immer zusammenschreiben. Präferenzgesetze im Schriftsystem. In David Restle & Dietmar Zaefferer (eds.), Sounds and Systems. Studies in Structure and Change. A Festschrift for Theo Vennemann, 367–389. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Spatien. Zum System der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung im heutigen Deutsch. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René W. J.
(1999) Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J.
(2008) Doing Optimality Theory. Applying Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ted Briscoe & Rodney Huddleston
(2002) Punctuation. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1565–1620. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
(1997) Optimality Theory and Syntax: Movement and Pronunciation. In Diana Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Optimality Theory. An Overview, 134–170.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
(2003) Zum Silbenbegriff in der Schrift-, Laut- und Gebärdensprache. Versuch einer mediumübergreifenden Fundierung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23.1: 3–55.Google Scholar
Rakic, Stanimir
(2009) Some observations on the structure, type frequencies and spelling of English compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 6.1. 59–83.Google Scholar
Saenger, Paul
(1997) Space between Words. The Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Symanczyk Joppe, Vilma
(2011) Spatien innerhalb deutscher Komposita. Eine empirische Untersuchung normwidriger Schreibungen. M.A. Thesis, University of Wuppertal.Google Scholar
(2018) Compounds with internal spaces in German. In Hans Goetzsche (ed.), The Meaning of Language, 170–182. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
(1988) Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of Sound Change. With special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard
(2004) How to optimize orthography. Written Language and Literacy 7.2.305–331.Google Scholar