20. Graphematischer Fuß und graphematisches Wort

Evertz, Martin

doi:10.1515/9783110295993-021

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clearest markers are indicative of phonological words, as far as they happen to co-occur with lexical, morphological, or syntactic 1 words ( Jacobs, 2005 ; Fuhrhop, 2008 ; Evertz, 2016 ). They are unambiguously delimited by spaces, sometimes combined with capitalization of the initial letter (e.g., for nouns and proper names) or punctuation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this respect, German differs from other languages as Spanish or Arabic ( Treiman and Kessler, 2014 ). As in spoken language, German graphemic words should at least consist of one foot which should consist of at least one full syllable ( Fuhrhop, 2008 ; Evertz, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In German, as in other written languages using the Latin alphabet, syllables are marked by a combination of probabilistic cues, including graphemic length and graphotactic probability. First, syllabic nuclei are always realized by compact (vowel) letters without ascenders or descenders (e.g., <a>, <e>, <i>, <o>, <u>), while (consonant) letters with or without ascenders or descenders (e.g., <f>, <k>, <p> or <m>, <n>, <r>) may fill onset and/or coda positions ( Naumann, 1989 ; Primus, 2003 ; Fuhrhop, 2008 ; Evertz and Primus, 2013 ; Evertz, 2016 ). In this way, graphemic syllables are characterized by a U-curved graphemic length distribution, where length maxima mark syllabic boundaries and the length minimum marks the syllabic nucleus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In analogy to spoken language, syllables in written language can be part of graphemic feet. In German (as in English), canonical feet are trochaic, either monosyllabic or bisyllabic with a final reduction syllable ( Evertz and Primus, 2013 ; Evertz, 2016 ). In short, graphemic reduction syllables are characterized by the nature of their nucleus (always <e>) and the absence of complex margins.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bono Bo and Fla Mingo: Reflections of Speech Prosody in German Second Graders’ Writing to Dictation

Domahs¹,

Blessing²,

Kauschke³

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Written German is characterized by an underrepresentation of prosody. During writing acquisition, children have to tackle the question which prosodic features are realized by what means – if any. We examined traces of speech prosody in German children’s writing to dictation. A sample of 79 second graders were asked to write down eight sentences to dictation. We analyzed three potential reflections of speech prosody in children’s dictations: (a) Merging of preposition and definite article, potentially preferred after monosyllabic prepositions as in this case preposition and article may melt to the canonical trochaic foot in German. (b) The introduction of orthographically inadequate graphemic border markings within trisyllabic animal names, respecting borders of prosodic units like foot or syllable. (c) Omissions of the definite article in non-optimal prosodic positions, deviating from the preferred strong-weak rhythm. The occurrence of border markings was evaluated via graded perceptual judgments. We found no evidence for inter-word border markings being influenced by prosodic context, probably due to a ceiling effect. However, word-internal markings within animal names, although rarely occurring in general, were clearly influenced by prosodic structure: Most of them were produced at borders of feet or syllables, while significantly fewer markings were perceived at borders of syllable constituents or within consonant clusters. Moreover, we observed significantly more omissions of the definite article in non-optimal prosodic positions compared to potentially optimal positions. Thus, our results provide first evidence from writing acquisition for prosodic influences on writing in a language with scarce graphemic marking of prosody.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bono Bo and Fla Mingo: Reflections of Speech Prosody in German Second Graders’ Writing to Dictation

Domahs¹,

Blessing²,

Kauschke³

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Minimal graphematic words in English and German

Evertz

2016

WL&L

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been frequently noted in the literature that content words need to consist of at least three letters; this observation is commonly dubbed “three letter rule.” However, a survey of the CELEX database (Baayen et al. 1995) shows that there are (nearly) no content words in English and German that begin with two or more consonant letters and end in a single vowel letter. Words such as [bruː] are not spelt *<bru> but <brew> with an additional letter. These findings cannot be accounted for by the three letter rule but they are explicable within a supra-segmental theory of graphematics that includes graphematic feet and graphematic weight: a well-formed graphematic word consists of at least one graphematic foot that in turn consists of at least one heavy graphematic syllable. This paper offers a data-based survey in order to answer the question whether there is a suprasegmental minimality constraint for monosyllabic graphematic words in English and German.

show abstract

The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing

Meletis

2019

Writing Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The grapheme appears to be a central concept of grapholinguistics. However, there is no consensus on how it should be defined. Some use the concept of grapheme in their work but fail to give a definition while others altogether reject it. When the concept is defined, it is interpreted either as a written unit which refers to a phoneme (this is termed the referential view), or as a written unit that is lexically distinctive (analogical view), which is tested via written minimal pairs such as and analogously to phonological minimal pairs which can be used to discover phonemes. A problem of these two views is that they are restricted to alphabets. A universal conception of the grapheme inclusive of all types of writing systems would make possible the uniform description and, consequently, the comparison of diverse writing systems. Such a conception is proposed here: Graphemes are units of writing which are (1) lexically distinctive, (2) have linguistic value (mostly by referring to phonemes, syllables, morphemes, etc.), and are (3) minimal. These criteria are characterised in detail, and examples from writing systems such as Arabic, Chinese, Devanāgarī, German, Japanese, Korean, Tamil, and Thai highlight their cross-linguistic applicability.

show abstract

20. Graphematischer Fuß und graphematisches Wort

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Bono Bo and Fla Mingo: Reflections of Speech Prosody in German Second Graders’ Writing to Dictation

Bono Bo and Fla Mingo: Reflections of Speech Prosody in German Second Graders’ Writing to Dictation

Minimal graphematic words in English and German

The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About