Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

Quantity-sensitivity in Dutch

quickinfo

The question as to whether Dutch stress is quantity-sensitive is under debate in the literature, as many of the data in favor of quantity-sensitivity are not exceptionless. Furthermore, stress in Dutch is at least partly lexical and some of the predictions of the weight scale are typologically odd.

With the exception of schwa syllables, all syllable types can receive primary stress in Dutch (see also Generalizations on the placement of primary stress in Dutch). While a variety of scholars agree that the Dutch stress system is quantity-sensitive, there have been different interpretations of how to express this notion in a weight scale (see e.g. Van der Hulst 1984;Kager 1989;Trommelen and Zonneveld 1989; Gussenhoven 2009, among others). Furthermore, evidence in favor of quantity-sensitivity has been questioned by Booij (1995) and Van Oostendorp (2012).

On the assumption that A-class vowels are long (which may be regarded as the standard assumption until Van Oostendorp (1995), who argued for a tense-lax distinction instead (see also rhyme), proponents of quantity-sensitivity proposals run into the problem that the resulting weight scale runs afoul of universal typologies of syllable weight (see McCarthy 1979; Hyman 1985; Zec 1988). The argument runs as follows: the Dutch data suggest that closed syllables (with B-class vowels) in the penult attract stress, whereas open syllables (with A-class vowels) do not. Thus, if we regard A-class vowels as long, this implies that VC-syllables are heavy, whereas VV-syllables are light. This is indeed what we find in the weight scale by Van der Hulst (1984; note that Van der Hulst acknowledges this problematic aspect):

Weight scale for Dutch syllables I (from light to heavy)

Schwa << A-class vowel / Diphthong << B-class vowel + consonant << B-class vowel + two consonants << A-class vowel / Diphthong + consonant

In terms of the opposition VV vs. VC, this translates as follows:

Weight scale for Dutch syllables II (from light to heavy)

Schwa (V) << VV << VC << VCC << VVC

This runs counter to the above-mentioned typologies: according to these, languages either treat VV and VC both as heavy, or they treat VV as heavy, and VC as light. The opposite order, VC >> VV, as proposed for Dutch, does not match the typology. Next to the typologically odd hierarchy VV << VC, there may be a further empirical problem with Van der Hulst’s weight scale: diphthongs, which are strong attractors of main stress, are placed alongside with long vowels (which are not stress attracting). Thus, they may be placed too low in the hierarchy.

Thus, to account for the Dutch stress system in terms of a weight scale, diphthongs should be regarded as heavier than A-class vowels. In an approach that assumes length as the relevant phonological feature for the differentiation between A-class vowels and B-class vowels (and regards the difference lax vs. tense as irrelevant for the phonological representation), we would have to split between quantity-sensitivity and quality-sensitivity (VV monophthongs would count as light, VV diphthongs as heavy).

Among scholars defending the view of Dutch as quantity-sensitive, several attempts have been made to capture the typological oddities as well as the differences between A-class vowels and diphthongs. For example, Kager (1989:261) defines quantity-sensitivity in Dutch as a result of melodic complexity: a syllable is light if two moras are linked to one root node. On the other hand, closed syllables as well as diphthongs are heavy, as two root nodes are linked here to two moras).

Basing himself on duration measurements, Gussenhoven (2009) argues that all tense vowels are underlyingly short (monomoraic) but that tense mid and low vowels are lengthened in stressed syllables (according to the so-called Stress-to-Weight Principle, they become bimoraic) – thus, Dutch would be quantity-sensitive. Note, however, that according to Gussenhoven, tense high vowels remain monomoraic and thus phonetically short under stress.

References

Booij, Geert1995The phonology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
Gussenhoven, Carlos2009Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in DutchThe nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul KiparskyCambridge, MA.; LondonMIT Press181--198
Gussenhoven, Carlos2009Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in DutchThe nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul KiparskyCambridge, MA.; LondonMIT Press181--198
Hulst, Harry van der1984Syllable structure and stress in DutchDordrechtForis
Hulst, Harry van der1984Syllable structure and stress in DutchDordrechtForis
Hyman, Larry M1985A theory of phonological weightDordrechtForis. (Reprinted by CSLI, Stanford University, 2003)
Kager, René1989A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and DutchDordrechtForis
Kager, René1989A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and DutchDordrechtForis
McCarthy, John J1979On stress and syllabificationLinguistics Department Faculty Publication SeriesPaper 531-25
Oostendorp, Marc van1995Vowel Quality and Phonological ProjectionTilburg UniversityThesis
Oostendorp, Marc van2012Quantity and the Three-Syllable Window in Dutch word stressLanguage and Linguistics Compass6.6343-358
Trommelen, Mieke & Zonneveld, Wim1989Klemtoon en metrische fonologieMuiderbergCoutinho
Zec, Draga1988Sonority Constraints on Prosodic StructureStanford UniversityThesis

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Björn Köhnlein

Category: Dutch Phonology

Keywords: quantity-sensitivitystress

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Björn Köhnlein	December 2015

printreport errorcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles