Article published in:
Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 189–202

Etymological sub-lexicons constrain the graphematic solution space

Graphematics comprises of the theory of writing systems dissociated from the normative aspects of orthography. Neef (2005, 2012) adds the notion of graphematic solution space, the orthographic options available for the words in a language. These options may be different for the words of different sub-lexicons, an issue that calls for a definition of such sub-lexicons. This paper proposes to use the filter approach of Van Heuven, Neijt, & Hijzelendoorn (1994). This paper concludes with critical remarks about Neef ’s assumption of a subset relation between vocabulary levels and the more general claim of the graphematics enterprise that the study of writing systems can escape the norms and conventions of orthography.
Published online: 10 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.16nei
References
Bierwisch, M
(1972) Schriftstruktur und Phonologie [Writing structure and phonology]. Probleme und Ergebnisse der Psychologie, 43, 21–44.Google Scholar
Carney, E
(1994) A survey of English spelling. London, New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, J
(1971) Nederlands etymologisch woordenboek [Dutch etymological dictionary]. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P
(1988) Über die Autonomie der graphematischen Analyse [On the autonomy of graphematic analysis]. In D. Nerius & G. Augst (Eds.), Probleme der geschriebenen Sprache (pp. 25–35).Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften (Linguistische Studien Reihe A 173).Google Scholar
(2006). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik[A sketch of German grammar]. Band 1, Das Wort (3rd ed.). Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, N
(2005) Orthografie [Orthography]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gallmann, P
(1986) The graphic elements of German written language. In G. Augst (Ed.), New trends in graphemics and orthography (pp. 43–79). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heemskerk, J.S.M., & Van Heuven, V.J
(1993) MORPA, a MORphological PArser for a Dutch text-to-speech system. In V.J. van Heuven & L.C.W. Pols (Eds.), Analysis and synthesis of speech, towards high-quality text-to-speech generation (pp. 67–85). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L.M
(1977) On the nature of linguistic stress. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4, 37–92.Google Scholar
Kager, R., & Zonneveld, W
(1986) Schwa, syllables and extrametricality in Dutch. The Linguistic Review, 5, 197–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neef, M
(2005) Die Graphematik des Deutschen [German graphematics]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Graphematics as part of a modular theory of phonographic writing systems. Writing Systems Research, 4, 214–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neijt, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H
(2003)  Verpleegsters, ambassadrices and masseuses. Stratum differences in the comprehension of Dutch words with feminine agent suffixes. In P. Fikkert & L. Cornips (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2003 (pp. 117–127)Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunn, A.M
(1998) Dutch orthography: A systematic investigation of the spelling of Dutch words. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Nunn, A., & Van Heuven, V.J
(1993) MORPHON: Lexicon-based text-to-phoneme conversion and phonological rules. In V.J. van Heuven & L.C.W. Pols (Eds.), Analysis and synthesis of speech, towards high-quality text-to-speech generation, (pp. 87–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, R
(2000) A computational theory of writing systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Veen, P.A.F., & Van der Sijs, N
(1990) Etymologisch woordenboek, de herkomst van onze woorden [Etymological dictionary, the origin of our words]. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J., Neijt, A.H., & Hijzelendoorn, M
(1994) Automatische indeling van Nederlandse woorden op basis van etymologische filters [Automatic classification of Dutch words on the basis of etymological filters]. Spektator, 23(4), 279–291.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B.F., & Stone, G.O
(1990) Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488–522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Wijk, N
(1980 [1912]) Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Franck’s etymological dictionary of the Dutch language]. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Venezky, R
(1970) The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) The American way of spelling. New York/London: Guilford.Google Scholar
Weingarten, R
(2011) Comparative graphematics. In S.R. Borgwaldt & T. Joyce (Eds.), Typology of writing systems. Special issue of Written Language and Literacy, 14(1), 12–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zuidema, J., & Neijt, A
(2012) Verkennend onderzoek naar de wenselijkheid en de haalbaarheid van een verrijking van de Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal ten behoeve van spellingonderwijs. Rapport in opdracht van de Nederlandse Taalunie [An exploratory investigation of the advisability and feasibility of an enrichment of the official Dutch spelling for the benefit of spelling education. Report by order of the Dutch Language Union]. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Retrievable from http://​taalunieversum​.org​/sites​/tuv​/files​/downloads​/rapport%20VWS%2015022013​.pdfGoogle Scholar