Home Chapter 6. Stem constancy under the microscope
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 6. Stem constancy under the microscope

A systematic language comparison of types and limitations of stem spelling
  • Caroline Hettwer and Nanna Fuhrhop
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
All Things Morphology
This chapter is in the book All Things Morphology

Abstract

Writing systems show variation in stem spellings, for example with double consonant letters. In German, the double consonant is always preserved (e.g., rennen – rennt, “to run – runs”), while in Dutch it is not (rennen – rent). In English <nn> is normally not preserved (running – run), though in French it varies: bonne – bon (“well” feminine – masculine), donner – donne (“to give – (I) give”). There are different regularities for double consonant spellings in all four languages; thus, stem constancy varies in strength depending on the language. In order to develop a typology of writing systems, language-specific types and limitations of stem constancy need to be described in greater detail. This chapter will do this by examining the above-mentioned four languages. It will compare the strength and degree of systematicity of stem constancy, as well as issues of frequency. Mark Aronoff was always interested in spelling systems and he is a morphologist – so this chapter is dedicated to Mark.

Abstract

Writing systems show variation in stem spellings, for example with double consonant letters. In German, the double consonant is always preserved (e.g., rennen – rennt, “to run – runs”), while in Dutch it is not (rennen – rent). In English <nn> is normally not preserved (running – run), though in French it varies: bonne – bon (“well” feminine – masculine), donner – donne (“to give – (I) give”). There are different regularities for double consonant spellings in all four languages; thus, stem constancy varies in strength depending on the language. In order to develop a typology of writing systems, language-specific types and limitations of stem constancy need to be described in greater detail. This chapter will do this by examining the above-mentioned four languages. It will compare the strength and degree of systematicity of stem constancy, as well as issues of frequency. Mark Aronoff was always interested in spelling systems and he is a morphologist – so this chapter is dedicated to Mark.

Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/cilt.353.06het/html
Scroll to top button