Post on 11-Nov-2020
COMPOUNDS vs. PHRASESThe cognitive status of morphological
products
Katja Böer, Sven Kotowski & Holden HärtlUniversität Kassel
15th International Morphology MeetingVienna, 9-12 February, 2012
1
THE MORPHOLOGY-SYNTAX INTERFACECOMPOUND or PHRASE?
• Are morphology and syntax two distinct modules in the human language faculty?
• Classical testbed: Constructions located at the interface of the two modules
Compound Phrase
blackbird black bird
2
Contents
1 Semantic and grammatical differences between compounds and phrases
2 Experimental inquiry into the cognitive status of compounds: 3 studies
3 Conclusion
3
Why does a language need compounds?
• Compounds are often said to have a name-giving function, to be representative of a category or to refer to a lexicalized concept
• Phrases on the other hand are often argued to have a primarily descriptive function
green house greenhouseblack board blackboardfree mason Freemason
4
Why does a language need compounds?
Yet, such contrasts are far from universal:
• Many compounds are not established namesterror dad Nacktprotest [lit. ‘naked_protest’]
• Many phrases are established namered cabbage grüner Tee [‘green tea’]
• Are compounds nevertheless possibly prime suggestions for lexicalization, cf. Lipka (1977); Motsch (2004)?
Wutbürger [lit. ‘anger_citizen’]
5
Grammatical differences
• Compounds are not accessible to syntactic operations, i.e., they display lexical integrity:
a. Kate drives an Audii, whichi recently has had engine failure.
a'. *Kate is an Audii driver, whichi recently has had engine failure.
b. a drunk driver and a melancholic oneb’. *a truck driver and an Audi one
cf. Booij (2009); Giegerich (2006)
6
Semantic differences
• Compounds seem to be more restrictive in terms of interpretability:
a. Max is a sweet tálker. PHRASE Max is sweet as well as a talker. (intersective reading) Max is someone who talks sweetly (i.e., in order to
achieve a certain goal). (non-intersective)
b. Max is a swéet talker. COMPOUND allows for the non-intersective reading only: Max is
someone who talks sweetly.
cf. Bücking (2009); Schlücker & Hünning (2009); Schäfer (2010); Giegerich (2009)
7
Semantic differences
• Compounds often designate kinds, while phrases do not seem to trigger a kind reading:
a. ??A bottle of beer is green in Germany.
b. A beer bottle is green in Germany.
8
Semantic differences
• Unlike phrases, novel compounds are often marked and therefore compatible with sogenannte-contexts:
a. Dies ist ein sogenannter Tiefkamm.[‘this is a so-called deep_comb’]
b. ?? Dies ist ein sogenannter tiefer Kamm.[‘this is a so-called deep comb’]
cf. Bücking (2009); Carlson (1977); Krifka et al. (1995); Schlücker & Hünning (2009)
9
Why does a language need compounds?
• A number of differences between compounds and phrases can be attested – grammatical as well as semantic
However,
• Underlying problem of the compound-phrase distinction:
Investigations into the distinction rely on the a prioriassumption that this very distinction exists
Thus, arguments are assailable on grounds of an inherent circularity (cf. Haspelmath 2011)
cf. Jacobs (2010)
10
Investigations into cognitive differences
• Are these differences also mirrored in the respective cognitive treatment of the two constructions?
Morphology as an economic way of producing and memorizing complex linguistic structures, see Härtl (2011); Wunderlich (2008)
Williams syndrome: selective impairment for lexical computation/access with grammatical computation left intact, see Clahsen & Almazan (2000)
Aphasic data: selective impairment for syntactic phrases like strange fever with compound retrieval left intact, see Mondini et al. (2002)
11
Investigations into cognitive differences
• Experiment 1:Are novel compounds memorized differently than corresponding phrases?
• Experiments 2 / 3:Do compounds behave differently from phrases as regards discourse salience?
12
Experiment 1: Memorization study
13
LEARNING PHASE: Subjects were asked to memorize unknown picture labels
eine Flachsäge
eine Kurzsäge ein breiter Kamm
ein tiefer Kamm
eine Kurzsäge
Compound
ein breiter Kamm
Phrase
RECALL PHASE: Subjects were asked to decide whether the presented picture labels were correct or false
RESPONSE VARIABLE: Reaction time needed to decide The procedure was repeated three times for each subject on days 1, 4, and 8
14
Results: main effects
• Learned items were decided faster (p < .001)
• Phrases were decided faster (p < .01)
• Subjects decided faster over time (p < .001)
900
950
1000
1050
1100
U L
RT
RT
0
500
1000
1500
D1 D2 D3
RT
RT
980
1000
1020
1040
1060
C P
RT
RT
15
ITEM TYPE X DAY interaction (not significant)
• Neither item type is memorized better over time (p < .26)
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3
CompoundsPhrasesRT
16
LEARNED X ITEM TYPE interaction (p < .09)
We find a stronger memorization effect for novel compounds
• Subjects took longer to decide unlearned compounds than unlearned phrases(p < .001)
• This discrepancy disappeared for learned compounds (p < .67)
Experiment 2: Questionnaire Study
• Do novel compounds behave differently in terms of discourse salience than phrases?
Testbed: Sentences which contain verbs of implicit causality
e.g. like, love and hate
17
Verbs of implicit causality
• Verbs of implicit causality create a strong bias for pronouns to be resolved as a stimulus (cf. Härtl 2001, Brown & Fish, 1983)
(1) EXPERIENCER-STIMULUS verbs (E-S verbs)
Frieda(EXP) likes Peter(STIM) because he / ?she is friendly.
(2) STIMULUS-EXPERIENCER verbs (S-E verbs)
Linda (STIM), delights Hans (EXP) because she / ?he is very friendly.
18
Questionnaire Study (pilot)
FACTORS: STIM as compound vs. phraseEXP-STIM and STIM-EXP verbs
Sentence completion task:(1) a. Die flache Säge begeistert Christoph, weil [sie/er]
b. Die Flachsäge begeistert Christoph, weil [sie/er]
a. The flat saw enthuses Christoph, because [it/he]b. The flat_saw enthuses Christoph, because [it/ he]
HYP: Novel compounds produce an even stronger bias towards the STIMULUS explication.
19
Results
020406080
100120140160180
COMPOUNDPHRASE
EXP STIM
Total 177 314
Compound 80 168
Phrase 97 146
STIM vs. EXP (p < .0001)COMPOUND vs. PHRASE ( p < .09)
20
• Experiments 1 and 2 show that novel compounds behave differently from phrases in that
they show a stronger memorization effect than the corresponding phrases
they noticeably raise discourse salience in comparison to phrases
However:Are these in fact structural effects or are they rather down to the novelty of the compounds (i.e., their semantic intransparency in comparison to phrases)?
Intermediate conclusion
21
Experiment 3: Self-paced-reading
Der A+N mag Maria weil PRONOUN…
• A+N: compound (marked) compound (unmarked) phrase (marked) phrase (unmarked)
A prior questionnaire study verified that native speakers of German could not assign meanings to the unmarked A+N-constructions.
22
Design
The deep_teacher pities Kim, because he has a good heart. Does the deep_teacher have a good heart?
• Sentences were self-paced-read word by word• Reaction times were measured for each word• After reading the sentences a comprehension question was asked• Due to German orthography there was a clear-cut distinction
between compounds (one word) and phrases (two) throughout• The last slide contained 1-3 words
23
Results
• For the main measuring point – the pronoun position – no significant reading time differences between any of the four conditions could be observed
This was the case for overall-analyses as well as for analyses comparing individual subject performance
• This lead us to conduct statistical post-hoc analyses for the A+N-position
24
Results: A+N-position
• As expected, marked compounds and marked phrases were read slower than umarked compounds and unmarked phrases (p < .001)
• Marked compounds were read slower than marked phrases (p < .001)
• Reading times for unmarked compounds and unmarked phrases were equal (p < .99)
• Marked phrases took longer than unmarked ones (p < .05)
25
Results: A+N-position II
26
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Compound Phrase
unmarkedmarked
rt ms
Conclusion
• We conducted three experiments to investigate the cognitive status of A+N-phrases as well as A+N-compounds
• Results imply processing and reading differencesbetween the two constructions
• Novel compounds show a more pronounced memorization effect as opposed to phrases and enhance discourse salience
• Furthermore, novel compounds are read the slowest among our four different test categories
27
Discussion
• The cause for these differences is unclear:
first, it may be down to transparency effects second, structural differences may be at the bottom of
these discrepancies third, general reading differences between complex and
simplex words may cause the observed effects (cf. Inhoffet al., 1996)
• One aim of future research is to disentangle structural and semantic differences of phrases and novel compounds
28
Thank You!
ReferencesBooij, Geert (2009) Lexical integrity as a formal universal: a constructionist view. In: Scalise, Sergio; Elisabetta Magni, and Antonietta Bisetto (eds.) Universals of Language Today. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 83‐100.
Brown, Roger & Deborah Fish (1983) The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237‐273.
Bücking, Sebastian (2009) German nominal compounds as underspecified names for kinds. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 17, 253‐281.
Carlson, Greg (1977) A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1‐3, 413‐458.
Clahsen, Harald & Mayella Almazan (2001) Compounding and inflection in language impairment: evidence from Williams Syndrome (and SLI), Lingua, 111, 729‐757.
Egg, Markus (2006) Anti‐Ikonizität an der Syntax‐Semantik‐Schnittstelle. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 25‐1, 1‐38.
Giegerich, Heinz (2006) Attribution in English and the distinction between phrases and compounds. In: Rösel, Peter (ed.) Englisch in Zeit und Raum ‐ English in Time andSpace: Forschungsbericht für Klaus Faiss, Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Giegerich, Heinz (2009) Compounding and Lexicalism. In: Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Stekauer (eds.) Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 178‐200.
Härtl, Holden (2001) CAUSE und CHANGE. Thematische Relationen und Ereignisstrukturen in Konzeptualisierung und Grammatikalisierung (= studia grammatica 50), Berlin: Akademie.
Härtl, Holden & Peter Schöpperle (2011) Morphological vs. syntactic composition ‐ the case of nominal compounds. Talk at the AG 3 "Wort oder Phrase?" of the 33rd DGfSconference, Universität Göttingen.
Inhoff, Albrecht; Deborah Briihl & Jill Schwartz (1996) Compound word effects differ in reading, on‐line naming, and delayed naming tasks. Memory & Cognition 24 (4), 466‐476.
Jacobs, Joachim (2010). Grammatik ohne Wörter? In : Engelberg, S./Holler, A./Proost, K. (eds.) Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 2010
Jespersen, Otto (1942) A Modern English Grammar. Part VI, Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
29
30
Krifka, Manfred; Francis. J. Pelletier; Greg. N. Carlson; Alice ter Meulen; Gennaro Chierchia & Godehard Link (1995) Genericity: an introduction. In Greg N. Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1‐124.
Lipka, Leonhard (1977) Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierung als Probleme einer synchronen Wortbildungslehre. In: Brekle, Herbert & Dieter Kastovsky (eds.) Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung, Bonn: Bouvier, 155‐164.
Mondini, Sara; Gonia Jarema; Claudio Luzzatti; Cristina Burani, and 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.
Motsch, Wolfgang (2004) Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Lipka, Leonhard (1977) Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierung als Probleme einer synchronen Wortbildungslehre. In: Brekle, Herbert & Dieter Kastovsky (eds.) Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung, Bonn: Bouvier, 155‐164.
Mondini, Sara; Gonia Jarema; Claudio Luzzatti; Cristina Burani, and 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.
Motsch, Wolfgang (2004) Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Olsen, Susan (2000) Composition. In: Booij, G. et al. (eds.) Morphologie / Morphology, 897‐916, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, Ingo; Gero Kunter; Sabine Lappe, and Maria Braun (2008) The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language, 84‐4, 760‐794.
Wunderlich, Dieter (2008) Spekulationen zum Anfang von Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27‐2, 229‐266.
Schäfer, Martin (2010) Prä‐ und postnominale Modifikation im Englischen und das Sitationsargument. Talk the 10th workshop Ereignissemantik, Universität Tübingen.
Schlücker, Barbara & Matthias Hüning (2009) Compounds and phrases. A functional comparison between German A+N compounds and corresponding phtrases, Rivista di Linguistica, 21‐1, 209‐234.