Dutch Reduction Domains: Between Syllables and Feet

Aleksei Nazarov


This paper proposes that Dutch has a separate prosodic domain that encodes the difference between reduced and unreduced vowels: the Reduction Domain (see also van der Hulst & Moortgat 1980 for a similar proposal). This proposal is supported by evidence from morphotactics and vowel reduction. I argue that Reduction Domains allow for a superior account of the morphotactics of underived verb and adjective stems in Dutch (Trommelen 1989). I also show how the Reduction Domain yields an alternative account of restrictions on (optional) vowel reduction in Dutch (Kager 1989; van Oostendorp 1995). While this approach performs equally well on the basic facts of Dutch vowel reduction as Martínez-Paricio (2013), the Reduction Domain approach makes testable predictions both for Dutch and for phonological typology, distinct from those made by Martínez-Paricio (2013). Thus, the Reduction Domain forms an interesting case for potential addition to the Prosodic Hierarchy, whether as a language-universal representational unit, or as a representational unit specific to certain languages.


Dutch; Vowel Reduction; Metrical Theory; Prosodic Hierarchy

Full Text:



Bennett, Ryan. 2013. ‘The uniqueness of metrical structure: rhythmic phonotactics in Huariapano’. Phonology, 30, 3, 355-398.

Boersma, Paul & Joe Pater. 2008. ‘Convergence properties of a Gradual Learning Algorithm for Harmonic Grammar’. Ms., University of Amsterdam & University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Butler, Becky. 2014. Deconstructing the Southeast Asian sesquisyllable: A gestural account. Doctoral dissertation. Cornell University.

Crosswhite, Katherine. 1999. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

De Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Don, Jan & Marian Erkelens. 2006. ‘Vorm en Categorie’. Taal en Tongval, 19, 40-54.

Geerts, Twan. 2008. More about Less. Fast Speech Phonology: the Cases of French and Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University of Nijmegen.

Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

van der Hulst, Harry G. & Michaël Moortgat. 1980. ‘Prosodische fonologie en de accentuatie van Nederlandse woorden, of: Leeft het Nederlands op grote voet?’. In: Verslag van de 150e vergadering van de Vereniging van Fonetische Wetenschappen, 1-25.

Jarosz, Gaja. 2013 ‘Learning with Hidden Structure in Optimality Theory and Harmonic Grammar: Beyond Robust Interpretive Parsing’. Phonology, 30, 1, 27-71.

Kager, René W.J. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.

Kager, René W.J. & Violeta Martínez-Paricio. 2014. The internally layered foot in Dutch word prosody. Talk given at the ‘Aspects of Germanic Phonology’ Workshop, Oxford (UK), September 6-8, 2014.

Liberman, Mark & Alan Prince. 1977. ‘On stress and linguistic rhythm’. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249–336.

Martínez-Paricio, Violeta. 2013. An exploration of minimal and maximal metrical feet. PhD Dissertation, University of Tromsø.

Matisoff, James A. 1973. ‘Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia’. In: Larry M. Hyman (Ed.), Consonant types & tones, LA: USC, pp. 71-95.

McCarthy, John J. 2005. ‘Optimal paradigms’. In: Laura Downing, Tracy Alan Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 170-210.

Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

van Oostendorp, Marc. 1995. Vowel Quality and Syllable Projection. Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of Brabant.

van Oostendorp, Marc. 1997a. ‘Lexicale variatie in de optimaliteitstheorie’. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 2, 133-154.

van Oostendorp, Marc. 1997b. ‘Style levels in conflict resolution’. In: Frans Hinskens, Roeland van Hout,, Leo Wetzels (eds.), Language variation and linguistic theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 207-229.

Pater, Joe. 2000. ‘Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints’. Phonology, 17, 237-274.

Prince, Alan. 1990. ‘Quantitative Consequences of Rhythmic Organization’. In: Karen Deaton, Manuela Noske, and Michael Ziolkowski (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 355-398.

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. ‘Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar’. Technical report, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder, 1993. ROA 537, 2002. Revised version published by Blackwell, 2004.

Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1980. ‘The role of prosodic categories in English word stress’. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 3, 563-605.

Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1986. ‘On derived domains in sentence phonology’. Phonology, 3, 371-405.

Tesar, Bruce & Paul Smolensky. 2000. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Trommelen, Mieke. 1989. ‘Lettergreepstruktuur en woordkategorie’. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 82, 64-77.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v2i0.3751

Copyright (c) 2016 Aleksei Nazarov