Introduction
Why does a language have word-formation?
 Economy: the chair close to the juice vs. juice chair
 Compounds name concepts (blackboard), phrases describe (a black board)
Problem: Phrases can be concept names, too!
Great white shark, green tea, best man
[see i.a. Barz 1996, Booij 2009, Bücking 2010, Downing 1977, Gunkel & Zifonun 2009,
Schlücker & Plag 2011, Zimmer 1971]
2
Introduction
Is word-formation a separate module of language?
Interpretation
Syntax
Word-formation
Lexicon
Articulation
3
Introduction
Is word-formation a separate module of language … or not?
Interpretation
Structure building
Lexicon
Articulation
4
Questions
 Do compounds, compared to phrases, show a preference to be lexicalized
as names?
 How can this lexical affinity be explained?
 Is the compounds’ lexical affinity reflected cognitively?
 Are potential effects indeed related to the difference between compounds
(“morphology”) and phrases (“syntax”)?
 Or are there systematically confounding factors that we have to consider?
5
Roadmap
1
Differences in meaning
2
Cognitive differences and experimental studies
3
Summary
6
Semantic differences
Hypothesis:
Novel compounds lose descriptive properties at their formation and begin to
specialize in meaning immediately.
Kind reference
 Compounds allow kind reading without previous lexicalization
(1)
a. ??Die schwarze Hyäne ist ausgestorben.
‘the black hyena is extinct’
b. Die Schwarzhyäne ist ausgestorben.
‘the black_hyena is extinct’
Coordination
 “Mixed” gapping is only possible with modifiers of the same type
(1)
a. ??Aaggressive and Ntiger sharks
► descriptive + classifying modifier
b. Awhite and Ntiger sharks
► classifying + classifying modifier
[see Barz 1996, Booij 2010, Bücking 2010, Schlücker 2012]
7
Semantic differences
Temporal dissociation
 Compounds, in contrast to phrases, allow a temporal dissociation of the
predicative better, see (2):
(1)
a. ??Nur einer der Rentner ist ein Baby.
b. Nur einer der Rentner ist ein Gerber-Baby.
‘only one of the pensioners is a Gerber_baby’
(2)
a. ??Nur einer der Professoren ist ein Schüler mit Bestnoten.
‘only one of the professors is a pupil with top grades ’
b. Nur einer der Professoren ist ein Bestnotenschüler.
‘only one of the professors is a top grade pupil’
‘So-called’-environments
 Compounds, in contrast to phrases, are better compatible with modification
with so-called:
(3)
??Das
ist ein sogenanntes ??rotes Dach / Rotdach.
‘this is a so-called red roof / red_roof’
[see Rapp 2013]
8
Semantic differences
Intersectiveness
 A-N compounds allow non-intersective readings only
(2)
a. a sweet TALKER
 intersective: sb. who is sweet
 non-intersective: sb. who talks pleasingly
b. a SWEET talker
 non-intersective: sb. who talks pleasingly
In a nutshell:
 Phrases and compounds differ in their semantic compositionality.
 These differences can be associated with the naming function of compounds.
[see Egg 2006, Schäfer 2011]
9
Cognitive differences
Questions
 Are novel compounds processed differently in comparison to phrases?
 Are potential effects due to a categorial difference between morphological
and phrasal products?
 What confounding factors do we have to consider?
10
Memorization study
Memorization of picture labels
Learning phase: subjects were asked to memorize unkonwn picture labels over
three days (1, 4 & 8)
[‘a short_saw’]
[‘a wide comb’]
Recall phase: subjects were asked to decide on correct / incorrect labels
[‘a short_saw’]
[see Kotowski et al. 2012, Böer et al. 2012]
[‘a flat_saw’]
11
Memorization study
Results
Neither type is memorized better over time (p < .26).
ITEM TYPE
× DAY interaction (not significant)
Compounds
RT
Phrases
1110
1060
1010
960
910
860
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
12
Memorization study
Results
More pronounced learning effect for compounds:
 not learned compounds take longer to decide than phrases (p < .001)
 this difference disappears when the compounds are learned (p < .67)
 stronger effect of memorization for compounds (p < .001)
LEARNED
× ITEM TYPE interaction (p < .09)
RT
1150
1100
1050
Not learned
Learned
1000
950
900
Phrases
Compounds
13
Memorization study
Results
The effect is also reflected in the error rates:
 compounds profit from learning, phrases don’t (p < .75)
 compounds are decided as correctly as phrases when learned (p < .99)
LEARNED
× ITEM TYPE interaction (p < .001)
CORRECT
Compounds
Phrases
ANSWERS
5,4
5,3
5,2
5,1
5,0
4,9
4,8
4,7
4,6
4,5
Not learned
Learned
14
A categorial difference?
Are these effects indeed a manifestation of a categorial and functional
difference between compounds and phrases?
Or are they better explained by problems of lexical segmentation / access?
Reading time study
Non-transparent compounds require longer reading times than non-transparent
phrases (presented in contexts like The deep doctor likes John ... )
… Weitlehrer …
[‘wide_teacher’]
… tiefe Arzt …
[‘deep doctor’]
… starke Schmid …
[‘strong blacksmith’]
NON-TRANSPARENT
TRANSPARENT
… Langläufer …
[long distance runner]
15
Effects within sentences
Questionnaire study
Do novel AN-compounds modulate context effects of implicit verb causality?
Sentences containing psychological verbs and causal sentences:
(1)
(2)
Exp-Stim verb:
Max envies the director because she/ ?he …
Stim-Exp verb:
The director fascinates Max because she/ ?he …
Phrase-Stim:
The flat saw fascinates Jim because it …
Comp-Stim:
The slim_knife frustrates John because it …
Results
More causal attributions to Stim if it is a novel compound, compared to phrases:
16
Compounds and kinds
We hypothesize a link between the linguistic markedness of novel ANcompounds and their affinity to express kinds.
Questionnaire study
Suitability ratings for contradictory AAN-complexes:
[‘a slim thick_eel’]
[‘a slim exemplar
of a thick kind of eel’]
[‘a slim thick eel’]
Results
Main effect (p < .0001)
compounds vs. phrases
[see Barz 1998]
Rating
5
4
3
2
1
0
Compounds
Phrases
17
Summary
 Our results support a “separatist” view towards morphological structure
building.
 Compounds have a naming function, which is reflected in their semantic
compositionality. [slides 7  9]
 Experimentally, we have found indications for
• a stronger memorization effect for novel compounds, [11  14]
• enhanced impact of implicit verb causality with novel compounds, [16]
• improved acceptability for contradictory AAN-compounds. [17]
 Confounding factors are associated with segmentation problems [15] as well as
linguistic markedness. [17]
 The latter requires further investigation: Is linguistic markedness
simply a by-product of word-formation or rather a constitutive feature?
Thank you.
18
Acknowledgements / Literature
Parts of this paper have been done in collaboration with Katja Böer, Peter Schöpperle and Sven
Kotowski (see Kotowski et al. 2013; Böer et al. 2012), to whom many thanks are due for discussion and
valuable help. We are also grateful to Oxana Lapteva for the technical support.
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad (2010). The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Compounding. In: Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding. Sergio Scalise
and Irene Vogel (eds.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21-36.
Baayen, R. Harald; Kuperman, Victor & Bertram, Raymond (2010). Frequency Effects in Compound Processing. In: Cross-Disciplinary Issues in
Compounding. Sergio Scalise and Irene Vogel (eds.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 257-270.
Barz, Irmhild (1996). Komposition und Kollokation. In: Nomination – fachsprachlich und gemeinsprachlich. Clemens Knobloch & Burkhard Schaeder
(eds.). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 127-146.
Barz, Irmhild (1998). Zum Neuheitseffekt von Wortbildungen. In: Neologie und Korpus. Wolfgang Teubert (ed.). Tübingen: Narr, 11-30.
Bell, Melanie (2011). At the Boundary of Morphology and Syntax. In: Morphology and Its Interfaces. Alexandra Galani; Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulos
(eds.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Böer, Katja; Kotowski, Sven & Holden Härtl (2012). Nominal Composition and the Demarcation between Morphology and Syntax: Grammatical,
Variational, and Cognitive Factors. In: Anglistentag 2011 – Proc. Monika Fludernik and Benjamin Kohlmann (eds.). Trier: Wissenschaftl. Verlag, 63-74.
Booij, Geert (2009). Phrasal Names: A Constructionist Analysis. Word Structure 2, 219-240.
Booij, Geert (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford, NY: OUP.
Bücking, Sebastian (2009). How Do Phrasal and Lexical Modification Differ? Contrasting Adjective-Noun Combinations in German, Word Structure 2(2),
184-204.
Bücking, Sebastian (2010). German Nominal Compounds as Underspecified Names for Kinds. In: New Impulses in Word-Formation. Susan Olsen (ed.).
Hamburg: Buske, 253-281.
Carlson, Greg (1977). A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3), 413-458.
Downing, Pamela (1977). On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns. Language 53(4), 810-842.
Egg, Markus (2006). Anti-Ikonizität an der Syntax-Semantik-Schnittstelle. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25(1), 1-38.
Gunkel, Lutz & Gisela Zifonun (2009). Classifying Modifiers in Common Names. Word Structure 2(2), 205-218.
Kotowski, Sven; Böer, Katja & Holden Härtl (2012). Compounds vs. Phrases: The Cognitive Status of Morphological Products. Appears in a special volume
of Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Jespersen, Otto (1942). A Modern English Grammar. Part VI, Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Krifka, Manfred; Pelletier; Francis J.; Carlson, Gregory N.; Ter Meulen, Alice; Chierchia, Gennaro & Link, Godehard (1995). Genericity: an introduction.
In: The Generic Book. Greg N. Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds.). Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press, 1-124.
Motsch, Wolfgang (2004). Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Olsen, Susan (2000). Composition. In: Morphologie / Morphology. Geert Booij et al. (eds.), 897-916, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rapp, Irene (2013). On the temporal interpretation of present participles in German. Appears in: Journal of Semantics.
Schäfer, Martin (2010). Prä- und postnominale Modifikation im Englischen und das Situationsargument. Talk at the 10th workshop Ereignissemantik, Universität Tübingen.
Schlücker, Barbara (2012). The Semantics of Lexical Modification: Meaning and Meaning Relations in German A+N Compounds. Submitted
19
manuscript. Berlin: Freie Universität.
Schlücker, Barbara & Plag, Ingo (2011). Compound or Phrase? Analogy in Naming. Lingua 121, 1539-1551.