1
Linguistic relativity, combinatorial competence,
and noun-noun compounds in English
PD Dr. Holden Härtl
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Department of English and American Studies
2
An intricate question
Do speakers of different languages differ in their world views?
3
Two factions
"Universalists"
"Relativists"
4
Two factions
"Universalists"
• non-linguistic cognition independent from language
• universals in the linguistic and non-linguistic domains
• intelligence without language possible
5
Two factions
"Relativists"
• non-linguistic cognition determined by language
• language and thought dependent on culture
• no intelligence without language
6

Existing empirical findings lead into an impasse!

Goal
Differences between languages in their
combinatorial capacities: A way out?
7
Outline
1.
Empirical data: An impasse
2.
New perspective: Combinatorial differences
3.
Implications: Compounding in English
4.
Conclusion

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Does language determine thought?
8

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
 
Empirical data come from several cognitive domains.
space cognition
event conceptualization
9

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
10
English prefers relative, ego-centric reference frames
to localize objects in space:
(1)
The man is standing to the left of the house.
see Levinson (1996), Pederson et al. (1998)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
11
Tzeltal uses absolute reference frames that are geo-centric:
(2)
te
winik-e
jich
tek'el
ta
ART
man-PHRASE
thus
standing AT
'The man is thus standing downhill there'
alan
ine
downhill there
see Levinson (1996), Pederson et al. (1998)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
12
see Pederson et al. (1998)

13
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Speakers of "relative" languages reproduce object arrays relative to their
own position:
see Pederson et al. (1998)

14
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Tzeltal speakers reproduce object arrays in an absolute manner.
Conlusion: Absolute and relative languages cause different space
conceptualizations, i.e. world views.
see Pederson et al. (1998)

15
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
But: An increase of geographical information causes an increase of
absolute responses in English speakers too!
Alternative conclusion: It is the environment that determines
space cognition.
see Li & Gleitman (2002)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Languages differ in their expressions for bounded motion, its manner,
and the use of (PATH-) resultatives.
For bounded motion, English prefers the pattern MANNER-VP + PATH-PP:
(3) A man is skating to a snowman.
Greek prefers the pattern PATH-VP + MANNER-PP here:
(4) Enas anthropos plisiazi ena xionanthropo me patinia.
'A man is approaching a snowman with skates'
16

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
17
Eye tracking studies: Speakers of different languages focus on distinct
situational aspects of a scene to be verbalized.
Papafragou et al. (2008); von Stutterheim (2007), (2008); von Stutterheim & Carroll (in press)

18
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
English vs. Greek verbalizers (0 ms after motion onset):
Greek speakers
English speakers
Papafragou et al. (2008)

19
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
English vs. Greek verbalizers (after 1500 ms):
Greek speakers
English speakers
Conclusion: Different grammatical properties of the verb frames determine
our viewing behavior during the verbalization process.
Papafragou et al. (2008)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
We are confronted with an impasse.
The original "language-and-thought" question is very broad.
20

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
"Thought"
"Language"
Language production model, Levelt (1989)
21

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References

A way out?
Combinatorial capacity in language enables thinking?

„Once a speaker has learned the terms of a language and the
rules by which those terms combine, she can represent the
meanings of all [...] combinations of those terms without
further learning.” (Spelke 2003: 306)
Combinatorial differences between languages cause
Whorfian effects?
„Questions about the existence of cultural differences in
human conceptual capacities […] hinge […] on questions
about the origins and nature of compositional semantics.”
(ibid.: 307)
22

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Combinatorial mechanisms and recursion as the
key property of cognitive creativity:
XY…X
23

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Combinatorial mechanisms in syntax:
(1)
the notebook on the table in the conference room of the university …
24

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
25
Recursion
see Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002); Jackendoff & Pinker (2005)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
26
Potential implication  I
The comparative view:
Can we expect Whorfian effects in apparently "recursion-less" languages
like Pirahã, Iatmul, etc.?
No!
In these languages recursion is simply not visible but still
part of the cognitive endowment ("UG").
see Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002); Everett (2005); Härtl (2009b)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
27
Potential implication  II
The comparative view:
Whorfian effects related to the compositional procedures in languages?
Empirical domains: Polysynthesis in language, word formation …
see Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002); Everett (2005); Härtl (2009b)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
28
Potential implication  II
Noun-noun compounds in English:
(1) morpho-lexical type: 'handbag, 'dog bed, 'truck driver, 'beer drinker
(2) syntactic type: toy 'frog, summer 'dress, stone 'wall, pet 'goat
… and in German:
(1) morpho-lexical type: 'Biertrinker, 'Sommerkleid, 'Plüschfrosch
cf. Chomsky & Halle (1968); Giegerich (2006), (2009);
Kastovsky (2006); Liberman & Sproat (1992); Olsen (2000); Plag (2006); Plag et al. (2008)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
29
Potential implication  II
Can we hypothesize a Whorfian effect for N-N composition?
• aphasic impairment for syntactic phrases (strange fever vs. yellow fever)
• syntax can participate in word formation in English:
equal rights amendment, new books shelf, all-or-nothing strategy
• German X-Ns are always potential "names": Blautee, Hemdstuhl
• in English end-stressed N-Ns are conceptually ambiguous and
not necessarily suggestions for lexicalization
• morphological products can be memorized more easily than syntactic
products
cf. Jesperson (1942); Ladd (1984); Mondini et al. (2002); Motsch (2004); Wiese (1996); Wunderlich (2009)

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Potential implication  II

A hypothesis for a future work program:
In the memorization of English novel N-N compounds a
performance difference can be detected, which correlates with stress
distribution.
No such difference can be observed in German.
30

Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References

Empirical research on linguistic relativity, by comparison,
faces an impasse, which is due to
critical broadness of the underlying question.

New perspectives may be promising, which implement
the combinatorial capacity in human language
as the driving mechanisms behind concept acquisition, which implies
language-specific differences at the "language-thought" interface.
31
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
Thank you.
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
References
Alegre, Maria & Peter Gordon (1996). Red rats eater exposes recursion in children‟s word formation. Cognition, 60, 65-82.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933) Language. New York: Holt.
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Everett, Daniel L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology. 46: 621-646.
Gentner, Dedre & Susan Goldin-Meadow (2003, eds.). Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge (MA): The MIT
Press.
Giegerich, Heinz (2006). Attribution in English and the distinction between phrases and compounds. In: Petr Rösel (ed.). Englisch in Zeit und Raum English in Time and Space: Forschungsbericht für Klaus Faiss. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 10-27.
Giegerich, Heinz (2009). The English compound stress myth. Ms., University of Edinburgh.
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how does it evolve? Science, 298,
1569-1579.
Härtl, Holden (2009a). Linguistische Relativität und die "Sprache-und-Denken"-Debatte: Implikationen, Probleme und mögliche Lösungen aus Sicht der
kognitionswissenschaftlichen Linguistik. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 50.
Härtl, Holden (2009b). Linguistic relativity and combinatorial competence. Submitted to Linguistics.
Jespersen, Otto (1942). A Modern English Grammar. Part VI, Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Kastovsky, Dieter (2006) Vocabulary. In: Hogg, Richard & David Denison (eds.) A History of the English Language. Cambridge (UK): CUP, 199-270.
Ladd, Robert (1984). English compouund stress. In: Gibbon, Dafydd & Helmut Richter (eds.) Intonation, Accent and Rhythm. Studies in Discourse
Phonology. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 253-266.
Levelt, Willem (1989). Speaking – From Intention to Articulation, Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In: Gumperz, John & Stephen Levinson (eds.). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (=
Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,177-202.
Li, Peggy & Gleitman, Lila (2002) Turning the tables. Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83, 265-294.
Liberman, Mark & Richard Sproat (1992). The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In: I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (eds.). Lexical Matters.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 131-181.
Mondini, Sara, Gonia Jarema, Claudio Luzzatti, Cristina Burani & Carlo Semenzai (2002). Why Is ‘‘red cross’’ different from ‘‘yellow cross’’?: a
neuropsychological study of noun–adjective agreement within Italian compounds, Brain and Language, 81, 621-634.
Empirical data || New perspectives || Implications || Conclusion || References
References (cont.)
Motsch, Wolfgang (2004). Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Olsen, Susan (2000). Compounding and stress in English: a closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte, 181,
55-69.
Papafragou, Anna, Justin Hulbert & John Trueswell (2008) Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108,
155-184.
Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen C. Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Gunter Senft (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization.
Language, 74, 557-589.
Pinker, Steven & Ray Jackendoff (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95, 201-236.
Plag, Ingo (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: structural, semantic and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics, 10.1.,
143-172.
Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter, Sabine Lappe & Maria Braun (2008). The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress
assignment in English. Language, 84-4, 760-794.
Slobin, Dan (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In: John J. Gumperz, John & Stephen C. Levinson (eds). Rethinking
Linguistic Relativity. Cambrigde (MA): Cambridge University Press, 70-96.
Spelke, Elizabeth (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In: Gentner, Dedre & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), 277-312.
Štekauer, Pavol , Julius Zimmermann & Renáta Gregová (2007). Stress in compounds: an experimental research. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54-2,
193-215.
Stutterheim, Christiane von (2007) Sprachspezifische Prinzipien der Informationsverarbeitung. Talk held at the symposium "Wie die Sprache unser
Denken beeinflusst", November 2007, HU Berlin.
Stutterheim, Christiane von & Mary Carroll (in press). Language specificity in event construal. To appear in: E. Pederson & J. Bohnemeyer (eds.). Event
Representation. Series: Language, culture, and cognition. Cambrigde (MA): Cambridge University Press.
Vogel, Irene & Eric Raimy (2002). The acquisition of compound vs. phrasal stress: the role of prosodic constituents. J. Child Lang., 29, 225-250.
Whorf, Benjamin L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality - The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language. Cambridge (MA): The MIT
Press.
Wiese, Richard (1996). Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 183-193.
Wunderlich, Dieter (2009). Überlegungen zur Evolution der Sprache. Talk held at the "Products of the Symbolic Mind" Lectures, May 2009, HU Berlin.