It has been proposed that, like in many other areas of linguistic investigation, English, German, and Dutch show very similar word stress patterns. In these languages, word stress is not fixed, but realized within the final three syllables of monomorphemic words. Diachronically, all three languages are assumed to have initial stress. However, closer investigations of stress distributions from single language and comparative perspectives reveal that there is no consensus on the actual stress-assigning algorithms. Some authors assume a quantity-insensitive explanation (Kiparsky 1980; Wiese 2000), while many others suggest quantity-sensitive accounts (Hayes 1995; Giegerich 1985, 1992; Trommelen & Zonneveld 1999). [7]
The approaches presented in this section are mostly in the tradition of Metrical Phonology in which word stress is basically built upon feet of a certain type. Hayes (1995) proposed that languages differ basically with respect to the foot type they choose. It is assumed that feet are strictly binary consisting of either two syllables or two moras, where either the left (trochaic) or the right part (iambic) is strong. The stress systems of the West-Germanic languages German, Dutch and English share some basic properties, but seem to be different with respect to others. Generally, it is assumed that German, English, and Dutch are trochaic languages. However, analyses differ according to the domain on which feet are constructed, namely either syllables or moras (cf. Hyman 1985; Roca 1992). Furthermore, there are some accounts arguing in favor of a trochaic-dactylic system (for German: Eisenberg 1991; Vennemann 1995; for English: Burzio 1987, 1991, 1994). In monomorphemic words of all three languages, one of the three final syllables is 5 stressed and stress is assigned starting from the right edge of the word to the left. Furthermore, for Dutch and German a generalization can be found that words containing a final schwa-syllable are regularly stressed on the penultimate syllable (e.g. Bruce & Árnason 1999; Giegerich 1985; Kager 1989; Trommelen & Zonneveld, 1999b; Jessen, 1999). In the following subsections we will discuss each language in turn.
German
For this language, quantity-sensitivity is still under debate. Many researchers postulate that syllable weight is decisive for German stress assignment (e.g. Domahs, Wiese, Bornkessel Schlesewsky, and Schlesewsky 2008; Féry 1986, 1998; Giegerich 1985; Ramers 1992; Wurzel 1970, 1980). In particular, it is suggested that the final syllable is stressed in words with a heavy final syllable (e.g Argumént ‘argument’), but is unstressed in words with a light final syllable, in which case the penultimate syllable receives primary stress (e.g. Agénda). According to these approaches, final and prefinal stress is predictable by the weight of the final syllable whereas antepenultimate stress seems to be prespecified in the lexicon. Giegerich (1985), however, claims that the antepenult is computed as a stressed syllable if both the final and prefinal syllables are light (e.g. Rísiko ‘risk’). The situation becomes more complicated if we look at the notion of quantity-sensitivity as such because some approaches for German develop their own notion of syllable weight. As Hyman (1985) points out, languages with a quantity-sensitive stress system are defined in terms of moras, i.e. units of syllable weight. A syllable is normally counted as monomoraic, or light, if its rhyme consists of a short vowel, whereas a bimoraic, or heavy, syllable comprises a rhyme with either a long vowel or a short one followed by a consonant. According to Féry (1998) only superheavy syllables (i.e. syllables with three filled rhyme positions as in VVC or VCC) are taken to be heavy while Vennemann (1990, 1991, 1995) postulates that any closed syllable is heavy in contrast to open syllables, which he throughout classifies as light, irrespective of vowel length. Thus a VV rhyme is heavy in the traditional approach, but light in Féry’s and Vennemann’s approach, and a VC rhyme is heavy in the traditional and Vennemann’s approach, but light in Féry’s. According to Giegerich (1985), final consonants are extrametrical, therefore final syllables are heavy if consisting of a long vowel or of a short vowel followed by two consonants. Such inconsistencies regarding the role of vowel length, consonant extrametricality as well as the amount of counter-examples to stress rules based on syllable weight led some 6 phonologists (e.g. Eisenberg 1991; Kaltenbacher 1994; Wiese 1996) to consider the German stress system to be insensitive to syllable weight rather than sensitive. Since most of the native words are bisyllabic and end in a reduced syllable that cannot bear main stress, the statistically predominant stress position is the penultimate syllable. Thus, it is suggested that only penultimate stress is regular, whereas for words with final and antepenultimate stress the stress position has to be lexically determined.
Dutch
The Dutch stress system is unanimously classified as quantity-sensitive in the literature. Van der Hulst (1984), Kager (1989), Trommelen and Zonneveld (1989, 1999b), Booij (1995), and Zonneveld and Nouveau (2004) propose a metrical theory of the Dutch stress system in which closed syllables are heavy and open syllables are light irrespective of the vowel length. In their accounts metrical feet consist of either one heavy (i.e. closed) or two light syllables. For words with an open final syllable, the unmarked stress is realized on the penultimate syllable (e.g. sombréro). In words with a closed final syllable, the stress pattern is constrained by the structure of the penultimate syllable. If the penult is light, the antepenultimate syllable receives the stress (e.g. álcohol ‘alcohol’). If the penult is heavy it attracts primary stress (e.g. Gibráltar). In these words, the heavy final syllable itself cannot receive main stress because it is considered extrametrical at the word level. A systematic exception to this pattern concerns words with a super-heavy final syllable that is not extrametrical. Hence such words have final stress (abrikóos ‘apricot’). All other exceptions to these stress regularities have to be marked lexically. In such cases a light stressed final syllable is for instance specified as a monosyllabic foot bearing main stress, or an unstressed super-heavy final syllable is marked as extrametrical. Although there is consensus that Dutch is a quantity-sensitive language, it is debated what has to be considered as a heavy syllable. Most accounts favour the option that closed syllables build monosyllabic feet while open syllables with long vowels do not. This is justified by diverse theoretical considerations. Lahiri & Koreman (1988), for instance, suggest that long vowels in Dutch are associated with only one mora, Kager (1989) claims that weight is defined by the number of segment root nodes following the first mora of the rhyme, and van Oostendorp (1995) proposes that long vowels are not represented as long. Van der Hulst (2003), in contrast, assumes that there is no duration contrast at all but only a tenseness contrast, where lax vowels must be followed by a consonant and tense vowels occur in open 7 syllables. Contrary to the postulation that only closed syllables are heavy, recent systematic phonetic analyses of Dutch vowels by Rietveld, Kerkhoff, and Gussenhoven (2004) revealed that durational differences between long vowels in open syllables and short vowels in closed syllables occurred only in stressed syllables. This finding is interpreted as evidence that not only closed syllables but also open syllables with long vowels are parsed as heads of feet and that vowel length therefore contributes to syllabic weight (Gussenhoven, 2009). The present study was not designed to address the controversy about the interpretation of syllabic weight in Dutch, but to systematically compare the three languages under discussion. Dutch is the only one of the three languages in which vowel length is systematically encoded by the orthography. Using only consonant-final syllable as heavy across all languages allowed us to implement an uncontroversial coding of heaviness.
English
In the literature on English we find quantity-sensitive and quantity-insensitive models. Kiparsky (1982, 1985) and Booij and Rubach (1992) assume that regular word stress assignment is not regulated by syllable weight properties. Rather, default stress in monomorphemic nouns is suggested to fall on the penult. The most notable assumption they make is that only the default stress pattern is derived by a stress rule. This so-called “English Stress Rule” as described by Hayes (1982) builds a trochaic foot over the last two syllables, leading to penultimate stress. All other stress patterns are considered to be lexically specified. Accounts that are designed to explain a larger range of data claim that the English stress system resembles the Latin Stress Rule and is sensitive to syllable weight (e.g. Chomsky & Halle, 1968; Liberman & Prince 1977; Giegerich 1985, 1992; Hayes 1982; Kager 1989; Roca 1992; Trommelen & Zonneveld, 1999a). Leaving the final syllable aside as extrametrical, the stress position depends on the structure of the prefinal syllable. If the penult is heavy (with a rhyme consisting of either VV or VC), the penult is stressed; otherwise the antepenult receives main stress. However, such an algorithm is not capable of explaining all cases of English stress patterns. For example, there are cases where the final syllable does receive primary stress (Hallowéen, violín, lemonáde). These must then be considered exceptions to the rule of extrametricality. Accordingly, Hayes (1982: 239) proposed that final syllables containing a long vowel are not extrametrical, but form monosyllabic feet and receive either primary (Hallowéen) or secondary stress ('misan, thrope). In contrast, final syllables containing short vowels are analyzed as being extrametrical. [ 5]
