Cover not available

Article published In: The architecture of writing systems
Edited by Kristian Berg, Franziska Buchmann and Nanna Fuhrhop
[Written Language & Literacy 17:2] 2014
► pp. 253–281

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Morphophonographic regularities in German: the graphematic syllable boundary

A non-linear graphematic approach

 | University of Osnabrück, Germany
Published online: 22 September 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.17.2.04sch
It is widely acknowledged that the German writing system is not only phonographically structured but also represents morphological information (besides other grammatical information). Stem constancy, i.e. the graphic resemblance between morphologically related words, is the most prominent example of this. It is, however, only the phenomenological peak of morphographic structures within the German writing system. This paper deals with the question of how the graphematic coding of phonological and morphological information interacts systematically and how this morphophonographic interaction can be modeled in an adequate way. The theoretical framework for this investigation is a – slightly modified – non-linear graphematic approach as proposed by Primus (2010) and Evertz and Primus (2013). In analogy to non-linear phonology, this framework operates with a graphematic hierarchy. Within the framework, well- known and only recently established graphematic concepts – e.g. letter features, the graphematic syllable or the graphematic word – can be modeled as parts of a hierarchically structured system. This hierarchy shows the dependencies between the different graphematic units and how the writing system codes grammatical information in a suprasegmental way. Keywords: phonographic and morphographic regularities; German writing system; non-linear graphematics; stem constancy; graphematic syllabification
References (37)
Berg, Kristian & Nanna Fuhrhop (2011). Komplexe Silbenkernschreibungen im Englischen im Vergleich mit dem Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 2281: 443–466.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula (2010). Der Schrift vertrauen. Wie Wörter und ihre Strukturen entdeckt werden können. Praxis Deutsch 2211: 14–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula, Nanna Fuhrhop & Christina Noack (2011). Wie Kinder lesen und schreiben lernen. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula, Christina Noack & Ingo Plag (2013). Morphologie lesen. ­Stammkonstanzschrei–bung und Leseverstehen bei starken und schwachen Lesern. In Martin Neef & Carmen Scherer (eds.), Die Schnittstelle von Morphologie und geschriebener Sprache, 211–249. ­Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John ­Kingston & Martin Beckmann (eds.), Between the grammar and physics of speech, 283–340. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Samuel Jay Keyser (1983). CV phonology. A generative theory of the ­syllable. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diependaele, Kevin, Jonathan Grainger & Dominiek Sandra (2011). Derivational morphology and skilled reading: An empirical overview. In Michael Spivey, Ken McRae & Marc Joanisse (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistic, 311–332. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diependaele, Kevin, Dominiek Sandra & Jonathan Grainger (2009). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: The case of prefixed words. Memory & Cognition 371: 895–908. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa ([2002] 2012). Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik. 4th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter (1992). Suffixreanalyse und Syllabierung. Zum Verhältnis von phonologischer und morphologischer Segmentierung. Folia Linguistica Historica 13.1–2: 93–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
([1998] 2013). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Das Wort. Unter Mitarbeit von Nanna Fuhrhop. 4th edition. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evertz, Martin & Beatrice Primus (2013). The graphematic foot in English and German. Writing Systems Research 5.11: 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna (2008). Das graphematische Wort (im Deutschen). Eine erste Annäherung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 271: 189–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
([2005] 2009). Orthografie. 3rd edition. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
& Rebecca Barghorn (2012). Prinzipien der Wortschreibung im Deutschen und Englischen am Beispiel der Schreibdiphthonge und Silbengelenke. In Lutz ­Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Deutsch im Sprachvergleich. Grammatische Kontraste und ­Konvergenzen, 135–160. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Fuhrhop, Nanna & Franziska Buchmann (2009). Die Längenhierarchie. Zum Bau der graphematischen Silbe. Linguistische Berichte 2181: 127–155.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna, Franziska Buchmann & Kristian Berg (2011). The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable. Evidence from German and English. Written Language & Literacy 14.2: 275–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna & Jörg Peters (2013). Einführung in die Phonologie und Graphematik. Stuttgart: Metzler. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geilfuß-Wolfgang, Jochen (2007). Worttrennung am Zeilenende. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grainger, Jonathan & Johannes C. Ziegler (2011). A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology 21: 54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maas, Utz (1992). Grundzüge der deutschen Orthographie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neef, Martin (2005). Die Graphematik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Worttrennung am Zeilenende. Überlegungen zur Bewertung und Analyse orthographischer Daten. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 351: 283–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerius, Dieter ([1987] 2007). Deutsche Orthographie. 4th edition. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice (2000). Suprasegmentale Graphematik und Phonologie: Die Dehnungszeichen im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 1811: 9–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Zum Silbenbegriff in der Schrift-, Laut- und Gebärdensprache – ­Versuch einer mediumübergreifenden Fundierung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22.1: 3–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). A featural analysis of the Modern Roman Alphabet. Written Language & Literacy 7.2: 235–274.
(2006). Buchstabenkomponenten und ihre Grammatik. In Ursula Bredel & Hartmut Günther (eds.), Orthographietheorie und Rechtschreibunterricht, 5–43. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramers, Karl Heinz (2000). Ist der Wortakzent im Deutschen unsichtbar? Talk presented to the 22nd annual meeting of the DGfS in Marburg.
Schmidt, Karsten (2012). Wie viel Morphologie kodiert das Schriftsystem des Deutschen? Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen einer nicht-linearen Graphematik. Master‘s thesis, University of Oldenburg.
Stetter, Christian (1997). Schrift und Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 181: 21–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus & Minh Nguyen-Hoan (2010). A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 251: 277–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard (1991). Was ist extrasilbisch im Deutschen und warum? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10.1: 112–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
([1996] 2006). The phonology of German. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford ­University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Share, David L.
2025. Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model. Reading Research Quarterly 60:2 DOI logo
Senesi, Rosso Manuel
2023. Latin <XS>: Seeing double. Written Language & Literacy 26:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Si-Teak Yu
2017. Phonologische Analysen superschwerer Silben und die Funktion von "h" in der graphematischen Repräsentation. Zeitschrift f？r Deutsche Sprache und Literatur null:78 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fuhrhop, Nanna, Rebecca Carroll, Catharina Drews & Esther Ruigendijk
2016. Sind die Buchstabenformen eine Lesehilfe?. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 63:2 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Berg, Kristian
2013. Graphemic alternations in English as a reflex of morphological structure. Morphology 23:4 ► pp. 387 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue