Article published in:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 19:2 (2016) ► pp. 189–211

Minimal graphematic words in English and German

Lexical evidence for a theory of graphematic feet

| University of Cologne
It has been frequently noted in the literature that content words need to consist of at least three letters; this observation is commonly dubbed “three letter rule.” However, a survey of the CELEX database (Baayen et al. 1995) shows that there are (nearly) no content words in English and German that begin with two or more consonant letters and end in a single vowel letter. Words such as [bruː] are not spelt *<bru> but <brew> with an additional letter. These findings cannot be accounted for by the three letter rule but they are explicable within a supra-segmental theory of graphematics that includes graphematic feet and graphematic weight: a well-formed graphematic word consists of at least one graphematic foot that in turn consists of at least one heavy graphematic syllable. This paper offers a data-based survey in order to answer the question whether there is a suprasegmental minimality constraint for monosyllabic graphematic words in English and German.
Keywords: Graphematic hierarchy, graphematic weight, graphematic syllable, graphematic foot, CELEX, lexical database, minimal words, German, English
Published online: 01 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.19.2.03eve
References
Augst, Gerhard
(1980) Die graphematische Dehnungsbezeichnung und die Möglichkeiten einer Reform. Deutsche Sprache, 41: 306–326.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers
(1995) The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Berg, Kristian
(2012) Identifying graphematic units. Vowel and consonant letters. Written Language & Literacy 15(1): 26–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian, Beatrice Primus & Lutz Wagner
(2016) Buchstabenmerkmal, Buchstabe, Graphem. In: Beatrice Primus & Ulrike Domahs (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe, 337–355. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carney, Edward
(1994) A Survey of English Spelling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian
(2004) The English Writing System. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart
(1988) Syllable onsets as a factor in stress rules. Phonology 51: 1–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Domahs, Frank, Ria de Bleser & Peter Eisenberg
(2001) Silbische Aspekte segmentalen Schreibens – neurolinguistische Evidenz. Linguistische Berichte 1851: 13–30.Google Scholar
Domahs, Ulirke, Ingo Plag & Rebecca Carroll
(2014) Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 171: 59–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter
(2006) Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Bd. 1: Das Wort. 3 edn. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. & Keren Everett
(1984) On the relevance of syllable onsets to stress placement. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 705–711.Google Scholar
Evertz, Martin
(2014) Visual Prosody – The graphematic foot in English and German. Ph.D. thesis. University of Cologne: Germany.Google Scholar
(2016) Graphematischer Fuß und graphematisches Wort. In Beatrice Primus & Ulrike Domahs (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe, 377–398. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evertz, Martin & Beatrice Primus
(2013) The graphematic foot in English and German. Writing Systems Research 5(1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. & Harry van der Hulst
(2001) The phonological Structure of Words. An introduction. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Fronek, Josef
(1982)  Thing as a function word. Linguistics 201: 633–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nana
(2008) Das graphematische Wort (im Deutschen): Eine erste Annäherung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 271: 189–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nana, Franziska Buchmann & Kristian Berg
(2011) The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable: Evidence from German and English. Written Language & Literacy 14.2: 275–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J.
(1992) English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. Alan
(1999) Phonotactics and the Prosodic Structure of German Function Words. In Alan T. Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz, (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word, 99–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Bariş & René Schiering
(2006) The Phonology and Morphology of Function Word Contractions in German. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 91: 53–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, Sonia, Lucie Hérault, Géraldine Grosjacques, Eric Lambert & Michel Fayol
(2009) Orthographic vs. phonologic syllables in handwriting production. Cognition 1101: 440–444. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Michael H.
(2004) Word onset patterns and lexical stress in English. Journal of memory and language 501: 231–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maas, Utz
(1999) Einführung in die funktionale Phonetik des Deutschen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince
(1995) Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk & Laura Walsh Dickey (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin
(2010) Die Schreibung nicht-nativer Einheiten in einer Schriftsystemtheorie mit einem mehrschichtigen Wortschatzmodell. In Carmen Scherer & Anke Holler (eds.), Strategien der Integration und Isolation nicht-nativer Einheiten und Strukturen, 11–29. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
(2000) Suprasegmentale Graphematik und Phonologie: Die Dehnungszeichen im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 1811: 5–30.Google Scholar
(2003) Zum Silbenbegriff in der Schrift-, Laut- und Gebärdensprache – Versuch einer mediumübergreifenden Fundierung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 221: 3–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) A featural analysis of the modern Roman alphabet. Written Language & Literacy 7.2: 235–274.Google Scholar
(2010) Strukturelle Grundlagen des deutschen Schriftsystems. In Ursula Bredel, Astrid Müller & Gabriele Hinney (eds.), Schriftsystem und Schrifterwerb: linguistisch – didaktisch – empirisch, 9–45. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky
(1993) Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University (= Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2).Google Scholar
Ramers, Karl Heinz
(1998) Minimale Wörter: Prosodische Beschränkungen graphischer Wortstrukturen. In Bernd J. Kröger, Christine Riek & Georg Sachse (eds.), Festschrift für Georg Heike, 25–39. Frankfurt am Main: Forum Phoneticum 66.Google Scholar
Roemheld, Friedrich
(1955) Die Längenbezeichnung in der deutschen Rechtschreibung. Der Deutschunterricht 71, 71–82.Google Scholar
Rollings, Aandrew G.
(2004) The spelling patterns of English. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Roubah, Aïcha & Marcus Taft
(2001) The functional role of syllabic structure in French visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition 291: 373–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Röttger, Timo B, Ulrike Domahs, Marion Grande & Frank Domahs
(2012) Structural factors affecting the assignment of word stress in German. Journal of Germanic linguistics 24(1): 53–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. O.
(1984) Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1996) The prosodic structure of function words. In James L. Morgan & Katherine Demuth (eds.), Signal to Syntax, 187–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar