Introduction

2

Economy: the chair close to the juice vs. juice chair

Why does a language have word-formation?

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]

Introduction

3

Is word-formation a separate module of language?

Interpretation

Syntax

Articulation

Lexicon Word-formation

Introduction

4

Interpretation

Structure building

Articulation

Lexicon

Is word-formation a separate module of language … or not?

Questions

5

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?

Roadmap

6

1 Differences in meaning

3 Summary

2 Cognitive differences and experimental studies

Semantic differences

7

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.

b. Die Schwarzhyäne ist ausgestorben.

[see Barz 1996, Booij 2010, Bücking 2010, Schlücker 2012]

‘the black hyena is extinct’

‘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

Semantic differences

8

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.

(2) a. ??Nur einer der Professoren ist ein Schüler mit Bestnoten.

b. Nur einer der Professoren ist ein Bestnotenschüler.

‘only one of the pensioners is a Gerber_baby’

‘only one of the professors is a top grade pupil’

‘only one of the professors is a pupil with top grades ’

‘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]

Semantic differences

9

In a nutshell:

Phrases and compounds differ in their semantic compositionality.

These differences can be associated with the naming function of compounds.

Intersectiveness

A-N compounds allow non-intersective readings only

non-intersective: sb. who talks pleasingly

b. a SWEET talker non-intersective: sb. who talks pleasingly

(2) a. a sweet TALKER intersective: sb. who is sweet

[see Egg 2006, Schäfer 2011]

Cognitive differences

10

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?

Memorization study

11

Memorization of picture labels

Learning phase: subjects were asked to memorize unkonwn picture labels over three days (1, 4 & 8)

Recall phase: subjects were asked to decide on correct / incorrect labels

[see Kotowski et al. 2012, Böer et al. 2012]

[‘a wide comb’] [‘a short_saw’]

[‘a flat_saw’] [‘a short_saw’]

Memorization study

12

Results

Neither type is memorized better over time (p < .26).

ITEM TYPE × DAY interaction (not significant)

860

910

960

1010

1060

1110

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

Compounds

Phrases

RT

13

stronger effect of memorization for compounds (p < .001)

not learned compounds take longer to decide than phrases (p < .001)

this difference disappears when the compounds are learned (p < .67)

Results

More pronounced learning effect for compounds:

LEARNED × ITEM TYPE interaction (p < .09)

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

Phrases Compounds

Not learned

Learned

RT

Memorization study

14

Results

Memorization study

LEARNED × ITEM TYPE interaction (p < .001)

4,54,64,74,84,95,05,15,25,35,4

Not learned Learned

Compounds

Phrases

CORRECT

ANSWERS

compounds profit from learning, phrases don’t (p < .75)

compounds are decided as correctly as phrases when learned (p < .99)

The effect is also reflected in the error rates:

A categorial difference?

15

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’]

TRANSPARENT NON-TRANSPARENT

… Langläufer … [long distance runner]

16

Sentences containing psychological verbs and causal sentences:

(2) Phrase-Stim: The flat saw fascinates Jim because it …

Comp-Stim: The slim_knife frustrates John because it …

(1) Exp-Stim verb: Max envies the director because she/ ?he …

Stim-Exp verb: The director fascinates Max because she/ ?he …

Effects within sentences

Questionnaire study

Do novel AN-compounds modulate context effects of implicit verb causality?

Results

More causal attributions to Stim if it is a novel compound, compared to phrases:

17

Compounds and kinds

We hypothesize a link between the linguistic markedness of novel AN-compounds and their affinity to express kinds.

Results

Main effect (p < .0001) compounds vs. phrases

Questionnaire study

Suitability ratings for contradictory AAN-complexes:

0

1

2

3

4

5

Compounds Phrases

Rating

[see Barz 1998]

[‘a slim thick_eel’]

[‘a slim thick eel’]

[‘a slim exemplar of a thick kind of eel’]

Summary

Experimentally, we have found indications for

18

Compounds have a naming function, which is reflected in their semantic compositionality. [slides 7 9]

Confounding factors are associated with segmentation problems [15] as well as linguistic markedness. [17]

Our results support a “separatist” view towards morphological structure building.

Thank you.

• 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]

The latter requires further investigation: Is linguistic markedness simply a by-product of word-formation or rather a constitutive feature?

19

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.

Acknowledgements / Literature

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 Ereignis-

semantik, Universität Tübingen. Schlücker, Barbara (2012). The Semantics of Lexical Modification: Meaning and Meaning Relations in German A+N Compounds. Submitted

manuscript. Berlin: Freie Universität. Schlücker, Barbara & Plag, Ingo (2011). Compound or Phrase? Analogy in Naming. Lingua 121, 1539-1551.