Steffen Höder (University of Kiel)Low German: A profile of a word language*Abstract: This contribution claims that Modern Low German (as represented by

North Low German dialects) is a rather prototypical word language according to

the model provided by Auer (2001) and others. The interaction between sylla-

ble structure, stress, and phonemic alternations in different contexts is better

explained as a consequence of word-related as opposed to syllable-related rules

and restrictions. Apart from the relatively high complexity of possible consonant

clusters at word boundaries, this view is supported by (a) the stress sensitivity of

vocalic and consonantal syllable nuclei, including a highly differentiated vowel

system, (b) word-level phonological processes such as word-medial obstru-

ent voicing, and (c) the existence of a word-level suprasegmental phenomenon

similar to a pitch accent. On the whole, Low German is even closer to the word

language pole of the continuum between word and syllable languages than Stan-

dard German. The findings are also relevant in a wider perspective. First, it is

of general importance to include dialectal or non-standard varieties in cross-lin-

guistic typological studies and theoretical models. Second, some of the features

found in Low German are also found in other non-standard varieties of (Northern)

Germany as well as in neighboring languages, such as Danish (including South

Jutlandic) and other Scandinavian and Circum-Baltic languages, which suggests

an areal or contact-induced relation.

1 Introduction

In this contribution, I investigate whether and to what degree Modern Low

German is a word language according to the model by Auer (2001). The guiding

hypothesis is that Low German has rather typical word-language features, similar

to its closest relative and neighbor, High German. The study is based on a syn-

chronic and intralingual analysis of the language’s phonology, although the focus

is on features that are different from Standard German and other varieties of High

German. While concentrating on dialects in the vicinity of Hamburg, I assume

that the results are also representative for the larger proportion of the North Low

German dialects, at least those spoken in Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein. The

* I wish to thank Stig Eliasson and Renata Szczepaniak for their valuable comments on an ear-

lier version, and Jasmin Bliesemann for her help with my English. All remaining errors are, of

course, mine.

empirical evidence comes mainly from a detailed survey of the dialect of Alten-

werder (Höder 2010; for similar dialects cf. Kloeke 1913; von Essen 1958, 1964).

While Middle Low German served as the official language of the Hanseatic

League and a transnational lingua franca, today’s Low German is, from a socio-

linguistic point of view, a group of de-standardized and relatively diverse dia-

lects. After a successive language shift towards High German throughout the last

centuries, Low German is now mostly restricted to domains of everyday life, and

it is normally not used as a written language.¹ A recent study shows that 14% of

the population (about 2.6 million) in the traditional Low German-speaking areas

claim to be active speakers (Möller 2008: 33; for a comprehensive overview of the

sociolinguistic situation cf. Föllner 2004), all of whom of course are bilingual in

some variety of North High German. One consequence of this situation is that

communication in a bilingual mode, code-switching, and the use of High German

loanwords are very common. While this contribution does not focus on such lan-

guage contact phenomena, established loanwords both from High German and

from other languages are included. Recent additional contact-induced changes

in Low German, which also affect the phonology, are discussed in Höder (2011b).

2 Low German as a word language

2.1 Criteria

While the distinction between syllable and word languages is also relevant from

the perspective of general phonetics and phonology (a possible question would

be: is there a universally valid hierarchy of phonological units such as the phrase,

the word, the foot, the syllable, the mora?), this volume aims at a typological clas-

sification based on a set of characteristic features of word and syllable languages.

The distinction between the two types basically comes down to whether the syl-

lable or the phonological word (abbreviated as ω) is the most prominent and/or

relevant unit in the phonology of a language. Syllable and word languages are

thought of as constituting a continuum. Prototypical syllable and word languages

are expected to exhibit differences with respect to their word- and syllable-inter-

nal phonological structure, their phoneme inventories, the existence of supraseg-

mental features, and the scope of phonological rules and processes. Drawing on

Trubetzkoy’s (1989 [1939]: 29) distinction between the delimitative and the culmi-

1 As a consequence, there are competing orthographies of Low German. All examples in this

contribution are given in phonological transcription only.

306   Steffen Höder

native function of phonological units, different word-level features can be clas-

sified as boundary markers (such as consonant clusters in High German) or as

markers of word coherence (such as the distribution of vocalic nuclei in a word),

depending on whether they highlight the word by strengthening its edges or by

reinforcing its internal structure.

I use a selection of the criteria proposed, among others, by Auer (2001) and

Szczepaniak (2007), chosen according to their relevance for and applicability to

Low German. These criteria are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Syllable vs. word languages

prototypical syllable language prototypical word languagestress distinctive on phrase level distinctive on word levelsyllable structure simple (preferably CV) complex (example: consonant

clusters)vowel system uniform differentiated (e.g. stress-

sensitive)phonological processes syllable-related (example:

resyllabification across word boundaries)

word-related (example: word-medial allophones, invulnerable word boundaries)

tone (if existing) syllable-related (one toneme per syllable)

word-related (one toneme per word)

quantity (if existing) uniform (distinctive in all syllables)

stress-sensitive or word-related (distinctive in stressed syllables)

long consonants exist do not exist

2.2 Phoneme system

As a point of reference, the Low German phoneme inventory is given in Tables 2–4

(for the details of allophonic realization cf. Höder 2010). The consonant inventory

is nearly identical to Standard German, except for some minor differences includ-

ing the absence of phonemic affricates (since Low German has not undergone the

High German Consonant Shift). While /r/ is classified as a vibrant in Table 2, it is

frequently and increasingly realized as a uvular vibrant [ʀ], or a uvular or even

velar fricative [ʁ ɣ]. The alveolo-palatal fricative /ʑ/ is the Low German equivalent

to Standard German /j/ and has a wide range of allophones, including at least [j

ʝ ʑ ʒ]. Therefore, it is not an exact voiced counterpart of /ʃ/, which is postalveolar

and sometimes labialized ([ʃʷ]).

Low German: A profile of a word language    307

Table 2: Low German consonants

labial alveolar palatal velar glottalplosives p b t d k ɡfricatives f v s, sː z ʃ ʑ x hnasals m n ŋlateral lvibrant r

As for the vowels, the picture is more complex and deviates more strongly from

Standard German. This is mainly due to the fact that the original vowel quantity

is no longer distinctive. The phonemic organization of the vowel system is, as a

consequence, based on qualitative distinctions. Compared to Standard German,

Low German has six additional vowel qualities (another two distinctive heights

and both front and back open vowels). Vowels that were long historically (/i y

u e ø o/) still have long allophones in certain contexts. Generally, allophonic

length (denoted by a length mark in brackets in Table 3) is restricted to stressed

vowels (a) in positions before voiced consonants, (b) in word-final position, or (c)

bearing the Knick phoneme (Knick is a suprasegmental phoneme that has been

described as an additional quantity or a tonal feature; for details see section 2.5).

In addition, the vocalization of postvocalic /r/ has led to the emergence of sec-

ondary vowel length, which is distinctive for /a/ and /ɔ/ (cf. /haːt/ ‘hard’ and its

Standard German equivalent, hart /hart/). Finally, there are two more diphthongs

than in Standard German (/eo̯/ and /ɛɪ̯/).²

Table 3: Low German monophthongs

front [–rounded] front [+rounded] backclose i(ː) y(ː) u(ː)near-close ɪ ʏ ʊclose-mid e(ː) ø(ː) o(ː)open-mid ɛ œ ɔ, ɔːopen a, aː ɒ(ː)

2 The quality of the diphthong /eo̯/ is a rather marked feature of the Altenwerder dialect. Other

Hamburg dialects have /ɛo̯/; dialects in Schleswig-Holstein normally have /əo̯/.

308   Steffen Höder

Table 4: Low German diphthongs

front backclose-mid eo̯open-mid ɛɪ̯ ɔi̯open au̯ ɑi̯

2.3 Stress sensitivity in segmental phonotactics

2.3.1 Syllable structure, word structure, and stressIf, as hypothesized, Low German is a word language, then syllable structure

should be stress sensitive. It should be impossible to determine the structure

of a possible syllable without reference to its position within the phonological

word (or its position relative to stress). At first glance, this is obviously the

case: There are countless examples of monosyllabic words such as /teo̯/ ‘too,

overly’ or /dvaːx/ ‘dwarf’, which by definition represent both possible syllables

and possible words, and we can, of course, construct examples that violate both

syllable-related and word-related phonotactic rules (*/kmø/, */srofp/). There are

also sound sequences that represent possible syllables, but impossible words (cf.

the second syllables in /kri.ɡŋ/ ‘get-inf’ and /tsɪ.bl/ ‘onion’).³ Furthermore, some

sound sequences clearly represent possible words, but it is hard, and controver-

sial, to determine how many syllables they contain (such as /kom̂/ ‘come-inf’

or /fɪn̂/ ‘find-inf’; the circumflex here denotes the Knick phoneme discussed in

section 2.5).

At first sight, Low German syllable structure does not differ very much from

Standard German. The most salient features are the consonant clusters /st sp sv

sm sn sl/, which correspond to clusters beginning with /ʃ/ in Standard German,

as well as some unique clusters, viz. /dv tv vr/. All of these clusters occur only

word-initially or at the beginning of stressed syllables:

(1) /stɛɪ̯n/ ‘stone’

/sprok/ ‘language’

/svat/ ‘black’

3 Neither stress nor syllabicity is marked in the phonemic transcription throughout this arti-

cle, as neither is considered phonologically distinctive; see below for details. Stress is marked,

though, in words or utterances consisting of two or more phonological words. Glossing follows

the Leipzig Glossing Rules (Comrie, Haspelmath, and Bickel 2008).

Low German: A profile of a word language    309

/smitn/ ‘throw-inf’

/snakŋ/ ‘speak-inf’

/slaŋ/ ‘snake’

/dvaːs/ ‘across’

/tvɛɪ̯/ ‘two’

/vrak/ ‘wreck’

Furthermore, syllabic nasals and liquids (/m n ŋ l/ and /r/, realised as [ɐ]⁴) are

very common. Unlike the traditional and presumably still default interpretation

of syllabic consonants in Standard German, these cannot be analysed as */əC/

sequences in Low German. The two main arguments for a monophonemic ana-

lysis are (a) that there is no phonemic /ə/ due to a merger of older /ə/ and /ɪ/ (cf.

/dɪkɪ/ ‘thick-f.sg’ and the corresponding Standard German dicke /dɪkə/), and (b)

that no vowel is ever pronounced before the consonants in question, not even in

very slow and careful speech.

(2) /zupm/ ‘drink-inf [alcohol]’

/zɪtn/ ‘sit-inf’

/zɛɡŋ/ ‘say-inf’

/noɡl/ ‘nail’

/votr/ ‘water’

Generally, the syllabicity of these consonants is predictable (and hence non-pho-

nemic) from the segmental context, viz. the fact that they are preceded by a con-

sonant and followed by a word boundary or one or two obstruents (cf. /noɡlt/

‘nail-3sg.pres’). However, the syllabicity of /l/ is difficult to predict in certain

words such as /vrøɡlɪx/ ‘grumpy’, which is not syllabified according to the prin-

ciple of onset maximization as *[ˈvrøː.ɡlɪ̞ç], but is rather trisyllabic ([ˈvrøːɡl̩ɪ̞ç]). In

such examples, either the syllabicity of /l/ or the morpheme boundary before the

adjectival derivative suffix /-ɪx/ must be granted phonemic status.⁵

A more detailed analysis reveals further differences between Standard

German and Low German. One is that the overall system of syllable nuclei in Low

German is more differentiated and stress sensitive than the corresponding system

4 In some dialects, this postvocalic and syllabic allophone of /r/ has apparently merged with

/a/, which not only gives rise to a different distribution of vocalic and consonantal nuclei (since

more syllables contain a phonemic vowel /a/ than a phonemic consonant /r/), but may also lead

to an expanded diphthong system (with a possible new class of monophonemic diphthongs and

triphthongs emerging from tautosyllabic /Vr/ sequences, e.g. /oa̯ eo̯a̯/ < /or eo̯r/). It remains to

be investigated how such a development affects the typological classification of Low German as

a word or syllable language.

5 Alternatively, onset maximization could be seen as restricted to word-initial onsets.

310   Steffen Höder

in Standard German. The total number of potential syllable nuclei (abbreviated

as X̩) is 26, including 16 monophthongs, 5 diphthongs, and 5 syllabic consonants.

Of these phonemes, all but the consonants can occur in stressed syllables (21

nuclei), although stressed /ɒ/ is rare. In pre-tonic syllables, however, no more

than five are possible, including four monophthongs and one consonant (/i ɪ ʊ

a/ and /r/ [ɐ]):

(3) /bilʏtn/ [biˈlʏ̞tn̩] ‘gradually’

/bɪkikŋ/ [bɪ̞ˈkʰikŋ̩] ‘look.at-inf’

/tʊfel/ [tʰʊ̞ˈfeːl̞] ‘too much, too many’

/kanɛɪ̯l/ [kʰaˈnɛɪ̯l] ‘cinnamon’

/frɡetn/ [fɐˈɡetn̩] ‘forget-inf’

In post-tonic syllables, yet another group of nine potential nuclei occurs, includ-

ing all of the consonants as well as four vowels (/i ɪ a ɒ/):

(4) /truriɡɪ/ [ˈtʰruːriɡɪ̞] ‘sad-f.sg’

/lʏtɪ/ [ˈlʏ̞tɪ̞] ‘small-f.sg’

/fɪrmɒ/ [ˈfɪ̞ɐ̯mɒ] ‘company, firm’

As a result, both phonemic and allophonic vowel length as well as diphthongs

(which could be analysed as bimoraic and hence as equivalent to long vowels

in some underlying way, provided one adopted such a view) are restricted to

stressed syllables. Only three nuclei can occur in any type of syllable, viz. /i ɪ

a/. Table 5 shows the distribution of nuclei relative to stress (boldface indicates

nuclei that are restricted to one position):

Table 5: Stress-sensitive nucleus inventory

pre-tonic stressed post-tonicmonophthongs i ɪ ʊ a i y u ɪ ʏ ʊ e ø o ɛ œ ɔ ɔː a aː ɒ i ɪ a ɒdiphthongs eo̯ ɛɪ̯ ɔi̯ au̯ ɑi̯consonants r m n ŋ l r

Of course, names and loanwords (including loans from High German varieties)

may exhibit different patterns, such as in the names of the months /au̯ˈɡʊs/

‘August’ and /ɔkˈteo̯br/ ‘October’, where vowels that are in principle restricted to

stressed syllables nevertheless appear in unstressed positions. However, the dif-

ferences usually decrease with increasing phonological integration. These differ-

ences may be illustrated by the alternative forms of names and loanwords given

in (5), where structural deviations are gradually reduced by adapting pre- and

Low German: A profile of a word language    311

post-tonic vowels as well as, in some cases, shortening the words to monosyllabic

or trochaic feet:

(5) /maːɡɒˈrɛɪ̯tɒ/ (equivalent to English Margaret) → /maɡaˈrɛɪ̯tɒ/, /ɡrɛɪ̯tɪ/, /mɛɪ̯tɒ/

/ʑeo̯ˈhan/ (equivalent to English John) → /ʑʊhan/ [ʑʊ̞ˈhan], /ʑɪhan/ [ʑɪ̞ˈhan]

/preo̯ˈfɛsor/ (‘professor’) → /prʊfɛsr/ [pʰrʊ̞ˈfɛsɐ], /prfɛsr/ [pʰɐˈfɛsɐ]

/kɔnfɪrmɒˈtʃeo̯n/ ‘Confirmation (Lutheran Church)’ → /kʊnfrmatʃeo̯n/ [kʰʊ̞n-

fɐmaˈtʃeo̯n]

The uneven distribution of nuclei between the different syllable types serves as

a marker of word coherence. It also reinforces the culminative function of stress:

The occurrence and position of the prominent syllable within a polysyllabic word

can normally be predicted on the basis of the distribution of syllable nuclei, as

only few nuclei can be both stressed and unstressed. However, it is possible to

find or construct a few examples where the position of stress is unpredictable.

The general rule in such cases is that the stress goes on the first syllable, but there

are still some exceptions, most of which include a morpheme boundary (such as /

bɪˈstɪk/ ‘cutlery’, with the unstressed prefix /bɪ-/):

(6) /bɪlɪx/ → [ˈbɪ̞lɪ̞ç] ‘cheap’

/bɪˈstɪk/ → [bɪ̞ˈstɪ̞k] ‘cutlery’

/balas/ → [ˈbalas] ‘ballast’

/paˈlas/ → [paˈlas] ‘palace’

Thus, the stress sensitivity of the syllable nuclei somewhat paradoxically results

in the fact that stress itself, at least within single phonological words, is only

marginally distinctive in today’s Low German.

2.3.2 Word-medial consonantsApart from the distribution of nuclei, there is further evidence to support the idea

that the phoneme inventory of Low German is best described with reference to the

phonological word rather than the syllable, namely the existence of word-based

phonological rules. It is apparent that simple syllable-related rules can also have

implications for the occurrence or non-occurrence of certain consonants at word

boundaries. For example, as in Standard German, a final obstruent devoicing rule

(Auslautverhärtung) prohibits voiced obstruents in the coda of a syllable, includ-

ing word-final syllables. Still, there is no need to invoke an additional word-based

rule to explain such restrictions. Such rules are needed, though, to account for

the restriction of /h/ to word-initial onsets or the impossibility of word-initial /ŋ/,

as in Standard German.

312   Steffen Höder

In addition, Low German has restrictions on word-medial consonants, i.e.

consonants that cannot occur at word boundaries. One such example is the alve-

olar flap [ɾ], which can be interpreted as a word-medial allophone of /d/, even if

it is in complementary distribution with both /d/ and /r/ and corresponds dia-

chronically to either sound. It is restricted to a specific context, namely ˈV_Vω

or

ˈV_L̩ω

, where L̩ stands for a syllabic liquid:

(7) /fadr/ ‘father’ → [ˈfaɾɐ]

/mʊdr/ ‘mother’ → [ˈmʊ̞ɾɐ]

/lɛdɪx/ ‘empty’ → [ˈlɛɾɪ̞ç]

/haːdr/ ‘shepherd’ → [ˈhaːɾɐ]

/tydln/ ‘tie-inf, tether-inf’ → [ˈtʰyɾl̩n]

A similar example is the phoneme /sː/, which has evolved from and is in com-

plementary distribution with the sequence /st/. Phonemic long /sː/ is a charac-

teristic feature of some dialects in the Hamburg area. In other areas, allophonic

long [sː] may occur as a realisation of /st/ and alternate with [st]. This phoneme

can only occur immediately after a stressed vowel and is always followed by an

unstressed nucleus within the same word (ˈV_Xω̩

):

(8) /vɛsːn/ ‘west’

/zʏsːr/ ‘sister’

/bɛsːɪ/ ‘best-f.sg’

The restriction of this phoneme to a particular word-related, stress-sensitive

position certainly qualifies as a typical word-language feature according to the

criteria listed in Table 1. At the same time, however, long consonants are rather

untypical features of prototypical word languages. While long /sː/ can be seen as

a negligible quantity from a synchronic perspective, it shows that (and how) even

in a word language typical syllable-language features can re-emerge diachron-

ically, even if /sː/ is only one consonant and does not (yet) form part of a larger

inventory of geminates as in classic syllable languages.

All in all, the segmental phonotactics supports the hypothesis of Low

German being a word language. The delimitative function of certain consonant

clusters as markers of word boundaries is roughly equal to their Standard German

equivalents. The stress sensitivity of the phoneme inventory and related phenom-

ena, however, mark the coherence of the word as a phonologically relevant unit

slightly more strongly than in Standard German.

Low German: A profile of a word language    313

2.4 Phonological processes

2.4.1 Word-medial obstruent voicing

In addition to word-related distributional rules, there are also word-related pho-

nological processes in Low German. One example is the word-medial obstruent

voicing rule, a process which is similar to lenition rules in other German dialects:

Voiceless obstruents are replaced by corresponding (or at least homorganic)

voiced ones if preceded by a stressed vowel and followed by a syllable nucleus

(ˈV_Xω̩

). Word-medial obstruent voicing is frequent but optional in most dialects,

including Altenwerder:

(9) /klɔpm/ ‘knock-inf’ → [ˈkʰlɔpm̩], [ˈkʰlɔbm̩]

/ritn/ ‘tear-inf’ → [ˈritn̩], [ˈridn̩]

/dɪkɪ/ ‘thick-f.sg’ → [ˈdɪ̞kɪ̞], [ˈdɪ̞ɡɪ̞]

In other dialects, this process can be said to be obligatory. An example is the

traditional dialect of Finkenwerder (cf. Kloeke 1913), where all voiceless obstru-

ents in the relevant contexts have become voiced. This change has tremendous

consequences within the phoneme system and leads, among other things, to the

development of tertiary vowel length, since allophonic length before voiced con-

sonants becomes phonemically distinctive. The Altenwerder contrast between /

ritn/ [ˈritn̩] or [ˈridn̩] (with optional word-medial obstruent voicing) ‘tear-inf’ and

/ridn/ [ˈriːdn̩] ‘ride-inf’ thus corresponds to a distinction in vowel length in Fink-

enwerder, whereby /ridn/ (with obligatory obstruent voicing) ‘tear-inf’ is still dis-

tinguished from /riːdn/ ‘ride-inf’.

Additional restrictions and processes can apply which may vary across dia-

lects. In Altenwerder, for instance, the voicing of /p/ (→ [b]) is restricted to con-

texts where it is preceded by a phonemically short monophthong (ˈV̆_Xω̩

):

(10) /pipm/ ‘cheep-inf’ → [ˈpʰipm̩], [ˈpʰibm̩]

/klɔpm/ ‘knock-inf’ → [ˈkʰlɔpm̩], [ˈkʰlɔbm̩]

/leo̯pm/ ‘run-inf’ → [ˈleo̯pm̩], *[ˈleo̯bm̩]

A similar rule restricts the voicing of /t/ → [d] to occurrences in prenasal position,

whereas /t/-voicing results in [ɾ] in other contexts:

(11) /smitn/ ‘throw-inf’ → [ˈsmidn̩]

/smitr/ ‘thrower’ → [ˈsmiɾɐ]

From a word-based perspective, the alternation between voiced and unvoiced

variants can be explained if we assume that there is a tendency towards voiced

medial consonants in phonological words or, at least, word-internal trochaic feet

314   Steffen Höder

with medial consonants (ˈVCX̩ω

). If such a word-based phonological template

exists, it also highlights the coherence of the word and supports its importance

as a salient phonological unit. Furthermore, a tendency towards voiced word-me-

dial segments in turn implies that voiceless segments tend to be restricted to the

word boundaries – a possible parallel to the role of sonority in syllable structure.

The interesting question, then, is whether trochees with consonants other

than stops also agree with the proposed pattern. It is worth mentioning that a

narrow majority of all consonants are voiced per se and thus already fit into it. As

for the remaining consonants, voiceless /h/ does not occur word-medially, and

voiceless /sː/, /ʃ/ and /x/ do not have exact voiced counterparts. Word-medial /f/

is quite rare and mostly restricted to loanwords. Thus, it seems indeed reasona-

ble to interpret word-medial obstruent voicing as a process that improves ˈVCX̩ω

structures by affecting all voiceless obstruents that have an exact voiced counter-

part, i.e. /p t k f s/, but not /sː ʃ x h/.

2.4.2 Stem-final consonants and postverbal /ɪk/Additional evidence for such a word-based view comes from the case of unstressed

postverbal /ɪk/, i.e. the first-person singular subject pronoun. Example (12) shows

the infinitives of some verbs as compared to the first-person singular in the

present tense:

(12) /fâln/ ‘fall-inf’ /ɪk ˈfâl/ ‘I fall-1sg.pres’

/ʃrʊbm/ ‘scrub-inf’ /ɪk ˈʃrʊp/ ‘I scrub-1sg.pres’

/lezn/ ‘read-inf’ /ɪk ˈlês/ ‘I read-1sg.pres’

/zɛɡŋ/ ‘say-inf’ /ɪk ˈzɛx/ [ɪ̞k ˈzɛç] ‘I say-1sg.pres’

Generally the infinitive is formed by adding a nasal suffix, while the first-person sin-

gular has a zero affix. In some verbs, the infinitive or the finite form is also marked

suprasegmentally (as in /lês/; see section 2.5). Apart from that, we see that there is

a regular morphophonological alternation between stem-final voiced and unvoiced

obstruents, similar but not identical to the alternations caused by the final devoicing

rule in Standard German. While the /l/ does not change,⁶ stem-final /b/ in the infin-

itive alternates with /p/ in the present tense where it is syllable-final, /z/ alternates

with /s/, and /ɡ/ alternates with /x/. However, if the subject pronoun /ɪk/ is placed

after the finite verb, the stem-final consonants take on yet a different set of forms:

6 Stem-final /l/ does not alternate with another phoneme, but there is allophonic variation.

Postvocalic /l/ is realised as a non-lateral approximant ([l̞]), i.e. without the articulators touching

each other. This can be interpreted as the preliminary stage of a vocalization process.

Low German: A profile of a word language    315

(13) /ɪk ˈfâl/ ‘I fall’ /ˈfal ɪk/ ‘fall I’

/ɪk ˈʃrʊp/ ‘I scrub’ /ˈʃrʊb ɪk/ ‘scrub I’

/ɪk ˈlês/ ‘I read’ /ˈlez ɪk/ ‘read I’

/ɪk ˈzɛx/ ‘I say’ /ˈzɛx ɪk/ [ˈzɛç ɪ̞k] ‘say I’

Within a syllable-based model, we would have to explain this phonological dif-

ference between constructions with preverbal and postverbal /ɪk/ by some kind

of two-step resyllabification process across the word boundary. First, the stem-fi-

nal consonant would be reanalysed as the onset of the second syllable, according

to the principle of onset maximization. In a second step, the final devoicing rule

would be reversed (or simply would not apply), since the stem-final consonant is

not in the coda (any longer):

(14) /ˈfâl#.ɪk/ → /ˈfa.l#ɪk/

/ˈʃrʊb~p#.ɪk/ → /ˈʃrʊ.b~p#ɪk/ → /ˈʃrʊ.b#ɪk/

/ˈlêz~s#.ɪk/ → /ˈlê.z~s#ɪk/ → /ˈle.z#ɪk/

Such an approach works well for most verbs and consonantal alternations.

However, it fails to account for the deviant behavior of /ɡ/ and /x/, since it pre-

dicts forms like */ˈzɛɡ ɪk/ instead of the correct /ˈzɛx ɪk/:

(15) /ˈzɛɡ~x#.ɪk/ → ?/ˈzɛ.ɡ~x#ɪk/ → */ˈzɛ.ɡ#ɪk/

From a word-related perspective, the behavior of obstruents before postverbal /ɪk/

can be explained more neatly. A word-based approach would not assume a resyl-

labification followed by a reversal of final devoicing, but rather an expansion of

the phonological word so as to incorporate the postverbal pronoun. Consequently,

the word-medial obstruent voicing rule applies to the stem-final consonant where

possible. Such a process not only results in the correct realisations of stem-final

/b~p/ and /z~s/, but also leads to the correct unvoiced form of stem-final /x/, as

this consonant is not affected by word-medial obstruent voicing:⁷

(16) /ˈfâl#ɪk/ → /falɪk/

/ˈʃrʊp#ɪk/ → /ʃrʊpɪk/ → /ʃrʊbɪk/

/ˈlês#ɪk/ → /lesɪk/ → /lezɪk/

/ˈzɛx#ɪk/ → /zɛxɪk/

7 The same rules also apply for parallel morphophonological alternations between /d/ and /t/ (/

lodn/ ‘load-inf’ → /lôt/ ‘load-1sg.pres’) as well as between /b/ and /f/ (/ʃribm/ ‘write-inf’ → /ʃrîf/

‘write-1sg.pres’). Whether /b/ alternates with /p/ or /f/ is predictable from the preceding vowel.

Other dialects have /v~f/ instead of /b~f/; in Altenwerder, /v/ is generally restricted to the onset

of stressed syllables. In any case, word-medial obstruent voicing applies before postverbal /ɪk/.

316   Steffen Höder

Additional processes apply in these cases. Some of those, such as the absence of

a glottal stop before the vocalic onset of /ɪk/ (cf. /falɪk/ [ˈfalɪ̞k] ‘fall I’ vs. /fâl#ˈɪk/

[fâl̞ˈʔɪ̞k] with contrastive stress on the pronoun), can be predicted by both the syl-

lable-based and the word-based approach. Other phenomena, however, can only

be explained as a result of an expansion of the phonological word, such as the

loss of Knick in first-person forms with postverbal /ɪk/ (cf. /ɪk ˈlês/ ‘I read’ vs.

/lezɪk/), which is in accordance with a phonotactic rule that restricts Knick to

word-final syllables (see 2.5).

2.4.3 Expanding phonological words: Function wordsThe notion of the expanding phonological word also proves useful for the analy-

sis of other regular processes in which function words are integrated into a larger

phonological unit. One example is the contraction of prepositions and articles

(for similar mechanisms in other German varieties, cf. Kabak and Schiering 2006).

Low German allows contraction of prepositions and articles in a much more

systematic and regular way than Standard German. The Standard German inven-

tory includes only a relatively small and fixed set of lexicalized contractions (e.g.

im < in dem ‘in the-dat.sg.m’, aufs < auf das ‘on the-acc.sg.n’), all involving some

form of the definite article. In contrast, almost any Low German preposition can

be contracted with any oblique form of the definite or the indefinite article. As a

result, there are regular paradigms, as illustrated in Table 6:

Table 6: Preposition + article contractions

def.m.sg (free form: /dɛn/)

def.f.sg, def.pl (free form: /dɛɪ̯/)

def.n.sg (free form: /dat/)

indf (free form: /ɛɪ̯n/)

/bi/ ‘at, by’ /bin/ /biɪ/ /bit/ /bin//ʏm/ ‘around’ /ʏm̂/ /ʏmɪ/ /ʏmt/ /ʏm̂//ɔp/ ‘on’ /ɔpm/ /ɔpɪ/ /ɔpt/ /ɔpm//mɪt/ ‘with’ /mɪtn/ /mɪtɪ/ /mɪt/ /mɪtn//ɪn/ ‘in’ /ɪn̂/ /ɪnɪ/ /ɪnt/ /ɪn̂/

Here, the article forms are phonetically reduced in a way that enables their incor-

poration into the preceding phonological word. The different forms illustrate dif-

ferent possibilities of achieving this aim. The neutral form /dat/ is reduced to /t/

which is attached to the coda of the last syllable of the preposition except where

this coda already ends in /t/. The feminine and plural form /dɛɪ̯/ is reduced to the

vowel /ɪ/, one of the vowels that are possible in post-tonic syllables. Word-medial

obstruent voicing can apply optionally where possible (e.g. in /ɔpɪ/ [ˈɔbɪ̞] ‘on the’

Low German: A profile of a word language    317

or /mɪtɪ/ [ˈmɪ̞ɾɪ̞] ‘with the’). The most complex mechanism affects the masculine

and indefinite forms /dɛn/ and /ɛɪ̯n/, which are (a) reduced to /n/ and attached

to the preposition as a coda consonant if the preposition ends in a vowel (/bin/),

or (b) reduced to a syllabic nasal and attached to a consonantal coda if it ends in

an obstruent, including assimilation to homorganic stops (/mɪtn/, /ɔpm/), or (c)

realised as a Knick on a preceding nasal (/ɪn̂/, /ʏm̂/). In any case, the results are

perfectly normal phonological words, and the reduction of the articles can best

be explained by means of the word-based phonotactic patterns that the contrac-

tions conform to.

Similar processes are at work in the case of other contraction phenomena,

such as the cliticization of definite articles after the conjunction /dat/ ‘that’

(/dat/ + /dɛɪ̯/ → /datɪ/ [ˈdaɾɪ̞], /dat/ + /dat/ → /datat/ [ˈdaɾat]) or the cliticization of

demonstrative /dat/ ‘dem.n.sg’ after finite verb forms (/ɪs/ ‘be.3sg.pres’ + /dat/

→ /ɪsːat/, /ʃas/ ‘shall.2sg.pres’ + /dat/ → /ʃasːat/).

To sum up, the word-related phonological processes illustrated in this

section show that the phonological word is indeed an important phonological

unit, and even more so than in Standard German, as some morphophonologi-

cal alternations cannot be explained sufficiently on the basis of syllable-related

rules. However, it is also clear that the phonological word cannot be equated with

the lexical word in all cases, since rules for the cliticization and contraction of

certain function words imply an expansion of the phonological word beyond the

boundaries of the lexical word.

2.5 Word-level suprasegmental: The Knick phoneme

In addition to the segmental phenomena discussed so far, there is also a word-

level suprasegmental phoneme in (North) Low German, which has been labelled

“dragging tone” (German Schleifton), “overlength”, “accent 2”, or “tone 2”. This

suprasegmental, a reflex of an apocopated or syncopated syllable in older forms,

is found in lexical items such as /vît/ ‘willow’, which is phonetically identical to

/vit/ ‘far’ in segmental terms, but suprasegmentally marked by at least a slightly

different pitch contour and a longer segmental duration. This is reflected in the

impressionistic label “Knick” (‘bend’), which is taken from several speakers’

description of the phenomenon.⁸ While it is commonly agreed that the proso-

8 For convenience, Knick is indicated by a circumflex (ˆ). Although this diacritic is identical to

the IPA symbol denoting a falling contour, which would indeed be one possible interpretation of

Knick, this usage is not meant to rule out other analyses.

318   Steffen Höder

demic distinction in Low German dialects is phonologically similar to the tonal

system in, among others, Limburgish and Ripuarian dialects (cf. Gussenhoven

and Peters 2004; Peters 2006), the exact phonological interpretation of this

feature is rather controversial.

The proposed approaches to the phonological interpretation differ in (a)

whether the longer segmental duration or the characteristic pitch contour is con-

sidered distinctive, (b) whether it is assumed to affect only vowels or also nasal

consonants, and (c) whether the vowel system in general is thought of as organ-

ized in terms of quantitative or qualitative distinctions. The classic view, as intro-

duced by Bremer (1927), regards the pitch contour as the phonemically distinctive

feature. As vowel length in general is seen as phonemic in this interpretation, it

results in a system with binary vowel quantity (“long” vs. “short”) and a tonal

distinction between two tonal accents or tonemes (“push tone” vs. “dragging

tone”, or “toneme 1” vs. “toneme 2”). A similar view is held by Jakobson (1962

[1931]: 235), Ternes (2001: 180, 2006), and Prehn (2007).⁹ In contrast, a majority

of studies support an interpretation which is based on a ternary quantitative con-

trast, including Knick as a third “overlong” quantity instead of a tonal feature

(cf. von Essen 1958: 110–112, 1964: 10–11; Ternes 1981; Auer 1991: 24–25; Chapman

1993). In yet another analysis, Kohler (1986, 2001) argues that the vowel system is

mainly organized in terms of qualitative distinctions and thus reduces the ternary

quantity to a binary system, in which vowels bearing a Knick are analysed as

“long” and hence equivalent to the “overlong” or “dragging tone” vowels in pre-

vious analyses. I myself have proposed an analysis that combines a qualitatively

organized vowel system (as presented in section 2.2) with a prosodemic distinc-

tion which includes both tonal and durational aspects (cf. Höder 2010 for details).

This more neutral point of view is reflected in the terminology used (“prosodeme

1” vs. “prosodeme 2 [= Knick]”). In this analysis, which is also applied here,

Knick even includes the phonetically long nasals in words like /kom̂/ ‘come-inf’,

as they also exhibit the characteristic pitch contour found in prosodemically

marked vowels. A similar approach to long nasals is proposed by Prehn (2010).

Even von Essen’s (1958: 111) analysis can be considered parallel, as it interprets

long nasals as equivalent to “overlong” vowels.

9 In a subsequent study, though, Prehn (2011) claims not to find significant tonal differences and

hence argues for the durational contrast to be distinctive. However, as Prehn’s work is based on

recent recordings of (elderly) speakers from different places within the North Low German area,

her findings may also reflect interdialectal differences or a (recent) loss of the tonal distinction.

Further research is needed to clarify this issue.

Low German: A profile of a word language    319

As for the distribution of Knick, the most important rule states that Knick

occurs exclusively in word-final syllables and is normally restricted to the stressed

syllable:

(17) /lŷt/ ‘people’

/bɪvîs/ [bɪ̞ˈvîːs] ‘prove-1sg.pres’

/klɪdôʃ/ [kʰlɪ̞ˈdôːʃ] ‘clothes, dress’

Its occurrence in syllables without (primary) stress is limited to compounds or

pseudo-compounds, i.e. words whose (exceptional) phonological structure

resembles compounds (regarding the distribution of nuclei, among other things)

and which therefore could be analysed as consisting of two phonological words

(cf. Raffelsiefen 2000):

(18) /ˈʏnrˌɛ̂lf/ ‘Lower Elbe [part of the river]’ (< /ʏnr/ ‘under; lower’ + /ɛ̂lf/ ‘Elbe’)

/ˈʃufˌlôt/ ‘drawer’ (< /ʃuf-/ ‘push-’ + /lôt/ ‘drawer, chest’)

/ˈaːˌbɑ̂i̯t/ ‘work-1sg.pres’ (vs. /ˈaːˌbɑi̯t/ ‘work [noun]’)

/ˈhaːˌbâːx/ ‘hostel, shelter’

Furthermore, Knick is subject to rather intricate phonotactic constraints on the

segmental context. It is restricted to long monophthongs (/aː ɔː/), monophthongs

with a long allophone (/i y u e ø o ɒ/), and diphthongs, and it can occur in open

syllables as well as before fricatives, the stop /t/, or nasals:

(19) /bâːx/ ‘recover [a ship]-1sg.pres’ vs. /baːx/ ‘mountain’

/vît/ ‘willow’ vs. /vit/ ‘far’

/lôt/ ‘drawer, chest’ vs. /lot/ ‘late’

/mêo̯t/ ‘fashion’ vs. /meo̯t/ ‘courage’

In addition, Knick can appear on any vowel if followed by (tautosyllabic) /l/:

(20) /âl/ ‘all-pl’ vs. /al/ ‘already’

Finally, Knick can occur in syllable-final nasals, resulting in possible minimal

triplets as its position within the syllable is distinctive in certain contexts:

(21) /fɪn̂/ ‘find-inf’ vs. /fɪn/ ‘find-1sg.pres’

/min̂/ ‘mine-pl [weapons]’ vs. /mîn/ ‘mine [weapon]’ vs. /min/ ‘my-nom’

Thus, while Knick is attached to a specific phonetic segment within a syllable (the

tone-bearing unit in a narrow sense) and its position within the syllable can vary,

the scope of this suprasegmental feature is still the whole phonological word,

i.e. the prosodemic contrast is only distinctive once per word. This is another

indicator that the position of the word is the dominant phonological unit in Low

320   Steffen Höder

German. Furthermore, as Knick usually coincides with stress, it can also be said

to reinforce the culminative function of stress.

Knick plays a minor role in the inflectional morphology (cf. also section

2.4.2). In addition to (and often in combination with) other affixes, it serves as a

plural marker, an infinitive marker, and a person-number marker:

(22) /dax/ ‘day’ vs. /dôx/ ‘day-pl’ (combined with vowel alternation)

/rat/ ‘wheel’ vs. /rø̂t/ ‘wheel-pl’ (combined with vowel alternation)

/kom̂/ ‘come-inf’ vs. /kôm/ ‘come-1sg.pres’

/left/ ‘live-3sg.pres’ vs. /lêft/ ‘live-pl.pres’

As most existing affixes in Low German are non-vocalic, i.e. they consist of coda

consonants or consonantal nuclei, the use of a suprasegmental phoneme for

inflectional purposes can be seen as part of a general tendency to avoid vocalic

suffixes.¹⁰ The overall result is that inflected forms usually do not exhibit pho-

nological structures that are different from those of uninflected words, which in

turn results in an even more homogeneous structure of the phonological word.

In summary, it can be said that the distribution of the Knick phoneme cannot

be described or explained adequately without reference to the phonological

word, and the occurrence of Knick can be interpreted as a coherence marker.

3 Areal perspective: North German, Scandinavian, and beyond

The typological profile of Low German as a word language rather than a syllable

language is, first of all, of descriptive value. Moreover, as it deals with a non-stan-

dardized, scarcely written variety, it provides a useful addition to the available

descriptions of Germanic languages, in particular with respect to cross-lin-

guistic studies. While non-standard varieties have generally been neglected by

typologists in favor of more easily accessible standard languages, there is now a

growing interest in dialectal data, and the importance of non-standard evidence

for typological studies is increasingly acknowledged (cf. Auer 2004). This is evi-

dently of particular relevance within the field of phonology and phonetics, as it

is the non-standard varieties rather than the codified standards that are actually

used by the speakers in everyday oral communication.

On top of that, the word-language features of Low German, as outlined in

section 2, are most likely not limited to the original Low German dialects, but

probably apply to High German varieties spoken in Northern Germany as well.

10 The only exception is adjectival inflection, where we find a suffix /ɪ/ (with several functions).

Low German: A profile of a word language    321

Low German has been in constant contact with High German throughout its exis-

tence, and speakers have been shifting to High German, which they acquired as

an L2, since early modern times. The majority of the population eventually shifted

to High German in the middle of the 20th century (with many of their descendants

becoming monolingual in High German). As a result, the colloquial North High

German variety is heavily influenced by Low German structures in all parts of the

grammar and the lexicon. The organization of the vowel system in North High

German, for example, clearly follows the Low German model and represents what

I have labelled the “diasystematic intersection” of both systems (Höder 2011b).

The analysis of the Low German features may thus stimulate further research into

North High German.

Another field for which the phonological features of Low German and its

status as a word language are highly relevant is the study of the areal or con-

tact-linguistic relations between the German-speaking area and its northern

neighbors (cf. Höder 2011a). North Low German is located in a transitional zone

between High German and Danish. The Danish-German border region has been

a region of intensive bi- and multilingualism, language contact, and language

shift from at least the early Middle Ages until today, with a high degree of con-

tact-induced convergence between the languages involved (High German, Low

German, Standard Danish, the regional Danish variety South Jutlandic, and

North Frisian). Indeed, there are striking phonological similarities between

Danish and Low German which may, at least in part, be due to language contact.

Parallel word-language features include for instance (a) differentiated, highly

stress-sensitive vowel systems (cf. the analysis in Grønnum 1998), (b) some form

of word-medial obstruent voicing, (c) the existence of a word-level suprasegmen-

tal phoneme (Low German Knick, Danish stød). South Jutlandic, while being

stød-less, even employs a prosodemic distinction that is very similar to the Low

German Knick, although it is normally referred to as a tonal contrast (cf. Bjerrum

1948; Ringgaard 1973: 25; Ejskjær 2005: 1723).

In a wider perspective, Low German also forms part of a historical contact

zone that encompasses the larger part of Northern Europe. The North Germanic

subfamily of the Germanic languages is relatively closely related to Low German,

and the contact between Low German and Continental Scandinavian in particu-

lar has been very influential in the history of the Scandinavian languages (Braun-

müller 2004, this volume). Intriguingly, again, there are typological similarities

between the phonology of Low German and the Scandinavian languages that

could well be the result of contact-induced convergence, among them the rel-

atively large vowel inventories and the pitch accent systems of Norwegian and

Swedish. Furthermore, both Low German and Continental Scandinavian belong

to the so-called Circum-Baltic languages, a proposed linguistic area consisting

322   Steffen Höder

of Germanic, Baltic, and Finnic languages, among others (for an overview cf.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli 2001). Eliasson’s (2000) survey shows that these

languages share some rather uncommon phonological features, including ones

that are relevant to the distinction between word and syllable languages, such as

large (and highly differentiated) vowel inventories and word-related systems of

vowel and consonant quantity. So far, an explanation of these parallels is a desid-

eratum. However, they too might be due to the intense contact within the Cir-

cum-Baltic area in historic and prehistoric times, including contact with Middle

Low German. A more detailed knowledge of the phonology of its modern succes-

sor could provide more insight into the range and origin of this areal group.

4 Conclusion

Low German indeed turns out to be quite a characteristic word language. On the

whole, it seems to be even closer to the word language pole of the continuum

between word and syllable languages than Standard German. It meets all the cri-

teria summarized in Table 1, except for the fact that there is one long consonant,

/sː/ (which, however, only occurs word-medially), and the observation that stress

is only marginally distinctive. Its word-language features include (a) slightly more

complex word-initial consonant clusters than in Standard German, (b) a fairly

complex vowel system, which is more differentiated than the Standard German

one, (c) a highly stress-sensitive system of syllable nuclei, (d) word-related pho-

nological processes, particularly in relation to word-medial consonants, where

in some cases a resegmentation of words is at work rather than resyllabification

processes, and (e) a word-based suprasegmental distinction. The main difference

between Low German and Standard German lies in the greater relevance of word

coherence phenomena in Low German, while the marking of word boundaries is

approximately equivalent in both languages.

The findings are also relevant in a wider perspective. Some of the features

found in Low German are also found in other non-standard varieties of (Northern)

Germany as well as in neighboring languages, such as Danish (including South

Jutlandic) and other Scandinavian and Circum-Baltic languages, which suggests

an areal or contact-induced relation. This result underlines the importance of

including dialectal or non-standard varieties in typological and cross-linguistic

studies and may stimulate further research in this area as well.

Low German: A profile of a word language    323

ReferencesAuer, Peter (1991): Zur More in der Phonologie. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10: 3–36.Auer, Peter (2001): Silben- und akzentzählende Sprachen. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard

König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, 1391–1399. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20/2.) Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Auer, Peter (2004): Non-standard evidence in syntactic typology. Methodological remarks on the use of dialect data vs spoken language data. In: Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 69–92.

(Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 153.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bjerrum, Marie (1948): Felstedmaalets tonale Accenter [The tonal accents of the Felsted dialect]. (Humanistiske Studier 3.) Århus: Universitetsforlaget.

Braunmüller, Kurt (2004): Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch im Kontakt mit den skandina-vischen Sprachen. In: Horst H. Munske (ed.), Deutsch im Kontakt mit germanischen Sprachen, 1–30. (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 248.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Bremer, Otto (1927): Der Schleifton im Nordniedersächsischen. Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 53: 1–32.

Chapman, Carol (1993): Überlänge in North Saxon Low German: Evidence for the metrical foot. An approach to vowel length based on the theory of metrical phonology. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 60/2: 129–157.

Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath and Balthasar Bickel (2008): Leipzig Glossing Rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Available at http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.

Ejskjær, Inger (2005): Dialects and regional linguistic varieties in the 20th century III: Denmark. In: Oskar Bandle, Kurt Braunmüller, Ernst Håkon Jahr, Allan Karker, Hans-Peter Naumann and Ulf Teleman (eds.), The Nordic Languages. An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 2, 1721–1741. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 22/2.) Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Eliasson, Stig (2000): Typologiska och areallingvistiska aspekter på de nordeuropeiska språkens fonologi [Typological and areal linguistic perspectives on the phonology of the northern European languages]. In: Ernst Håkon Jahr (ed.), Språkkontakt. Innverknaden frå nedertysk på andre nordeuropeiska språk. Forskingsprogrammet Norden og Europa [Language contact. The influence from Low German on other languages in northern Europe. The research programme ‘The North and Europe’], 21–70. (Nord 2000/19.) Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd.

Essen, Otto von (1958): Die Vokale der niederdeutschen Mundart von Kirchwerder. Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 11: 105–118.

Essen, Otto von (1964): Kirchwerder bei Hamburg. (Lautbibliothek der deutschen Mundarten 33/34.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Föllner, Ursula (2004): Zum Gebrauch des Niederdeutschen in der Gegenwart – soziolingui-stische und pragmatische Aspekte. In: Dieter Stellmacher (ed.), Niederdeutsche Sprache und Literatur der Gegenwart, 99–148. (Germanistische Linguistik 175/176.) Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.

324   Steffen Höder

Grønnum, Nina (1998): Fonetik og fonologi. Almen og dansk [Phonetics and phonology. General and Danish]. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag.

Gussenhoven, Carlos and Jörg Peters (2004): A tonal analysis of Cologne Schärfung. Phonology 21: 251–285.

Höder, Steffen (2010): Das Lautsystem des Altenwerder Platt. Eine phonetisch-phonologische Bestandsaufnahme. Niederdeutsches Wort 50: 1–27.

Höder, Steffen (2011a): Dialect convergence across language boundaries: A challenge for areal linguistics. In: Frans Gregersen, Jeffrey K. Parrott and Pia Quist (eds.), Language Variation – European Perspectives III. Selected papers from the 5th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 5), Copenhagen, June 2009, 173–184. (Studies in Language Variation 7.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Höder, Steffen (2011b): Niederdeutsch und Norddeutsch: ein Fall von Diasystematisierung. Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 134: 113–136.

Jakobson, Roman (1962): Über die phonologischen Sprachbünde. In: Selected Writings. Vol. 1: Phonological Studies, 137–143. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton. First published in Réunion Phonologique Internationale tenue à Prague, Prague 1931.

Kabak, Barış and René Schiering (2006): The phonology and morphology of function word contractions in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 53–99.

Kloeke, Gesinus (1913): Der Vokalismus der Mundart von Finkenwärder bei Hamburg. Hamburg: Gräfe & Sillem.

Kohler, Klaus J. (1986): Überlänge und Schleifton im Niederdeutschen. Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse aus vier Dialektuntersuchungen. In: Klaus J. Kohler, Regina Tödter and Michael Weinhold (eds.), Phonetische Forschung in der niederdeutschen Dialektologie, 5–17. (Arbeitsberichte des Instituts für Phonetik der Universität Kiel 23.) Kiel: Universität Kiel, Institut für Phonetik.

Kohler, Klaus J. (2001): Überlänge im Niederdeutschen? In: Robert Peters, Horst P. Pütz and Ulrich Weber (eds.), Vulpis Adolatio. Festschrift für Hubertus Menke zum 60. Geburtstag, 385–402. (Germanistische Bibliothek 11.) Heidelberg: Winter.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Bernhard Wälchli (2001): The Circum-Baltic languages. An areal-typological approach. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact. Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology, 615–750. (Studies in Language Companion Series 55.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Möller, Frerk (2008): Plattdeutsch im 21. Jahrhundert. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven. (Schriften des Instituts für niederdeutsche Sprache 34.) Leer: Schuster.

Peters, Jörg (2006): The dialect of Hasselt. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36: 117–124.

Prehn, Maike (2007): Schwa loss and its results in Low German. Tone or overlength? Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007: 187–198.

Prehn, Maike (2010): Die langen finalen Nasale im Nordniedersächsischen. Ihre Phonetik und phonologische Repräsentation. In: Matthias Katerbow and Alexander Werth (eds.), Moderne Regionalsprachen als multidimensionales Forschungsfeld, 187–208. (German-istische Linguistik 210.) Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.

Prehn, Maike (2011): Vowel quantity and the fortis/lenis distinction in North Low Saxon. Amsterdam: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.

Raffelsiefen, Renate (2000): Evidence for word-internal phonological words in German. In: Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop and Oliver Teuber (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, 43–56. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Low German: A profile of a word language    325

Ringgaard, Kristian (1973): Danske dialekter. En kortfattet oversigt [Danish dialects. A concise survey]. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag. First published Århus 1971.

Szczepaniak, Renata (2007): Der phonologisch-typologische Wandel des Deutschen von einer Silben- zu einer Wortsprache. (Studia Linguistica Germanica 85.) Berlin/New York:

De Gruyter.Ternes, Elmar (1981): Über Herkunft und Verbreitung der Überlänge in deutschen Dialekten.

In: Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and John R. Rennison (eds.), Phonologica 1980. Akten der Vierten Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung. Wien, 29. Juni–2. Juli 1980, 379–386. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 36.) Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Ternes, Elmar (2001): Ansätze zu einer Phonemtypologie deutscher Dialekte. In: Margret Bräunlich, Baldur Neuber and Beate Rues (eds.), Gesprochene Sprache – transdisziplinär. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Gottfried Meinhold, 171–182. (Hallesche Schriften zur Sprechwissenschaft und Phonetik 5.) Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Ternes, Elmar (2006): Tone reversal in Franconian and elsewhere. North-Western European Language Evolution 48: 91–109.

Trubetzkoy, Nikolaus S. (1989): Grundzüge der Phonologie. 7th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. First published Prague 1939.

326   Steffen Höder