Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-476zt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T18:34:35.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Experimental Study of Syllabification in Icelandic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Thomas Berg
Thomas Berg
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 6, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail: thomas_berg@uni-hamburg.de
Get access

Abstract

In many languages the syllabification of intervocalic consonants has been shown to be influenced by the principle of onset maximization, whereby as many segments are assigned to the subsequent syllable as are phonotactically legal. Icelandic, however, has been repeatedly argued to follow a coda maximization strategy even though opinion has remained divided on this. This paper is an attempt to address this issue from the psycholinguistic perspective. The results of two experiments leave little doubt that the proper syllabification in Icelandic is onset maximization rather than coda maximization, thereby aligning Icelandic with many other languages and providing further support for the onset maximization principle. A number of other aspects were investigated, including the special status of certain two-consonant clusters, preaspiration and gemination. Clusters with a maximum sonority difference between their constituents were found to tend towards tautosyllabicity, whereas those with a smaller sonority difference gravitate towards heterosyllabicity. Furthermore, there is at least some evidence for the claim that both preaspiration and gemination lend themselves to an analysis in terms of a sequence of two identical consonants at the underlying level.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2001 , pp. 71 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Árnason, K. 1980. Quantity in Historical Phonology. Icelandic and Related Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 1986. The Segmental and Suprasegmental Status of Preaspiration in Modern Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 9, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benediktsson, H. 1963. The Non-Uniqueness of Phonemic Solutions: Quantity and Stress in Icelandic. Phonetica 10, 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. 1988. Die Abbildung des Sprachproduktionsprozesses in einem Aktivationsfluβmodell. Untersuchungen an deutschen und englischen Versprechern. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. & Niemi, J. 2000. Syllabification in Finnish and German: Onset Filling versus Onset Maximization. Journal of Phonetics 28, 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. 1986. Icelandic Vowel Lengthening and Prosodic Phonology. In Beukema, F. & Hulk, A. (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1986. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1990. The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core Syllabification. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. E. (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, B. L. 1992a. A ‘Pause-Break’ Task for Eliciting Syllable Boundary Judgments from Literate and Illiterate Speakers: Preliminary Results for Five Diverse Languages. Language and Speech 35, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, B. 1992b. Orthographic Aspects of Linguistic Competence. In: Downing, P., Lima, S. D. & Noonan, M. (eds), The Linguistics of Literacy. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einarsson, S. 1949. Icelandic. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Fenk, A. & Fenk-Oczlon, G. 1993. Menzerath's Law and the Constant Flow of Linguistic Information. In Köhler, R. & Rieger, B. B. (eds) Contributions to Quantitative Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnes, S. 1975. Perception, Production and Language Change. In Grossman, R. E., San, L. J. & Vance, T. J. (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 156–169.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. & Larson, G. 1992. Using Networks in a Harmonic Phonology. In Marshall Denton, J., Chan, G. P. & Canakas, C. P. (eds) Papers from the Parasession on the Cycle in Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 94–125.Google Scholar
Grégoire, A. 1899. Variations de durée de la syllabe françhise. La Parole 1, 263–280.Google Scholar
Guðmundsson, V. 1922. Islandsk grammatik. Copenhagen: Hagerups Forlag.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1958. The Phonemics of Modern Icelandic. Language 34, 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. 1986. Inalterability in CV Phonology. Language 62, 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, B. 1985. The Relation between Aspiration and Preaspiration in Icelandic. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds), Advances in Non-Linear Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 237–265.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. 1972. The Syllable in Phonological Theory. Language 48, 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. B. 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. 1992. Catalan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Itô, J. 1988. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. & Kesterson, C. A. 1989. Foot and Syllable Structure in Modern Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12, 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1984. On the Lexical Phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C. C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E. (eds), Nordic Prosody III. Umeå: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 135–164.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, B. 1937. Die Laute des modernen Isländischen. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, J. 1948. Contribution à la théorie de la syllabe. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jezykoznawczego 8, 80–114.Google Scholar
Laeufer, C. 1995. Effects of Tempo and Stress on German Syllable Structure. Journal of Linguistics 31, 227–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1972. The Timing of Utterances and Linguistic Boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 2018–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macken, M. A. 1990. Trimoraic Syllable Structure. In Ziolkowski, M, Noske, M. & Deaton, K. (eds), Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 273–285.Google Scholar
Murray, R. W. & Vennemann, T. 1983. Sound Change and Syllable Structure in Germanic Phonology. Language 59, 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, S. 1972. Production and Perception of Vowel Duration. Philips Research Reports Supplement No. 5. Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Odden, D. 1996. The Phonology and Morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursson, M. 1972. La préaspiration en islandais moderne. Examen de sa réalisation phonétique chez deux sujets. Studia Linguistica 26, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursson, M. 1978. Isländisch. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Plotkin, V. Y. 1974. Is Length Phonologically Relevant in Icelandic? Phonetica 30, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulgram, E. 1970. Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, G. C. 1984. Lexical Borrowing in Modern Icelandic and Syllable Structure Constraints. Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ohio, pp. 288–297.Google Scholar
Ringen, C. O. 1999. Aspiration, Preaspiration, Deaspiration, Sonorant Devoicing and Spirantization in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. 1982. The Syllable. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Part II. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 337–383.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. 1984. Length as a Suprasegmental: Evidence from Speech Errors. Language 60, 895–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1978. On the Phonology of Icelandic Preaspiration. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1, 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1994. Icelandic. In König, E. & van der Auwera, J. (eds), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 142–189.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. 1992. Experimental Studies of English Syllabification. In Dressier, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E. & Rennison, J. R. (eds), Phonologica 1988. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–280.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. & Zukowski, A. 1990. Toward an Understanding of English Syllabification. Journal of Memory and Language 29, 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1972. On the Theory of Syllabic Phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18, 1–18.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar