Steffen Hder (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 syllable 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 obstruent 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 Standard 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-linguistic 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.

1Introduction
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 synchronic and intralingual analysis of the languages 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 earlier version, and Jasmin Bliesemann for her help with my English. All remaining errors are, of
course, mine.

306

Steffen Hder

empirical evidence comes mainly from a detailed survey of the dialect of Altenwerder (Hder 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, todays Low German is, from a sociolinguistic point of view, a group of de-standardized and relatively diverse dialects. 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. 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 (Mller 2008: 33; for a comprehensive overview of the
sociolinguistic situation cf. Fllner 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 language 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 Hder (2011b).

2Low German as a word language

2.1Criteria
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 classification based on a set of characteristic features of word and syllable languages.
The distinction between the two types basically comes down to whether the syllable or the phonological word (abbreviated as ) 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-internal phonological structure, their phoneme inventories, the existence of suprasegmental features, and the scope of phonological rules and processes. Drawing on
Trubetzkoys (1989 [1939]: 29) distinction between the delimitative and the culmi-

1As a consequence, there are competing orthographies of Low German. All examples in this
contribution are given in phonological transcription only.

Low German: A profile of a word language

307

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

stress

distinctive on phrase level

distinctive on word level

syllable structure

simple (preferably CV)

complex (example: consonant

clusters)

vowel system

uniform

differentiated (e.g. stresssensitive)

phonological processes

syllable-related (example:
resyllabification across word
boundaries)

word-related (example: wordmedial allophones, invulnerable

word boundaries)

tone (if existing)

syllable-related (one toneme per word-related (one toneme per

syllable)
word)

quantity (if existing)

uniform (distinctive in all

syllables)

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

long consonants

exist

do not exist

2.2Phoneme system
As a point of reference, the Low German phoneme inventory is given in Tables 24
(for the details of allophonic realization cf. Hder 2010). The consonant inventory
is nearly identical to Standard German, except for some minor differences including 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 [], or a uvular or even
velar fricative [ ]. The alveolo-palatal fricative // is the Low German equivalent
to Standard German /j/ and has a wide range of allophones, including at least [j
]. Therefore, it is not an exact voiced counterpart of //, which is postalveolar
and sometimes labialized ([]).

308

Steffen Hder

Table 2: Low German consonants

labial

alveolar

plosives

fricatives

s, s z

nasals

palatal

lateral

vibrant

velar

glottal

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 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 secondary vowel length, which is distinctive for /a/ and // (cf. /hat/ hard and its
Standard German equivalent, hart /hart/). Finally, there are two more diphthongs
than in Standard German (/eo/ and //).
Table 3: Low German monophthongs
front [rounded]

front [+rounded]

back

close

i()

y()

u()

near-close

close-mid

e()

()

o()

open-mid

open

a, a

()

2The quality of the diphthong /eo/ is a rather marked feature of the Altenwerder dialect. Other
Hamburg dialects have /o/; dialects in Schleswig-Holstein normally have /o/.

Low German: A profile of a word language

309

Table 4: Low German diphthongs

front

back

close-mid

eo

open-mid

open

au

2.3Stress sensitivity in segmental phonotactics

2.3.1Syllable structure, word structure, and stress
If, 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 /teo/ too,
overly or /dvax/ 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 (*/km/, */srofp/). There are
also sound sequences that represent possible syllables, but impossible words (cf.
the second syllables in /kri./ get-inf and /ts.bl/ onion). Furthermore, some
sound sequences clearly represent possible words, but it is hard, and controversial, to determine how many syllables they contain (such as /kom/ come-inf
or /fn/ 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 // 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)

/stn/
/sprok/
/svat/

stone
language
black

3Neither stress nor syllabicity is marked in the phonemic transcription throughout this article, 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).

310

Steffen Hder

/smitn/
/snak/
/sla/
/dvas/
/tv/
/vrak/

throw-inf
speak-inf
snake
across
two
wreck

Furthermore, syllabic nasals and liquids (/m n l/ and /r/, realised as []) are
very common. Unlike the traditional and presumably still default interpretation
of syllabic consonants in Standard German, these cannot be analysed as */C/
sequences in Low German. The two main arguments for a monophonemic analysis are (a) that there is no phonemic // due to a merger of older // and // (cf.
/dk/ thick-f.sg and the corresponding Standard German dicke /dk/), and (b)
that no vowel is ever pronounced before the consonants in question, not even in
very slow and careful speech.
(2) /zupm/
/ztn/
/z/
/nol/
/votr/

drink-inf [alcohol]
sit-inf
say-inf
nail
water

Generally, the syllabicity of these consonants is predictable (and hence non-phonemic) from the segmental context, viz. the fact that they are preceded by a consonant and followed by a word boundary or one or two obstruents (cf. /nolt/
nail-3sg.pres). However, the syllabicity of /l/ is difficult to predict in certain
words such as /vrlx/ grumpy, which is not syllabified according to the principle of onset maximization as *[vr.l], but is rather trisyllabic ([vrl]). In
such examples, either the syllabicity of /l/ or the morpheme boundary before the
adjectival derivative suffix /-x/ must be granted phonemic status.
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

4In 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. /oa eoa/ < /or eor/). It remains to
be investigated how such a development affects the typological classification of Low German as
a word or syllable language.
5Alternatively, onset maximization could be seen as restricted to word-initial onsets.

Low German: A profile of a word language

311

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

as X) 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 // is rare. In pre-tonic syllables, however, no more
than five are possible, including four monophthongs and one consonant (/i
a/ and /r/ []):
(3) /biltn/
/bkik/
/tfel/
/kanl/
/fretn/

[biltn]
[bkik]
[tfel]
[kanl]
[fetn]

gradually
look.at-inf
too much, too many
cinnamon
forget-inf

In post-tonic syllables, yet another group of nine potential nuclei occurs, including all of the consonants as well as four vowels (/i a /):
(4) /truri/
/lt/
/frm/

[truri]
[lt]
[fm]

sad-f.sg
small-f.sg
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
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

monophthongs

pre-tonic

stressed

post-tonic

ia

i y u e o a a

ia

diphthongs
consonants

eo i au i
r

mnlr

Of course, names and loanwords (including loans from High German varieties)
may exhibit different patterns, such as in the names of the months /aus/
August and /kteobr/ October, where vowels that are in principle restricted to
stressed syllables nevertheless appear in unstressed positions. However, the differences usually decrease with increasing phonological integration. These differences may be illustrated by the alternative forms of names and loanwords given
in (5), where structural deviations are gradually reduced by adapting pre- and

312

Steffen Hder

post-tonic vowels as well as, in some cases, shortening the words to monosyllabic
or trochaic feet:
(5) /mart/ (equivalent to English Margaret) /maart/, /rt/, /mt/
/eohan/ (equivalent to English John) /han/ [han], /han/ [han]
/preofsor/ (professor) /prfsr/ [prfs], /prfsr/ [pfs]
/knfrmteon/ Confirmation (Lutheran Church) /knfrmateon/ [knfmateon]

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 /
bstk/ cutlery, with the unstressed prefix /b-/):
(6) /blx/ [bl] cheap
/bstk/ [bstk] cutlery
/balas/ [balas] ballast
/palas/ [palas] 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 todays Low German.

2.3.2Word-medial consonants
Apart 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
(Auslautverhrtung) prohibits voiced obstruents in the coda of a syllable, including 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 //,
as in Standard German.

Low German: A profile of a word language

313

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

consonants that cannot occur at word boundaries. One such example is the alveolar flap [], 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 diachronically to either sound. It is restricted to a specific context, namely V_V or
V_L, where L stands for a syllabic liquid:
(7) /fadr/ father [fa]
/mdr/ mother [m]
/ldx/ empty [l]
/hadr/ shepherd [ha]
/tydln/ tie-inf, tether-inf [tyln]

A similar example is the phoneme /s/, which has evolved from and is in complementary distribution with the sequence /st/. Phonemic long /s/ is a characteristic feature of some dialects in the Hamburg area. In other areas, allophonic
long [s] 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 (V_X):
(8) /vsn/ west
/zsr/ sister
/bs/ 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 /s/ 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 diachronically, even if /s/ 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 phenomena, however, mark the coherence of the word as a phonologically relevant unit
slightly more strongly than in Standard German.

314

Steffen Hder

2.4Phonological processes
2.4.1Word-medial obstruent voicing
In addition to word-related distributional rules, there are also word-related phonological 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
(V_X). Word-medial obstruent voicing is frequent but optional in most dialects,
including Altenwerder:
(9) /klpm/ knock-inf [klpm], [klbm]
/ritn/ tear-inf [ritn], [ridn]
/dk/ thick-f.sg [dk], [d]

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 obstruents 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 consonants becomes phonemically distinctive. The Altenwerder contrast between /
ritn/ [ritn] or [ridn] (with optional word-medial obstruent voicing) tear-inf and
/ridn/ [ridn] ride-inf thus corresponds to a distinction in vowel length in Finkenwerder, whereby /ridn/ (with obligatory obstruent voicing) tear-inf is still distinguished from /ridn/ ride-inf.
Additional restrictions and processes can apply which may vary across dialects. In Altenwerder, for instance, the voicing of /p/ ( [b]) is restricted to contexts where it is preceded by a phonemically short monophthong (V_X):
(10) /pipm/ cheep-inf [pipm], [pibm]
/klpm/ knock-inf [klpm], [klbm]
/leopm/ run-inf [leopm], *[leobm]

A similar rule restricts the voicing of /t/ [d] to occurrences in prenasal position,
whereas /t/-voicing results in [] in other contexts:
(11) /smitn/ throw-inf [smidn]
/smitr/ thrower [smi]

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

Low German: A profile of a word language

315

with medial consonants (VCX). 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-medial 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 /s/, // and /x/ do not have exact voiced counterparts. Word-medial /f/
is quite rare and mostly restricted to loanwords. Thus, it seems indeed reasonable to interpret word-medial obstruent voicing as a process that improves VCX
structures by affecting all voiceless obstruents that have an exact voiced counterpart, i.e. /p t k f s/, but not /s x h/.

2.4.2Stem-final consonants and postverbal /k/

Additional evidence for such a word-based view comes from the case of unstressed
postverbal /k/, 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) /fln/ fall-inf
/rbm/ scrub-inf
/lezn/ read-inf
/z/ say-inf

/k fl/ I fall-1sg.pres
/k rp/ I scrub-1sg.pres
/k ls/ I read-1sg.pres
/k zx/ [k z] I say-1sg.pres

Generally the infinitive is formed by adding a nasal suffix, while the first-person singular has a zero affix. In some verbs, the infinitive or the finite form is also marked
suprasegmentally (as in /ls/; 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, stem-final /b/ in the infinitive alternates with /p/ in the present tense where it is syllable-final, /z/ alternates
with /s/, and // alternates with /x/. However, if the subject pronoun /k/ is placed
after the finite verb, the stem-final consonants take on yet a different set of forms:

6Stem-final /l/ does not alternate with another phoneme, but there is allophonic variation.
Postvocalic /l/ is realised as a non-lateral approximant ([l]), i.e. without the articulators touching
each other. This can be interpreted as the preliminary stage of a vocalization process.

316

Steffen Hder

(13) /k fl/ I fall

/k rp/ I scrub
/k ls/ I read
/k zx/ I say

/fal k/ fall I
/rb k/ scrub I
/lez k/ read I
/zx k/ [z k] say I

Within a syllable-based model, we would have to explain this phonological difference between constructions with preverbal and postverbal /k/ by some kind
of two-step resyllabification process across the word boundary. First, the stem-final 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) /fl#.k/ /fa.l#k/
/rb~p#.k/ /r.b~p#k/ /r.b#k/
/lz~s#.k/ /l.z~s#k/ /le.z#k/

Such an approach works well for most verbs and consonantal alternations.
However, it fails to account for the deviant behavior of // and /x/, since it predicts forms like */z k/ instead of the correct /zx k/:
(15) /z~x#.k/ ?/z.~x#k/ */z.#k/

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

can be explained more neatly. A word-based approach would not assume a resyllabification 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:
(16) /fl#k/ /falk/
/rp#k/ /rpk/ /rbk/
/ls#k/ /lesk/ /lezk/
/zx#k/ /zxk/

7The same rules also apply for parallel morphophonological alternations between /d/ and /t/ (/
lodn/ load-inf /lt/ load-1sg.pres) as well as between /b/ and /f/ (/ribm/ write-inf /rf/
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 /k/.

Low German: A profile of a word language

317

Additional processes apply in these cases. Some of those, such as the absence of
a glottal stop before the vocalic onset of /k/ (cf. /falk/ [falk] fall I vs. /fl#k/
[flk] with contrastive stress on the pronoun), can be predicted by both the syllable-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 /k/ (cf. /k ls/ I read vs.
/lezk/), which is in accordance with a phonotactic rule that restricts Knick to
word-final syllables (see 2.5).

2.4.3Expanding phonological words: Function words

The notion of the expanding phonological word also proves useful for the analysis 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 inventory 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: /dn/)

def.f.sg, def.pl
(free form: /d/)

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

indf
(free form: /n/)

/bi/ at, by

/bin/

/bi/

/bit/

/bin/

/m/ around

/m/

/m/

/mt/

/m/

/p/ on

/pm/

/p/

/pt/

/pm/

/mt/ with

/mtn/

/mt/

/mt/

/mtn/

/n/ in

/n/

/n/

/nt/

/n/

Here, the article forms are phonetically reduced in a way that enables their incorporation into the preceding phonological word. The different forms illustrate different 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 /d/ is reduced to the
vowel //, one of the vowels that are possible in post-tonic syllables. Word-medial
obstruent voicing can apply optionally where possible (e.g. in /p/ [b] on the

318

Steffen Hder

or /mt/ [m] with the). The most complex mechanism affects the masculine
and indefinite forms /dn/ and /n/, 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 (/mtn/, /pm/), or (c)
realised as a Knick on a preceding nasal (/n/, /m/). 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 contractions 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/ + /d/ /dat/ [da], /dat/ + /dat/ /datat/ [daat]) or the cliticization of
demonstrative /dat/ dem.n.sg after finite verb forms (/s/ be.3sg.pres + /dat/
/sat/, /as/ shall.2sg.pres + /dat/ /asat/).
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 morphophonological 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.

2.5Word-level suprasegmental: The Knick phoneme

In addition to the segmental phenomena discussed so far, there is also a wordlevel 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 /vt/ 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. While it is commonly agreed that the proso-

8For convenience, Knick is indicated by a circumflex (). 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.

Low German: A profile of a word language

319

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 considered 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 organized in terms of quantitative or qualitative distinctions. The classic view, as introduced 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). In contrast, a majority
of studies support an interpretation which is based on a ternary quantitative contrast, including Knick as a third overlong quantity instead of a tonal feature
(cf. von Essen 1958: 110112, 1964: 1011; Ternes 1981; Auer 1991: 2425; 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 previous analyses. I myself have proposed an analysis that combines a qualitatively
organized vowel system (as presented in section 2.2) with a prosodemic distinction which includes both tonal and durational aspects (cf. Hder 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 /kom/ 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 Essens (1958: 111) analysis can be considered parallel, as it interprets
long nasals as equivalent to overlong vowels.

9In 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 Prehns 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.

320

Steffen Hder

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) /lt/ people
/bvs/ [bvs] prove-1sg.pres
/kld/ [kld] 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) /nrlf/ Lower Elbe [part of the river] (< /nr/ under; lower + /lf/ Elbe)
/uflt/ drawer (< /uf-/ push- + /lt/ drawer, chest)
/abit/ work-1sg.pres (vs. /abit/ work [noun])
/habx/ hostel, shelter

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

segmental context. It is restricted to long monophthongs (/a /), monophthongs
with a long allophone (/i y u e o /), and diphthongs, and it can occur in open
syllables as well as before fricatives, the stop /t/, or nasals:
(19) /bx/ recover [a ship]-1sg.pres vs. /bax/ mountain
/vt/ willow vs. /vit/ far
/lt/ drawer, chest vs. /lot/ late
/mot/ fashion vs. /meot/ courage

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

(20) /l/ 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) /fn/ find-inf vs. /fn/ find-1sg.pres
/min/ mine-pl [weapons] vs. /mn/ 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

Low German: A profile of a word language

321

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. /dx/ day-pl (combined with vowel alternation)
/rat/ wheel vs. /rt/ wheel-pl (combined with vowel alternation)
/kom/ come-inf vs. /km/ come-1sg.pres
/left/ live-3sg.pres vs. /lft/ 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. The overall result is that inflected forms usually do not exhibit phonological 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.

3Areal 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-standardized, scarcely written variety, it provides a useful addition to the available
descriptions of Germanic languages, in particular with respect to cross-linguistic 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 evidently 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.

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

322

Steffen Hder

Low German has been in constant contact with High German throughout its existence, 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 (Hder 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 contact-linguistic relations between the German-speaking area and its northern
neighbors (cf. Hder 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 contact-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 Grnnum 1998), (b) some form
of word-medial obstruent voicing, (c) the existence of a word-level suprasegmental phoneme (Low German Knick, Danish std). South Jutlandic, while being
std-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; Ejskjr 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 particular has been very influential in the history of the Scandinavian languages (Braunmller 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 relatively 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

Low German: A profile of a word language

323

of Germanic, Baltic, and Finnic languages, among others (for an overview cf.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wlchli 2001). Eliassons (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 desideratum. However, they too might be due to the intense contact within the Circum-Baltic area in historic and prehistoric times, including contact with Middle
Low German. A more detailed knowledge of the phonology of its modern successor could provide more insight into the range and origin of this areal group.

4Conclusion
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 criteria summarized in Table 1, except for the fact that there is one long consonant,
/s/ (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 phonological 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.

324

Steffen Hder

References
Auer, Peter (1991): Zur More in der Phonologie. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 10: 336.
Auer, Peter (2001): Silben- und akzentzhlende Sprachen. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard
Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language
Universals, 13911399. (Handbcher 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, 6992.
(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.) rhus: Universitetsforlaget.
Braunmller, Kurt (2004): Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch im Kontakt mit den skandinavischen Sprachen. In: Horst H. Munske (ed.), Deutsch im Kontakt mit germanischen
Sprachen, 130. (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 248.) Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Bremer, Otto (1927): Der Schleifton im Nordniederschsischen. Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 53:
132.
Chapman, Carol (1993): berlnge in North Saxon Low German: Evidence for the metrical foot.
An approach to vowel length based on the theory of metrical phonology. Zeitschrift fr
Dialektologie und Linguistik 60/2: 129157.
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.
Ejskjr, Inger (2005): Dialects and regional linguistic varieties in the 20th century III: Denmark.
In: Oskar Bandle, Kurt Braunmller, Ernst Hkon 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, 17211741. (Handbcher 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 p de nordeuropeiska
sprkens fonologi [Typological and areal linguistic perspectives on the phonology of the
northern European languages]. In: Ernst Hkon Jahr (ed.), Sprkkontakt. Innverknaden
fr nedertysk p andre nordeuropeiska sprk. Forskingsprogrammet Norden og Europa
[Language contact. The influence from Low German on other languages in northern
Europe. The research programme The North and Europe], 2170. (Nord 2000/19.)
Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerrd.
Essen, Otto von (1958): Die Vokale der niederdeutschen Mundart von Kirchwerder. Zeitschrift
fr Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 11: 105118.
Essen, Otto von (1964): Kirchwerder bei Hamburg. (Lautbibliothek der deutschen Mundarten
33/34.) Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Fllner, Ursula (2004): Zum Gebrauch des Niederdeutschen in der Gegenwart soziolinguistische und pragmatische Aspekte. In: Dieter Stellmacher (ed.), Niederdeutsche Sprache
und Literatur der Gegenwart, 99148. (Germanistische Linguistik 175/176.) Hildesheim/
Zrich/New York: Olms.

Low German: A profile of a word language

325

Grnnum, Nina (1998): Fonetik og fonologi. Almen og dansk [Phonetics and phonology. General
and Danish]. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag.
Gussenhoven, Carlos and Jrg Peters (2004): A tonal analysis of Cologne Schrfung. Phonology
21: 251285.
Hder, Steffen (2010): Das Lautsystem des Altenwerder Platt. Eine phonetisch-phonologische
Bestandsaufnahme. Niederdeutsches Wort 50: 127.
Hder, 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, 173184. (Studies in
Language Variation 7.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Hder, Steffen (2011b): Niederdeutsch und Norddeutsch: ein Fall von Diasystematisierung.
Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 134: 113136.
Jakobson, Roman (1962): ber die phonologischen Sprachbnde. In: Selected Writings. Vol.
1: Phonological Studies, 137143. s-Gravenhage: Mouton. First published in Runion
Phonologique Internationale tenue Prague, Prague 1931.
Kabak, Bar and Ren Schiering (2006): The phonology and morphology of function word
contractions in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 5399.
Kloeke, Gesinus (1913): Der Vokalismus der Mundart von Finkenwrder bei Hamburg. Hamburg:
Grfe & Sillem.
Kohler, Klaus J. (1986): berlnge und Schleifton im Niederdeutschen. Zusammenfassung der
Ergebnisse aus vier Dialektuntersuchungen. In: Klaus J. Kohler, Regina Tdter and Michael
Weinhold (eds.), Phonetische Forschung in der niederdeutschen Dialektologie, 517.
(Arbeitsberichte des Instituts fr Phonetik der Universitt Kiel 23.) Kiel: Universitt Kiel,
Institut fr Phonetik.
Kohler, Klaus J. (2001): berlnge im Niederdeutschen? In: Robert Peters, Horst P. Ptz and
Ulrich Weber (eds.), Vulpis Adolatio. Festschrift fr Hubertus Menke zum 60. Geburtstag,
385402. (Germanistische Bibliothek 11.) Heidelberg: Winter.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Bernhard Wlchli (2001): The Circum-Baltic languages. An
areal-typological approach. In: sten Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The
Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact. Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology, 615750.
(Studies in Language Companion Series 55.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mller, Frerk (2008): Plattdeutsch im 21. Jahrhundert. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven.
(Schriften des Instituts fr niederdeutsche Sprache 34.) Leer: Schuster.
Peters, Jrg (2006): The dialect of Hasselt. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36:
117124.
Prehn, Maike (2007): Schwa loss and its results in Low German. Tone or overlength? Linguistics
in the Netherlands 2007: 187198.
Prehn, Maike (2010): Die langen finalen Nasale im Nordniederschsischen. Ihre Phonetik
und phonologische Reprsentation. In: Matthias Katerbow and Alexander Werth (eds.),
Moderne Regionalsprachen als multidimensionales Forschungsfeld, 187208. (Germanistische Linguistik 210.) Hildesheim/Zrich/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, 4356. Tbingen: Niemeyer.

326

Steffen Hder

Ringgaard, Kristian (1973): Danske dialekter. En kortfattet oversigt [Danish dialects. A concise
survey]. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag. First published rhus 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): ber Herkunft und Verbreitung der berlnge 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. Juni2. Juli 1980,
379386. (Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Sprachwissenschaft 36.) Innsbruck: Universitt
Innsbruck, Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft.
Ternes, Elmar (2001): Anstze zu einer Phonemtypologie deutscher Dialekte. In: Margret
Brunlich, Baldur Neuber and Beate Rues (eds.), Gesprochene Sprache transdisziplinr.
Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Gottfried Meinhold, 171182. (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: 91109.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaus S. (1989): Grundzge der Phonologie. 7th ed. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht. First published Prague 1939.