Structural, functional and cognitive aspects of
adjective-noun combinations
Marcel Schlechtweg
[email protected]
www.marcelschlechtweg.com
Workshop “Expanding the lexicon”, Trier
November 18, 2016
Structural aspects
How can we distinguish AN/NA compounds from AN/NA phrases?
1.  Inflectional agreement is the primary factor, i.e. the factor that clearly
defines AN/NA compounds and AN/NA phrases.
à  If the adjective and the noun agree, the construction is a phrase.
à  If the adjective and the noun do not agree, the construction is a
compound.
2.  Other factors, e.g. stress, do not define AN/NA compounds and AN/
NA phrases but can only characterize them.
à e.g. AN phrases usually carry non-initial stress.
à e.g. AN compounds usually carry initial stress.
(Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016)
2 Structural aspects
Table 1: Adjective-noun/noun-adjective (AN/NA) constructions: An example from German, French and English
German
French
English
Compound
Schwarzbär
-
-
Phrase
schwarzer Bär
ours noir
-
Compound-like
Phrase-like
-
-
BLACK bear
black BEAR
3 Functional aspects
Table 2: Preferences in German, French and English
German
French
English
compound-like
constructions
Typical
naming units
compounds
phrases
Typical
descriptive units
phrases
phrases
phrase-like
constructions
(cf. also, e.g., Bücking 2010; Hüning 2010; McCauley et al. 2012; Van Goethem 2009)
4 Functional aspects
German/English
Functional distinction
(naming vs. descriptive units)
Structural distinction
(compounds/compound-like constructions vs.
phrases/phrase-like constructions)
5 Functional aspects
French
Functional distinction
(naming vs. descriptive units)
Structural distinction
(compounds vs. phrases)
6 Functional aspects
Idea: Compounds/compound-like constructions are more appropriate to
function as naming units than phrases/phrase-like constructions.
Compounds/compound-like constructions:
à Non-default structure immediately triggers a non-default/noncompositional interpretation and the naming function.
Phrases/phrase-like constructions
à Default structure triggers the default/compositional interpretation and
the descriptive function.
(cf. Härtl 2015a)
7 Functional aspects
Idea: Compounds/compound-like constructions are more appropriate to
function as naming units than phrases/phrase-like constructions.
Empirical evidence against the idea (from German): Schlücker & Plag (2011)
-  Number of existing compounds/phrases containing a specific
constituent decides whether a novel construction is a compound or
phrase
à Compounds and phrases fulfill the naming function equally well
8 Functional aspects
Idea: Compounds/compound-like constructions are more appropriate to
function as naming units than phrases/phrase-like constructions.
Empirical evidence for the idea (from German): Härtl (2015b)
-  sogenannt (‘so-called’) and quotation marks = name-indicating devices
-  Phrases appeared more often with sogenannt than compounds
-  In sogenannt-contexts, phrases used more frequently with quotation
marks than compounds
à Naming status of phrases needs to be introduced, compounds naturally
function as naming units
9 Functional aspects
Idea: Compounds/compound-like constructions are more appropriate to
function as naming units than phrases/phrase-like constructions.
Empirical evidence for the idea (from English): Hall & Moore (1997)
-  Subjects heard compound- or phrase-like constructions and were asked
to select a picture that showed what they heard
-  Compound-like constructions associated with a kind interpretation,
phrase-like constructions associated with a descriptive interpretation
10 Cognitive aspects
Do the structural and functional aspects have implications for the
processing of compounds/compound-like constructions and phrases/
phrase-like constructions?
We usually store only naming units (Booij 2010) (and not descriptive units).
Compounds/compound-like constructions are by their nature more
appropriate to function as naming units.
Are compounds/compound-like constructions better candidates for
memory storage?
11 Cognitive aspects
Is there empirical evidence for a processing advantage of AN compounds/
compound-like constructions in comparison to AN phrases/phrase-like
constructions?
-  Vogel & Raimy (2002):
-  Picture-selection task in English
-  Higher accuracy for compound-like constructions
-  But: Lexicalized compound-like constructions versus nonlexicalized phrase-like constructions
-  McCauley et al. (2012):
-  Lexical-decision task in English
-  Higher accuracy for compound-like constructions
-  But: Lexicalized compound-like constructions versus nonlexicalized phrase-like constructions
12 Cognitive aspects
Advantages of compound-like constructions are probably based on
lexicalization
What happens if we use non-lexicalized constructions?
-  Kotowski et al. (2014)
-  Lexical-decision task on three days in German
-  Memorization advantage of compounds in comparison to phrases
-  Shorter response times and higher accuracy rates for nonmemorized phrases in comparison to non-memorized compounds
-  No significant difference between memorized phrases and
compounds
-  Greater improvement for compounds if they contrasted nonmemorized and memorized constructions of either type
13 Cognitive aspects
w  Comparing the memorization of …
w  German compounds (e.g. Jungtourist) and French phrases (e.g. jeune
touriste)
w  English compound-like and English phrase-like constructions
(cf. Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016)
14 Cognitive aspects
w  Auditory memorization experiment on three days (day 1, day 4, day 8)
with native speakers
w  On each day: Memorization phase (MP) and recall phase (RP)
w  MP: Memorization of non-lexicalized complex constructions (e.g.
Jungtourist) and, as a baseline, nouns like Architekt of the respective
native language (same items on each day)
w  RP: Response “yes” to items that subjects heard in the MP and
response “no” to items that they did not hear in the MP
w  Items were controlled for several potentially confounding variables
across the languages/groups (e.g. number of syllables)
15 Cognitive aspects
1100
Response time (in ms)
1050
1000
950
German
French
900
850
800
Experimental items
Control items
Item type
Figure 1: German versus French (RESPONSE TIME)
16 Cognitive aspects
Response accuracy (in %)
100
95
German
French
90
85
Experimental items
Control items
Item type
Figure 2: German versus French (RESPONSE ACCURACY)
17 Cognitive aspects
German compounds processed more efficiently than French phrases
English compound-like constructions not processed more efficiently than
English phrase-like constructions
18 Cognitive aspects
High semantic compositionality in previous study
ê
How does the interaction of stress and semantic compositionality affect the
memorization of complex English AN constructions?
Connection between initial stress and semantic non-compositionality
(Fudge 1984, Ladd 1986)
w  Non-initial stress + semantic compositionality (e.g. short BRUSH)
w  Initial stress + semantic non-compositionality (e.g. HARD shirt)
19 Cognitive aspects
HARD shirt 1130 1120 Response (me (in ms) 1110 1100 SHORT brush Ini1al stress 1090 Non-­‐ini1al stress hard SHIRT 1080 1070 short BRUSH 1060 Seman1c composi1onality Seman1c non-­‐
composi1onality Seman(c composi(onality Figure 3: Interaction of STRESS x SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY (F1)
20 Cognitive aspects
1240 s (p < .001) 1200 Response (me (in ms) s (p < .001) 1160 1120 Ini1al stress + seman1c non-­‐
composi1onality (HARD shirt) ns 1080 Non-­‐ini1al stress + seman1c composi1onality (short BRUSH) ns 1040 ns 1000 960 1 2 Day 3 Figure 4: “Initial stress + semantic non-compositionality” versus “Non-initial stress + semantic
compositionality” on all three days (F1)
21 Cognitive aspects
English compound-like constructions improved more than English
phrase-like constructions from day one to day two/three
22 Conclusion
Interplay of structural, functional and cognitive aspects in the compoundphrase distinction within languages such as German and English
ê
Compounds/compound-like constructions
= typical/better naming units
= stored more efficiently
Interplay of structural, functional and cognitive aspects in the compoundphrase distinction between languages such as German and French
ê
Compounds (= naming units) stored more efficiently than phrases
(= naming units)
23 References
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bücking, Sebastian. 2010. German nominal compounds as underspecified names for kinds. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses
in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 253-281. Hamburg: Buske.
Fudge, Erik. 1984. English word-stress. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Hall, D. Geoffrey & Moore, Catherine E. 1997. Red bluebirds and black greenflies: Preschoolers’ understanding of the
semantics of adjectives and count nouns. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 67(2). 236-267.
Härtl, Holden. 2015a. Semantic non-transparency in the mental lexicon: On the relation between word-formation and naming.
In Brinker-von der Heyde, Claudia & Kalwa, Nina & Klug, Nina-Maria & Reszke, Paul (eds.), Eigentlichkeit: Zum Verhältnis von
Sprache, Sprechern und Welt, 395-416. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Härtl, Holden. 2015b. Normality at the boundary between word-formation and syntax. Appears in d’Avis, Franz & Lohnstein,
Horst (eds., 2017), Normalität in der Sprache (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 22). http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002670
(Accessed on July 27, 2016).
Hüning, Matthias. 2010. Adjective + noun constructions between syntax and word formation in Dutch and German. In
Onysko, Alexander & Michel, Sascha (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and
Monographs 221), 195-215. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Kotowski, Sven & Böer, Katja & Härtl, Holden. 2014. Compounds vs. phrases: The cognitive status of morphological products.
In Rainer, Franz & Gardani, Francesco & Luschützky, Hans Christian & Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.), Morphology and meaning:
Selected papers from the 15th Internatial Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327),
191-203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ladd, Robert D. 1984. English compound stress. In Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.), Intonation, accent, rhytm: Studies
in discourse phonology (Research in Text Theory 8), 253-266. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
McCauley, Stewart M. & Hestvik, Arild & Vogel, Irene. 2012. Perception and bias in the processing of compound versus
phrasal stress: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Speech 56(1). 23-44.
24 References
Schlechtweg, Marcel & Härtl, Holden. 2016. Memorization and the morphology-syntax divide: A cross-linguistic investigation.
SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13(2). 46-68.
Schlücker, Barbara & Plag, Ingo. 2011. Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua 121(9). 1539-1551.
Van Goethem, Kristel. 2009. Choosing between A+N compounds and lexicalized A+N phrases: The position of French in
comparison to Germanic languages. Word Structure 2(2). 241-253.
Vogel, Irene & Raimy, Eric. 2002. The acquisition of compound vs. phrasal stress: The role of prosodic constituents. Journal of
Child Language 29(2). 225-250.
25