The rhyme is an obligatory syllableconstituent, which can optionally branch into a nucleus and a coda. The nucleus is obligatory; the coda is optional.

According to Booij (1995:26) and Trommelen (1984), a rhyme in Dutch consists of at least two and maximally three positions. The rhyme structures in figure 2 (i-iv) are attested in Dutch as illustrated by the examples in (1). The diphthongs in examples (1d) and (1f) pattern with the A-class vowels in examples (1c) and (1e). Notice that the representations in example (2) are not allowed in Dutch (see also figure 3 (v-vii)).


However, a few exceptional cases to the fact stated in (2c) can be found in Dutch. In words like twaalf/tʋalf/[tʋalf]twelve or Weesp/ʋesp/[ʋesp]place name, an A-class vowel precedes a consonant cluster of non-coronals, resulting in a sequence of four rhyme positions. The same holds for the past tense forms of some strong verbs, e.g. hielp/hilp/[hilp]help.SG.PSThelped or stierf/stirf/[stirf]die.SG.PSTdied, and a few words ending in /-rn/, e.g. hoorn/horn/[hor(ə)n]horn or lantaarn/lɑntarn/[lɑnˈtar(ə)n]streetlamp (all examples in this paragraph are taken from Booij (1995: 26, footnote 8) who also mentions that -rn clusters tend to be reduced with the help of schwa epenthesis).
Words like herfst/hɛrfst/[hɛrfst]autumn, fall or promptst[prɔmptst][prɔmp(t)st]most prompt seem to be additional counterexamples to the fact stated in (2b). However, it can be observed that Dutch generally allows for extra-long consonant sequences at the end of prosodic words ('edge of constituent phenomena', see Moulton 1956, Booij 1983). In addition to the maximally three positions of the rhyme, Dutch allows for three additional prosodic word-final appendix positions, which can only be filled by coronals (cf. coda).
Whereas the type of coda consonants in structures like in (1e) is unrestricted in word-final position, Trommelen (1984:121) observes that some restrictions apply in word-medial coda positions (cf. also phonotactics at the word level). The examples in table (1) illustrate that on the face of it A-class vowels can solely be followed by obstruents (column 1) in word-medial coda position. Column 3 provides evidence that sonorants are not generally excluded as word-medial coda consonants.
bauksiet/bɑuk.sit/bauxite | teempo/tem.po/ | tempo/tɛm.po/tempo |
hypnose/hip.no.sə/hypnosis | oomnibus/om.ni.bʏs/ | omnibus/ɔm.ni.bʏs/bus |
vreugde/vrøɣ.də/joy | peerzik/per.zɪk/ | perzik/pɛr.zɪk/peach |
klooster/klos.tər/convent | oorkest/or.kɛst/ | orkest/ɔr.kɛst/orchestra |
Whereas the type of coda consonants in structures like in (1e) is unrestricted in word-final position, Trommelen (1984:121) observes that some restrictions apply in word-medial coda positions (cf. also phonotactics at the word level). The examples in table (1) illustrate that on the face of it A-class vowels can solely be followed by obstruents (column 1) in word-medial coda position. Column 3 provides evidence that sonorants are not generally excluded as word-medial coda consonants.
bauksiet/bɑuk.sit/bauxite | teempo/tem.po/ | tempo/tɛm.po/tempo |
hypnose/hip.no.sə/hypnosis | oomnibus/om.ni.bʏs/ | omnibus/ɔm.ni.bʏs/bus |
vreugde/vrøɣ.də/joy | peerzik/per.zɪk/ | perzik/pɛr.zɪk/peach |
klooster/klos.tər/convent | oorkest/or.kɛst/ | orkest/ɔr.kɛst/orchestra |
The description given above stating that rhymes in Dutch consist of minimally two and maximally three positions relies crucially on the assumption that Dutch distinguishes quantitatively short and long vowels, i.e. vowels that either occupy one or two nuclear positions (X-slots, x-positions; cf. Moulton 1962, Zonneveld 1978, Trommelen 1984, Van der Hulst 1984, Booij 1995, Kooij and Van Oostendorp 2003). B-class vowels count as monopositional; A-class vowels count as bipositional in accordance with diphthongs. Although the length distinction approach is able to capture the differing behaviour of the two classes of vowels with respect to syllable structure (see examples (1) and (2)) and stress assignment, the approach has to face some shortcomings.
Van Oostendorp (1995; 2000) discusses seven problematic issues that arise from following a length-contrast approach in vowels. First, it is problematic that in a quantity based account the high A-class vowels/i, y, u/ pattern with the short vowels, i.e. B-class vowels, in their phonetic length even though they pattern with the non-high long vowels /e, o, ø, a/ phonologically. (Gussenhoven (2009) observes that "[u]nlike what appears to be generally assumed, the long tense vowels of Dutch are only longer than short vowels in stressed syllables, i.e., in the head of the foot".) Furthermore, a vowel-quantity based account must stipulate that schwa is a phonologically long vowel, although phonetically short, since it does occur in open syllables word-finally (cf. stage/sta.ʒə/internship) and cannot precede branching codas consisting of non-coronals (arend/arənd/eagle but /*arəmp/; cf. Botma & Van Oostendorp 2012). Second, Van Oostendorp points out that a vowel-quantity based account has problematic consequences from a typological point of view, too. It implies that Dutch possesses the syllable types CVC and CVV (possibly also CVCC and CVVC) but lacks the CV type - making Dutch a typologically highly marked language. Moreover, following this approach, Dutch seems to be a weight-sensitive language in which only closed CVC syllables and CVV syllables containing diphthongs count as heavy whereas CVV syllables containing A-class vowels or schwa count as light or even as superlight. The fourth problematic issue is related to the distribution of A-class vowels and B-class vowels in the Dutch vowel inventory. Trubetzkoy (1939) observed that, given a natural class of segments that gets decomposed into two disjoint subsets based on some phonological property, the larger subset is normally the unmarked one. This assumption runs counter to the fact that the larger set of bipositional A-class vowels is structurally more complex and should therefore be presumed to be more marked than the monopositional B-class vowels. Another problematic issue is the fact that certain morpheme structure constraints seem to make reference to a difference in quality of the vowels rather than their quantity. Sequences like /jɪ-/ and /ʋʏ-/ are acceptable in Dutch, whereas /*ji-/, /*ʋy-/ and /*ʋø-/ are not. This difference is hard to capture with a vowel-quantity based approach since the corresponding vowels would differ exclusively in the number of occupied positions, i.e. their phonological quality is identical. As the sixth issue, Van Oostendorp claims that secret languages and language games treat A-class vowels as units and, crucially, as identical to B-class vowels although a difference can usually be found in other languages (see references in Van Oostendorp 1995; 2000). Lastly, Van Oostendorp mentions cross-dialectal evidence from Dutch varieties that provide vowels differing in quantity and quality. He proposes that the contrast in quality might be underlying and that the difference in quantity is "invoke[d by] a special mechanism" that is active in Dutch anyway and has received phonological status in these particular dialectal areas.
The alternative approach mentioned in the last paragraph assumes that a contrast in tenseness is underlyingly active to differentiate between the two types of Dutch vowels (cf. Cohen 1959, De Rijk 1967, Smith et al. 1989, Hermans 1992, Van Oostendorp 1995, 2000, Gussenhoven 2009). All the other properties, i.e. the distribution of occurrence in open vs. closed syllables or phonetic length, are derived from the difference in tenseness. Smith et al. (1989) understand tenseness as equivalent to ATR (advanced tongue root) or rather its phonetic correspondent of pharyngeal expansion. They specify tense vowels, i.e. A-class vowels, with a dependent [I] element in contrast to lax vowels, i.e. B-class vowels, which lack this specification. Schwa is not specified for any phonological feature, which leaves unaccounted for that schwa patterns distributionally with tense vowels in open and closed syllables. Motivated by this last fact, Van Oostendorp (1995, 2000) alternatively proposes that B-class vowels should be specified by the monovalent feature [lax] (or [-ATR]) instead. The lax specification not only captures the similarities between A-class vowels and schwa, it also leaves the larger set of A-class vowels less complex compared to the smaller set of B-class vowels. To cover the fact that lax vowels exclusively occur in closed syllables, Van Oostendorp introduced the projection constraint Connect(N, [lax]), which is, roughly, defined as:
A third approach assumes that the phonological distinction of A-class vowels and B-class vowels holds at the prosodic level, i.e. allowing for a branching or non-branching rhyme structure. All other phonetic properties, i.e. differences in length and tenseness, are a direct result of underlying syllable structure and subsequent stress assignment (cf. Botma and Van Oostendorp 2012). The underlying idea can already be found in the work of pre-/early structuralists - the contrast of 'strongly cut' and 'weakly cut' vowels (cf. the concept of syllable cut/Silbenschnitt in Sievers 1901; Trubetzkoy 1939;Botma and van Oostendorp 2012; cf. also Vennemann 1991 for a similar phenomenon in German).
- 1983Principles and parameters in prosodic phonologyLinguistics21249-80
- 1995The phonology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
- 1995The phonology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
- 1995The phonology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
- 1995The phonology of DutchOxfordOxford University Press
- 2012A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years onPhonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic IssuesBerlinMouton de Gruyter
- 2012A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years onPhonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic IssuesBerlinMouton de Gruyter
- 2012A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years onPhonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic IssuesBerlinMouton de Gruyter
- 2012A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years onPhonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic IssuesBerlinMouton de Gruyter
- 1959Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries: Inleiding tot de moderne klankleerMartinus Nijhoff
- 2009Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in DutchThe nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul KiparskyCambridge, MA.; LondonMIT Press181--198
- 2009Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in DutchThe nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul KiparskyCambridge, MA.; LondonMIT Press181--198
- 1992On the representation of quasi-long vowels in Dutch and LimburgianBok-Bennema, R. & Hout, R. van (eds.)Linguistics in the NetherlandsAmsterdam
- 1984Syllable structure and stress in DutchDordrechtForis
- 2003Fonologie. Uitnodiging tot de klankleer van het NederlandsAmsterdamAmsterdam University Press
- 1956Syllable nuclei and final consonant clusters in GermanFor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthdayMouton
- 1962The vowels of Dutch: phonetic and distributional classesLingua11294-312
- 1995Vowel Quality and Phonological ProjectionTilburg UniversityThesis
- 1995Vowel Quality and Phonological ProjectionTilburg UniversityThesis
- 1995Vowel Quality and Phonological ProjectionTilburg UniversityThesis
- 1995Vowel Quality and Phonological ProjectionTilburg UniversityThesis
- 1995Vowel Quality and Phonological ProjectionTilburg UniversityThesis
- 2000Phonological ProjectionNiemeyer
- 2000Phonological ProjectionNiemeyer
- 2000Phonological ProjectionNiemeyer
- 2000Phonological ProjectionNiemeyer
- 2000Phonological ProjectionNiemeyer
- 1967Apropos of the Dutch vowel systemMIT
- 1901Grundzüge der PhonetikWiesbadenBreitkopf und Kärtel
- 1989Apropos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years onLinguistics in the Netherlands 1989DordrechtForis133--142
- 1989Apropos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years onLinguistics in the Netherlands 1989DordrechtForis133--142
- 1989Apropos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years onLinguistics in the Netherlands 1989DordrechtForis133--142
- 1984The Syllable in DutchDordrechtForis
- 1984The Syllable in DutchDordrechtForis
- 1984The Syllable in DutchDordrechtForis
- 1984The Syllable in DutchDordrechtForis
- 1939Grundzüge der PhonologiePragueJednota českých matematiků a fysiků
- 1939Grundzüge der PhonologiePragueJednota českých matematiků a fysiků
- 1991Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard GermanBertinetto, Pier Marco, Kenstowicz, Michael & Loporcaro, Michele (eds.)Certamen Phonologicum II. Papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology MeetingTurin211-243
- 1978A formal theory of exceptions in generative phonologyDordrechtForis
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- Co-occurrence restrictions in rhymes
[88%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonotactics > Syllable level > Rhymes
- Nucleus
[85%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonotactics > Syllable level > Rhymes
- Phonological processes in casual speech
[82%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonological processes
- Schwa epenthesis and schwa deletion
[82%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonological processes
- Phonotactics at the word level
[81%] Dutch > Phonology > Phonotactics
- Breaking: phonetic aspects
[82%] Frisian > Phonology > Phonological Processes > Breaking
- The syllabic affiliation of prevocalic glides
[81%] Frisian > Phonology > Segment inventory > Consonants > Glides
- Schwa deletion as a synchronic process: how to deal with lapses
[81%] Frisian > Phonology > Phonological Processes > Schwa deletion
- Orthography
[81%] Frisian > Phonology > Orthography of Frisian
- /{s/z}/-insertion between /{t/d}/ and /jə/
[81%] Frisian > Phonology > Phonological Processes
- The Afrikaans Rhyme
[83%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonotactics
- Quality alternation of back vowels
[81%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonological Processes > Vowel related processes
- The short vowels
[81%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonotactics > The vowel system of Afrikaans
- The phonotactics of Afrikaans
[81%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Phonotactics
- The rounded and unrounded close front vowels of Afrikaans
[81%] Afrikaans > Phonology > Segment inventory > Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- Nominal suffixation: diminutives
[78%] Dutch > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Nouns > Nominal suffixes
- -ing
[78%] Dutch > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Nouns > Nominal suffixes
- Case - the partitive construction
[78%] Dutch > Morphology > Inflection > Nouns > Case
- Adjectival inflection
[78%] Dutch > Morphology > Inflection
- -aal and -eel
[78%] Dutch > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Nouns > Nominal suffixes
- Cardinal numbers
[81%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Numerals
- -DIM (diminutive)
[81%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Nominal suffixes > Noun as base
- Weak verbs
[80%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
- In prenominal position
[80%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Adjectives
- General categories
[79%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
- Non-native affixes
[75%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Conversion
[74%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation
- Affixation
[73%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation
- Nominalisation – Person names
[73%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Inputs and input restrictions
[72%] Afrikaans > Morphology > Word formation > Affixation
- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
- 1.3. Inflection
[84%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 1 Characterization and classification
- 11.3.3. Topicalization
[83%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement) > 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
[82%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
- 14.2. Left dislocation
[82%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 14 Main-clause external elements
- 3.1.2. Modification by an intensifier
[82%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification > 3.1. Modification of scalar adjectives
- Restriction of the B-construction to modals
[77%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Expression of irrealis
- The adverb of manner & degree sa 'so' and negation
[76%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Negation
- Verbs and Verb Phrases in Frisian
[74%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases
- The complementiser dat 'that' as a marker of syntactic coordination
[73%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Embedded Verb Second > Verb-second in embedded clauses > UCV2s
- Referentiality versus quantification
[73%] Frisian > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > Embedded Verb Second > Verb-second in embedded clauses > Linearity and referentiality
- Mood
[82%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Characterization and classification
- Attribution
[81%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Adjective Phrases
- Finite declarative complement clauses: construction forms
[81%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Complement clauses > Finite declarative complement clauses
- Root modality
[79%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Characterization and classification > Modality
- Inflection and derivation
[79%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Characterization and classification
