Memorization and the Compound-Phrase Distinction: An Investigation of Complex Constructions in German, French and English 9783110570861, 9783110568622

Citation preview

Marcel Schlechtweg Memorization and the Compound-Phrase Distinction

studia grammatica 82

Herausgegeben von Manfred Bierwisch, Hans-Martin Gärtner und Manfred Krifka unter Mitwirkung von Regine Eckardt (Konstanz), Paul Kiparsky (Stanford)

Marcel Schlechtweg

Memorization and the Compound-Phrase Distinction An Investigation of Complex Constructions in German, French and English

This book is based on the doctoral dissertation that was written by Marcel Schlechtweg and submitted to the Faculty of Humanities (“Fachbereich Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften”) at the University of Kassel, Germany, in October 2016. The oral defense of the dissertation (“Disputation”) took place on February 8, 2017.

ISBN 978-3-11-056862-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-057086-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-056867-7 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Compuscript Ltd. Shannon, Ireland Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Some general notes xv List of tables xvii List of figures xix 1 Introduction 

 1

7 Basic assumptions Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language   7 2.1.1 General option one: Morphology = syntax  7 2.1.2 General option two: Morphology ≠ syntax  13 2.1.3 Specific assumption about compounds: Morphology, syntax or neither?   27 2.2 Lexicon versus grammar  28 2.2.1 For a gradual nature of lexicon and grammar  29 2.2.2 For a separation of lexicon and grammar  31 2.3 On the relationship between memorization and lexicalization  34 2.4 Summary  38 2 2.1

 39 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects 3.1 General remarks  39 3.2 Primary factor and secondary factors  41 3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement  48 3.3.1 Adjective-noun/noun-adjective constructions  48 3.3.1.1 German  49 3.3.1.2 French  52 3.3.1.3 English  54 3.3.2 Noun-noun/noun-preposition-noun/noun-prepositiondeterminer-noun constructions  55 3.3.2.1 German  55 3.3.2.2 French  58 3.3.2.3 English  61 3.3.3 Summary  62

vi 

 Contents

3.4 Secondary factors  62 3.4.1 Headedness  63 3.4.2 Stress  66 3.5 Further structural factors 3.5.1 Orthography  84 3.5.2 Binarity  87 3.5.3 Recursivity  87 3.6 Summary  87

 83

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 105 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects 5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research on complex constructions in general and its possible implications for the compound-phrase distinction  105 5.2 Psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic and language-acquisition research (specifically) on the compound-phrase distinction

 89

 131

6 Experimental study I: The memorization of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos: An investigation on German, French and English   137 6.1 Constructions under investigation, background and  objectives  137 6.2 Method  142 6.2.1 Participants  142 6.2.2 Material  142 6.2.2.1 Critical and filler items  142 6.2.2.2 Controlling for potentially confounding variables  146 6.2.2.3 Stress pattern of the English adjective-noun constructions  157 6.2.3 Procedure  158 6.3 Hypotheses  160 6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion  164 6.4.1 Response time  165 6.4.2 Response accuracy  180 6.4.3 Summary and final discussion of the first experimental study  186 7 Experimental study II: The memorization of CoLiCos and PhraLiCos in English 193 7.1 Constructions under investigation, background and objectives 193

Contents 

 vii

7.2 Method 196 7.2.1 Participants 196 7.2.2 Material 197 7.2.2.1 Critical and filler items 197 7.2.2.2 Controlling for potentially confounding variables and pretest of semantic compositionality 199 7.2.2.3 Stress pattern of the English adjective-noun constructions 203 7.2.3 Procedure 204 7.3 Hypotheses 205 7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 206 7.4.1 Response time 206 7.4.2 Response accuracy 213 7.4.3 Summary and final discussion of the second experimental study 221 223 8 Conclusion 8.1 The morphology-syntax divide 223 8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 227 8.2.1 The debate on language complexity: Some general remarks 227 8.2.2 Global versus local complexity 228 8.2.3 Different approaches to complexity 229 8.2.3.1 Overt, absolute or formal complexity 229 8.2.3.2 Hidden, interpretive, semantic or pragmatic complexity 230 8.2.3.3 Relative or processing complexity 231 8.2.3.4 Combining different approaches to complexity 231 8.2.3.5 Three languages and three approaches to complexity: The case of adjective-noun/noun-adjective constructions 234  241 Appendix 1 Filler items of the first experimental study  241 2 Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language x item type x day (response time, first experimental study)  242 3 Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of language x day and item type x day (Response time, first experimental study)  245 4 Non-significant Tukey multiple comparisons of language (response time, first experimental study)  246

viii 

 Contents

5 Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language x item type (response accuracy, first experimental study), comparisons of the experimental items across languages  246 6 Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language x item type x day (response accuracy, first experimental study)  246 7 Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of language x day and item type x day (Response accuracy, first experimental study)  250 8 Non-significant Tukey multiple comparisons of language (response accuracy, first experimental study)  250 9 Non-significant Tukey multiple comparisons of day (response accuracy, first experimental study)  251 10 Screenshots of the posttest (first experimental study) and pretest (second experimental study) (test created with Leiner 2014)  251 11 Filler items of the second experimental study  253 12 Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (response time, second experimental study)  254 13 Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (response time, second experimental study)  254 14 Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x day (response time, second experimental study), comparisons of the experimental items with non-initial stress and the experimental items with initial stress  255 15 Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of semantic compositionality x day (response time, second experimental study), comparisons of the semantically non-compositional and the compositional experimental items  256 16 Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (response accuracy, second experimental study)  256 17 Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (response accuracy, second experimental study)  256

Contents 

18 Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x day (response accuracy, second experimental study)  258 19 Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of semantic compositionality x day (response accuracy, second experimental study)  259 20 Remaining Tukey multiple comparison of day (response accuracy, second experimental study)  259 References

 261

 ix

Acknowledgments This book is a slightly revised version of the doctoral dissertation that I submitted to the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Kassel, Germany, in October 2016 and that I defended in February 2017. I would like to thank several people, who have contributed in one or another way to this dissertation. In particular, I am grateful to Holden Härtl, who gave me the chance to write this dissertation. He granted me the freedom that I needed and was always there to answer my questions, to critically evaluate my ideas and to support me in many respects, e.g. when I applied for a doctoral scholarship or during the phases of empirical work. Last but not least, I am grateful for his comprehensive evaluation of the dissertation and for his feedback. I wish to thank Pienie Zwitserlood for her evaluation of the dissertation and for her thoughtful comments. Apart from Holden Härtl and Pienie Zwitserlood, I also thank Christine Czinglar and Lars Heiler for being members of my dissertation committee. Moreover, I am grateful to Manfred Bierwisch, Manfred Krifka and HansMartin Gärtner for including my work in the series Studia Grammatica. I was fortunate to receive a doctoral scholarship of the Otto-Braun-Fonds and would like to thank the B. Braun Melsungen AG for the financial support. Many other people contributed to the success of the present dissertation. I would like to thank the two students for speaking the items for my experiments, the two English as well as the two French lecturers for improving the linguistic formulation of the experimental instructions, the employee of the International Office of the University of Kassel for helping find participants, the English native speakers for completing my online questionnaire and all the people who participated in my experiments. In particular, I am thankful to The Canadian Summer School in Germany because many students participated in my studies in the years of 2014 and 2015. Finally, I thank from the bottom of my heart my parents, Liane and Matthias, without whose love, education, support and help this dissertation and so many other things in my life would not have been possible. With all my heart I am also grateful to Teresa and my daughter Matilda, who gave me their love, encouraged me and made my life so enjoyable.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-203

Abbreviations ACC accusative AN adjective-noun CoLiCo(s) compound-like construction(s) con (subscript in tables and figures) control items DAT dative DEF definite DM difference of means e.g. for example EnglishA English AN constructions with initial stress or the group of subjects that was tested on English AN constructions with initial stress (first experimental study) EnglishB English AN constructions with non-initial stress or the group of s­ ubjects that was tested on English AN constructions with non-initial stress (first experimental study) exp (subscript in experimental items tables and figures) F feminine F1 subject analysis F2 item analysis GEN genitive ibid. reference/chapter/section mentioned most recently i.e. that means INDF indefinite M masculine M means Max maximum Min minimum ms milliseconds MS Marcel Schlechtweg N neuter N numbers of observations/ratings NA noun-adjective NN noun-noun NOM nominative NPDN noun-preposition-determiner-noun https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-204

xiv 

 Abbreviations

NPN noun-preposition-noun PhraLiCo(s) phrase-like construction(s) PL plural pmw per million words SC semantically compositional SD standard deviations SG singular SNC semantically non-compositional

Some general notes A note on the numbered examples Numbered examples are always presented in italics – whether or not they are taken from another contribution and whether or not they appear in italics in the original. If, in another work, specific parts of an example appear in italics in order to emphasize them, these parts are given in bold in the present work. All other types of highlighting are used as in the original. If an example from another work is used, its reference is presented before/after the numbered example. Quotation marks are not used. Moreover, in the case of German and French numbered examples, it is indicated whether only the example itself or the example as well as other aspects (e.g. the English translation) are taken from another work. Changes are mentioned in a footnote or next to the respective data/source.

A note on citations Direct citations are usually given within the text and within quotation marks if their length does not exceed three lines. If they are longer than three lines, they are normally presented without quotation marks and with an indentation. Note, however, if definitions or principles are cited, they are usually listed with an indentation – whether or not they are longer than three lines. In the latter case, quotation marks are left out if the citation is longer than three lines. If it is not longer than three lines, quotation marks are used unless stated differently. If something is added to or deleted from a citation, square brackets are used. If an individual letter is located between square brackets at the beginning of a citation, the letter was changed from upper/lower case in the original to lower/ upper case. [sic!] signals a mistake in the original. If square brackets occur in the original, I indicate it. Parts that are directly cited are identical to the original, e.g. in terms of highlighting, unless stated differently.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-205

List of tables Table 1: More information on the participants (p. 143) Table 2: Experimental and control items (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a) (p. 145) Table 3: Item types (p. 146) Table 4: The Zipf scale of word frequency (van Heuven et al. 2014: 1180) (p. 147) Table 5: Lemma frequencies of the adjectives of the AN/NA constructions (in pmw) (p. 148) Table 6: Lemma frequencies of the nouns of the AN/NA constructions (in pmw) (p. 148) Table 7: Lemma frequencies of the control items (in pmw) (p. 148) Table 8: Lemma frequencies of the non-memorized items II (in pmw) (p. 148) Table 9: Lemma frequencies of the French AN/NA phrases if written with a space (in pmw) (p. 153) Table 10: Lemma frequencies of the English AN constructions if written with a space (in pmw) (p. 155) Table 11: Duration of the sound files (in ms) (p. 156) Table 12: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of language x item type (Subscript “1” = Subject analysis; subscript “2” = item analysis) (p. 169) Table 13:  Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the English items on the three days (con = control items, exp = ­experimental items) (p. 173) Table 14: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the remaining experimental and control items on the three days (p. 175) Table 15: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables (p. 179) Table 16: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of language x item type (p. 182) Table 17: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the control and experimental items of different languages on the three days (p. 185) Table 18: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables (p. 186) Table 19: Ratings of the experimental items of the first experimental study (p. 196) Table 20: More information on the 34 participants (p. 197) https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-206

xviii 

 List of tables

Table 21: Experimental items (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a) (p. 198) Table 22: Lemma frequencies of the adjectives of the AN constructions (in pmw) (p. 200) Table 23: Lemma frequencies of the nouns of the AN constructions (in pmw) (p. 200) Table 24: Lemma frequencies of the semantically compositional experimental items if written with a space (in pmw) (p. 201) Table 25: Ratings of the experimental items of the second experimental study (p. 202) Table 26: Duration of the experimental and filler items (in ms) (p. 203) Table 27: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (p. 207) Table 28: N  umbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (p. 209) Table 29: N  umbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of stress x day and semantic compositionality x day (p. 211) Table 30: N  umbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables (p. 212) Table 31: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (p. 214) Table 32: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (p. 216) Table 33: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of stress x day and semantic compositionality x day (p. 217) Table 34: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables (p. 220)

List of figures Figure 1: A boxplot ­with outliers (p. 166) Figure 2: A boxplot without outliers (p. 166) Figure 3: Interaction of language x item type (F2) (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a, 2016b) (p. 170) Figure 4: English AN CoLiCos (= EnglishAexp) versus English AN PhraLiCos (= EnglishBexp) on the three days (F2) (p. 173) Figure 5: Interaction of language x item type (F1) (p. 182) Figure 6: Interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (F1) (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a) (p. 208) Figure 7: Comparisons of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos on the three days (F1) (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a, 2016b) (p. 210) Figure 8: Interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (F1) (p. 215) Figure 9: Comparisons of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos on the three days (F1) (p. 217) Figure 10: Interaction of stress x day (F1) (p. 218) Figure 11: Interaction of semantic compositionality x day (F1) (p. 219)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-207

1 Introduction This work aims at investigating structural, semantic-functional and cognitive aspects of compounds/compound-like constructions, i.e. morphological constructions, and phrases/phrase-like constructions, i.e. syntactic constructions, in German, French and English.1 Generally speaking, I reject approaches that try to unify morphology and syntax and, instead, follow the idea that the two domains of morphology and syntax are distinct. Cognitive aspects of compounds/ compound-like constructions and phrases/phrase-like constructions play the central role in the current contribution. Specifically, I am interested in examining whether compounds/compound-like constructions and phrases/phrase-like constructions differ with respect to how well they are memorized. In the literature, it is suggested that morphological constructions are better candidates for memory storage than syntactic constructions (Olsen 2000a: 899; Wunderlich 1986: 209). I intend to analyze this proposal and answer the question whether compounds/ compound-like constructions show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/phrase-like constructions. Doing so might give us new insights into the relationship between morphology and syntax as well as between lexicon and grammar. A basic assumption of the dissertation is the idea that languages differ with regard to the usage of morphological and syntactic constructions (Spencer 2000: 313–314; Wunderlich 2008: 230). Specifically, it is assumed that the three aforementioned languages do not have the same preferences with respect to the linguistic realization of novel complex lexical concepts. While German can be argued to favor a morphological route in order to name new concepts, i.e. it usually relies on compounding, French mostly takes a syntactic route, i.e. it normally relies on phrases (Bücking 2009, 2010; Dressler 2006: 28; Hüning 2010: 211; Kastovsky 2009: 334; Van Goethem 2009; Zwanenburg 1992: 221). In comparison to the two above-named languages, it is sometimes difficult to keep apart ­compounds and phrases in English. I argue that we should substitute the terms “compound” and “phrase” by the terms “compound-like construction” (henceforth: CoLiCo) and “phrase-like construction” (henceforth: PhraLiCo) in some cases. Claiming that not only compounds and phrases but also CoLiCos and PhraLiCos exist in English, I assume that this language prefers using compounds or CoLiCos to express novel complex lexical concepts (cf. Downing 1977: 810; Lieber 2005: 378; McCauley, Hestvik & Vogel 2012: 26–27).

1 Cf. also, e.g., Schlechtweg & Härtl (2016a, 2016b). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-001

2 

 1 Introduction

So far, in sum, while the first paragraph raises the question given in (1), the second paragraph points to the assumption in (2): (1) Do morphological constructions, i.e. compounds/CoLiCos, show a memorization advantage in comparison to syntactic constructions, i.e. phrases/ PhraLiCos? (2) While German prefers using compounds as naming units, French favors phrases for this purpose. In English, compounds or CoLiCos typically serve to name complex lexical concepts. Combining (1) and (2) finally leads to the central question of the current contribution, which is presented in (3): (3)  Do German compounds and English CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to French phrases and English PhraLiCos? (cf. Chapters 6 and 7) However, before I can approach the question in (3), it is indispensable to answer the questions in (4) to (6). (4) How can one define/characterize compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/­ PhraLiCos on structural grounds? (cf. Chapter 3) (5)  Do compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos differ with respect to semantic-functional aspects? (cf. Chapter 4) (6) Which implications might the interplay of structural and semantic-fuctional aspects have for the mental representation and processing of compounds/ CoLiCos on the one hand and phrases/PhraLiCos on the other hand? (cf. Chapter 5) In general, constructions can be compounds/phrases or CoLiCos/PhraLiCos. Assuming that compounds are products of morphology and phrases are syntactic constructions, I both define and characterize the two construction types. That means, having defined compounds and phrases on the basis of one specific factor, namely the primary factor, I characterize these constructions by means of secondary factors. Using one primary factor, which has priority over the secondary factors, I ensure that my argumentation is not circular. Put differently, compounds and phrases are first defined and then characterized. Looking at constructions that are composed of an adjective and a noun, one sees that my approach can be easily implemented in German and French: First, compounds (e.g. Großmutter/grand-mère, big_mother/big-mother, ‘grandmother’) and phrases (e.g. große Mutter/grande mère, ‘big mother’) are defined by applying

1 Introduction 

 3

the primary factor inflectional agreement and, then, they are further characterized by saying, for instance, that German compounds are typically stressed on the first syllable. Concentrating on English adjective-noun (henceforth: AN) constructions, however, one realizes that the primary factor inflectional agreement is not available. Now, two options arise. First, it might be claimed that English has only one type of AN constructions. At first glance, this option seems to be quite attractive because, as stated above, the primary factor does not exist (anymore) in English. However, if one simply assumed that there was just a single construction type, one would take it for granted that our secondary factors were superfluous. Therefore, I prefer an alternative way, which is based on the historic root that German and English share. Although German AN compounds and phrases are defined only on the basis of inflectional agreement, certain secondary factors are regarded as crucial as well. For instance, while the majority of German AN compounds are stressed on the adjective, AN phrases of this language normally bear stress on the noun. By the same token, even if one cannot safely define English AN constructions as either compounds or phrases, they might show certain features that are typical of compounds or phrases (in Germanic languages) nevertheless. Hence, if necessary, the terms “CoLiCos” and “PhraLiCos” are used in English. The fact that inflectional agreement between an adjective and a noun disappeared in the history of English prevents us, if we follow my approach, from defining compounds and phrases of the type AN in this language. Nonetheless, I argue that we can still consider constructions more compound- or phrase-like by investigating secondary factors. Overall, in the case of AN constructions, German functions as a bridge to English: Having defined and characterized a compound or a phrase in the former language, we can hypothesize that the characteristics also apply to the latter because the two languages are closely related. I am interested in complex constructions that individual language users memorize and that can become lexicalized within a speech community. That means, from a functional perspective, the focus lies on naming units that represent a subkind of the concept expressed in the head noun. Note, however, when defining compounds and phrases on the basis of inflection/inflectional agreement, it does actually not matter whether a construction represents a naming unit or not, whether it is lexicalized or not. Only the primary factor decides whether a construction represents a compound or a phrase. Therefore, the focus on (potential) naming units becomes only relevant if we connect structural to semantic-functional aspects, e.g. in Chapter 4. In this case, exocentric constructions, which do not represent a subkind of the head, and proper names, which do not refer to kinds, are ignored. Moreover, copulative and synthetic compounds are also ignored throughout my entire work. I primarily focus on constructions that are composed of an adjective and a noun in the

4 

 1 Introduction

three languages of interest (e.g. Braunbär, ours brun, brown bear). Looking at AN/noun-adjective (henceforth: NA) constructions, I assume that compounds represent typical naming units in German but phrases are preferred for the naming function in French (Booij 2002: 315; Bücking 2009, 2010; Van Goethem 2009). In English, CoLiCos usually serve as naming constructions (cf. ­McCauley et  al. 2012: 26–27). Apart from AN/NA constructions, German and English constructions that contain two nouns (e.g. Kaffeetasse/coffee cup) as well as French constructions whose two nouns are connected by a preposition (e.g. tasse à café, cup to coffee, ‘coffee cup’) or by the combination of a preposition and a determiner (e.g. café au lait, coffee with.the milk, ‘milky coffee’) are also considered. In this case, German and English prefer compounds to express complex lexical concepts but French favors phrases (Dressler 2006: 28). Focusing on noun-noun (henceforth: NN) compounds in German and English but on noun-preposition-noun (henceforth: NPN)/noun-preposition-determiner-noun (henceforth: NPDN) phrases in French is based on the general observation that Germanic languages often make use of NN compounding where Romance languages opt for NPN or NPDN phrases (Dahl 2004: 222; Dressler 2006: 28; Kastovsky 2009: 334). That means, NN constructions are less frequent than NPN (and NPDN) constructions in French (Nicoladis 2002a: 46; cf. also Clark 2016: 312). ten Hacken’s (2013: 101–102) data support this trend: While only five percent of the English NN compounds investigated in his contribution appeared as NN constructions in French, 61 percent of the English NN compounds were NPN phrases in French.2 Research on first language acquisition of monolinguals and bilinguals also confirms the aforementioned preferences. Referring to data from Seidler (1988), Clark (1998: 521) shows that French-speaking children, who were five or six years of age, almost never relied on compounding to create new items (cf. also Clark 2001: 387). Nicoladis’ (1999) analysis revealed that a French-English bilingual child produced clearly more NN compounds in English than in French from 33 to 39 months of age. Nicoladis (2002a) found in a production task with children, who were between 39 and 59 months old, that French-English bilinguals created a significantly higher number of NN compounds/ constructions in English in comparison to French but a significantly higher number of NPN phrases in French in comparison to English. Overall, while

2 Note that I call both of the two groups labeled “genitive constructions” (ten Hacken 2013: 102) and “[p]repositional constructions” (ibid.: 106) in his paper NPN constructions. ten Hacken (2013: 102, 106) mentions usine d’automobiles (factory of cars, ‘car factory’) as an example of the first type and chanson d’amour (song of love, ‘love song’) as an example of the second group. The glosses as well as the English translations are also taken from the author.

1 Introduction 

 5

both English monolinguals and bilinguals produced more NN compounds than NPN phrases in English, bilinguals constructed more NPN phrases than NN constructions in French. Note that French monolinguals were not tested in the study (on the study just outlined, cf. also Nicoladis 2002b; for a similar result, cf. Nicoladis 2002c: 646). Therefore, two facts can be kept in mind. First, NPN phrases are more frequent than NN constructions in French and, second, French NPN phrases are often used where Germanic languages favor NN compounds.3 Finally, note that, although I focus on typical naming constructions in the languages under investigation, it is often also necessary to refer to the other kind of construction in a language. For instance, even if I am particularly interested in investigating German AN compounds, I also refer to German AN phrases in order to make clear how the two construction types differ. The contribution is structured as follows. In Chapter 2, the major assumptions about fundamental terms such as morphology, syntax, lexicon, grammar, memorization as well as lexicalization are specified. I argue that morphology and syntax represent two distinct grammatical domains and that lexicon and grammar have to be kept apart. Further, it is emphasized that memorization, i.e. storage of lexical items in the mental lexicon, differs from lexicalization, i.e. storage of lexical items in the lexicon of a speech community. In Chapter 3, structural factors that have been proposed in order to distinguish between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos are investigated. One factor (inflectional agreement/inflection) is treated as the primary factor that is superior to other factors (e.g. stress), so-called secondary factors. Semantic-functional aspects in the context of the compound-phrase distinction are discussed in Chapter 4. Here, it is claimed that compounds/CoLiCos, but not phrases/PhraLiCos, are by their nature semantically non-compositional, appropriate to refer to kinds and to function as naming units and, consequently, perfect to enter the lexicon. In Chapter 5, I discuss cognitive aspects of complex constructions and suggest a principle in order to describe the mental representation and processing of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. Due to the structural and semantic-functional peculiarities of compounds/CoLiCos, I believe that these constructions develop their own representation in the mental lexicon earlier than phrases/PhraLiCos. Chapters 6 and 7, where two own experimental studies are described and interpreted, represent the core of the present contribution. In the empirical work to be presented, I focused on AN/NA constructions in German, French and English and examined how well they were memorized. I argue that compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison

3 Cf. also Rosenberg (2013: 107–108).

6 

 1 Introduction

to phrases/PhraLiCos and interpret the results of the experiments with respect to the principle introduced in Chapter 5. In Chapter 8, I draw conclusions and connect my analyses to the debate about language complexity. Using AN/NA constructions in the three languages under investigation as an example, I show that the structural, semantic-functional and cognitive aspects of the compoundphrase distinction nicely fit into the complexity debate.

2 Basic assumptions The objective of the current chapter is twofold: I aim at showing how my work is connected to two “big questions” in linguistics and defining central terms of my contribution. Härtl (2013: 7) recapitulates the following two controversial subjects that have been debated for a long time. On the one hand, researchers discuss whether word-formation belongs to the grammar at all; on the other hand, linguists assume a particular role of word-formation in the grammar and are concerned with its exact nature. In §2.1, I focus on the second issue and contrast several proposals on the question whether one has to distinguish between the two grammatical domains morphology and syntax. In §2.2, I investigate the first controversy and look at suggestions on the nature of lexicon and grammar. The two debates interact and potential answers to one of the issues can have severe implications for the other discussion as well. Having started to reflect on the notion of the lexicon, I introduce and define two essential terms of my work, namely memorization and lexicalization, in §2.3. Finally, the chapter is shortly summarized in §2.4.

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language As Mereu (1999: 1) notes, controversies arise when linguists examine the dimensions and borders of specific subfields. For instance, it has been debated for a long time whether morphology and syntax represent two distinct grammatical domains. On the one hand, there are linguists who deny the need for a separation; on the other hand, proponents of a distinction between a morphological and a syntactic component exist (Motsch 1977: 181–182). In the present section, the two opposing positions are contrasted.4

2.1.1 General option one: Morphology = syntax First of all, it has been suggested that morphology and syntax can be accounted for in one grammatical module. According to Siddiqi (2014: 356), “[t]he primary

4 Other overviews on the topic can be found in, e.g., Hammond & Noonan (1988), Hinzelin & Gaglia (2012) and Hohenhaus (1996: 143–254). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-002

8 

 2 Basic assumptions

argument for a combined morphosyntactic model is that it embodies several strengths that are expected of scientific theories: it is economical, restrictive, and elegant” (ibid.). This is to say that one should always prefer keeping the architecture of language as simple and non-redundant as possible. If the splitting of two components is not absolutely necessary, they should be merged and represent a single efficient module. Apart from the general scientific argument, purely linguistic points have been suggested as well in order to defend a model of language in which morphology is treated as syntax. The questions that arise are how researchers try to support their opinion on a linguistic basis and what the drawbacks of this view are. The first possible reason to reject the morphology-syntax distinction might be the belief that morphological constructions derive from syntactic ones. Lees (1963/1968) proposes that compounds – constructions that I consider to be of morphological nature – originate in specific sentences, i.e. in syntactic constructions. The author provides the English compound windmill, which might be based on the sentence “Wind powers the mill” (ibid.: 117), as an example.5 Hence, as Kastovsky (1982: 219) remarks, the representations of a product of word-formation and its syntactic counterpart are very similar. Marchand (1969: 55) also argues that word-formations are created on the basis of sentences and inherit the sentenceinternal relations.6 ­Wunderlich (2008: 230) uses the slogan “Today’s morphology is yesterday’s syntax” (ibid.) when discussing the idea that morphology originates in syntax. If compounds represent shortened or compressed sentences, one might question the separation of morphology and syntax. Note that Jackendoff (2009: 111) claims that “compounds [are] […] a relic of protolanguage” (ibid.). Following Bickerton (1990), Jackendoff (2009: 111–114) distinguishes between the terms “protolanguage” and “modern language”. As opposed to modern language, protolanguage has neither morphology nor syntax (for a review, cf. Tallerman 2007). Therefore, pragmatics plays a crucial role for the interpretation of utterances with several (simplex) words. Considering compounds a relic of protolanguage, which did not yet use syntax, Jackendoff probably rejects the proposal that compounds are derived from sentences. However, even if it is assumed that morphology, e.g. compounding, derives from syntax, the question arises why morphology has developed at all (cf. also ­Wunderlich 2008: 230). Put differently, even if morphology has come into existence on the basis of syntax, the two domains can be, or maybe they must be, distinct. For instance, it might be hypothesized at this point

5 Note that a modified account of Lees’ theory is presented in Lees (1970). 6 For another example of the view, cf. Motsch (1970, 1981).

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 9

that morphology has a specific function, namely the naming function, which deviates from the descriptive function of syntax (Bauer 2003: 135) and, therefore, must be linguistically realized by different construction types, i.e. by morphological rather than syntactic constructions. In sum, the possible historical connection between morphology and syntax does not prove that the distinction between the two is invalid. The second argument against a general distinction between morphology and syntax is related to the conception of “word” and its fuzzy delimitation in the world’s languages. As Fábregas (2016) notes, characterizing words is closely connected to the question whether morphological and syntactic constructions differ. Since no broadly accepted definition of the term “word” exists, Haspelmath (2011: 32–33) does not distinguish morphology, “[t]he analysis of word structure” (O’Grady & de Guzman 2010: 115), from syntax. The word has been defined from different perspectives that do not always go well with each other. That means, the notions of phonological, grammatical, orthographic, semantic and syntactic word have been suggested (among others): A phonological word is a phonological unit larger than the syllable (in some languages it may minimally be just one syllable) which has at least one (and generally more than one) phonological defining property chosen from the following areas: (a) Segmental features – internal syllabic and segmental structure; phonetic realisations in terms of this; word boundary phenomena; pause phenomena. (b) Prosodic features – stress (or accent) and/or tone assignment; prosodic features such as nasalisation, retroflexion, vowel harmony. (c) Phonological rules – some rules apply only within a phonological word; others (­external sandhi rules) apply specifically across a phonological word boundary. (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2002: 13) A grammatical word consists of a number of grammatical elements which: (a) always occur together, rather than scattered through the clause (the criterion of ­cohesiveness); (b) occur in a fixed order; (c) have a conventionalised coherence and meaning. (ibid.: 19) Orthographic word: “In many language communities a word is thought of as having (semantic, grammatical and phonological) unity and, in writing, words are conventionally separated by spaces” (ibid.: 7). Semantic word: “The semantic definition of ‘word’ states that a word expresses a unified semantic concept” (Plag 2003: 7). Syntactic word: “Words are usually considered to be syntactic atoms, i.e. the smallest elements in a sentence. Words belong to certain syntactic classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, etc.) […]” (ibid.: 8).

10 

 2 Basic assumptions

The first problem that arises when one tries to find a universal definition of the term “word” is the fact that the individual definitions do not always coincide. For instance, a phonological word can be made up of two or more grammatical words or vice versa (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2002: 27–29). The aforementioned authors give an example that nicely fits in the discussion of the present contribution: Although a compound represents a single grammatical word, it can be composed of different phonological words. But even the individual definitions given above are not without problems. Take the phonological word, which is still a quite heterogeneous concept. As Dixon & Aikhenvald (2002: 18) note, the definition of the phonological word varies across languages and depends on the significance of specific phenomena, e.g. vowel harmony, in languages. Take also the orthographic word: Are hyphenated items considered one or several words (Plag 2003: 5)? One realizes that, firstly, the notion of word can be defined differently depending on the specific aspects one wants to concentrate on (e.g. phonological aspects) and, secondly, some of the definitions, e.g. the definition of the phonological word, are not universal. So far, it can be kept in mind that the lack of a clear-cut definition of the term “word” has led researchers to give up the assumption that morphology and syntax can be clearly distinguished.7 Although we have difficulty in clearly and universally defining the term “word”, it is also striking how often different aspects coincide. Plag’s (2003: 8) conclusion nicely expresses this point: To summarize our discussion of the possible definition of ‘word’ we can say that, in spite of the intuitive appeal of the notion of ‘word,’ it is sometimes not easy to decide whether a given string of sounds (or letters) should be regarded as a word or not. […]. In most cases, however, the stress criterion, the integrity criterion and the syntactic criteria lead to s­ ufficiently clear results. The properties of words are summarized […] [as follows]: Properties of words –– words are entities having a part of speech specification –– words are syntactic atoms –– words (usually) have one main stress –– words (usually) are indivisible units (no intervening material possible) (ibid., italics and bold added by Marcel Schlechtweg (henceforth: MS))

The citation shows that different features that are considered characteristics of words often coincide (cf. also Anderson 1982: 588). The question arises whether

7 On the problematic notion of word, cf. also, e.g., Ackema & Neeleman (2002: 94–96); Bauer (1998: 81–83, 2005: 106); Bresnan & Mchombo (1995: 181–183); Erben (2000: 16–17); Julien (2002: 16–41); Matthews (2002); Štekauer, Valera & Körtvélyessy (2012: 36–40).

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 11

we simply neglect this fact and, in addition to that, give up the morphology-­ syntax distinction or whether we take seriously default characteristics of words and maintain the separation of morphology and syntax. I consider the second option to be more promising and follow Payne & Huddleston (2002: 450) who discuss complex constructions in English and “take the view […] that the existence of borderline cases does not provide a reason for abandoning a distinction that can be recognised in a great range of clear cases” (ibid.). The third reason why the idea of the separation between morphology and syntax is rejected is the belief that morphological phenomena can be explained by referring to other linguistic subfields, e.g. phonology. In other words, if morphology is unnecessary, one does not have to assume the existence of two different grammatical domains such as morphology and syntax. Anderson (1982: 571, 1992: 7–17, 2015) nicely shows in his historical overview that researchers often handle morphology within phonology or syntax and do not believe in the auto­ nomous character of morphology. Kremers (2015) argues for one grammatical domain, where all kinds of complex constructions are built and which is necessary to connect phonology to semantics. He claims that apparent differences between morphological and syntactic constructions are actually phonological in nature. The tradition of Distributed Morphology goes in a similar direction. As Harley (2009: 129) states, proponents of Distributed Morphology argue for a syntactic nature of word-formation (cf. also Embick & Noyer 2001: 592; Halle & Marantz 1993: 166). According to Halle & Marantz (1993: 111–112), theories in the spirit of Distributed Morphology deny a separate morphological module and aim at distributing morphology over various domains, e.g. syntax and phonology. Moreover, Embick & Noyer (2001: 558) and Harley (2009: 130–131) emphasize that morphemes are unexceptionally represented as terminal nodes in a syntactic hierarchy. The same perspective is taken in Julien (2002), who attributes a syntactic character to word-formation and considers morphemes to be the fundamental elements of syntax.8 Since complex constructions that resemble each other on a morphological basis also have other features in common, it is not always easy to distinguish morphological from semantic, phonological and orthographic effects (Chen & Chen 2006: 492; Gagné 2009: 259; Zwitserlood, Bolwiender & Drews 2005: 396). Therefore, at first sight, it seems to be plausible to distribute morphology over other domains, e.g. phonology. However, psycholinguistic evidence suggests that morphological similarity is not identical to phonological, semantic and orthographic similarity. Roelofs & Baayen (2002), for instance, found in a production

8 For a critical review of Julien (2002), cf. Spencer (2004).

12 

 2 Basic assumptions

study similar priming effects for semantically transparent (e.g. input) and opaque constructions (e.g. invoice).9 Crucially, these effects were larger than the effects found for monomorphemic items that had a syllable with the transparent and opaque complex constructions in common (e.g. insect). That means, only ­differences in the morphological structure but not in the degree of semantic transparency caused differences in processing. Moreover, since the effects of polymorphemic and monomorphemic items differed, although their syllabic structure was similar, the results cannot be explained by phonology. Zwitserlood (1994: Experiment 1) showed that semantically fully transparent (e.g. milkman), partially opaque (e.g. jailbird) and truly opaque compounds (e.g. blackguard) primed their constituents (e.g. milk/man, jail/bird, black/guard).10 Crucially, compounds (e.g. matchball) did not prime items that shared letter sequences with them but neither semantic nor morphological structure (e.g. mat). Instead, responses to the latter items (e.g. mat) were even delayed. Since the effects cannot be explained on semantic or orthographic grounds, they are argued to be morphological in nature. Support for this idea also comes from Dohmes, Zwitserlood & Bölte (2004). In a picture-naming task, the authors used German semantically transparent (e.g. Wildente, wild_duck, ‘wild duck’; Buschrose, bush_rose, ‘bush rose’) and opaque compounds (e.g. Zeitungsente, newspaper_s_duck, ‘false report’) as well as pseudo-­compounds that were orthographically related to some of the transparent compounds (e.g. Neurose (neu ‘new’, Rose ‘rose’), ‘neurosis’) as primes for names of pictures. For instance, having been confronted with the compound Wildente or Zeitungsente, the subjects saw the picture of a duck and had to produce the name of the animal shown there. That means, the names of the ­pictures occurred as c­ onstituents/pseudo-constituents in the compounds/ pseudo-compounds. The analysis revealed that the priming potential of the pseudo-compounds was smaller than that of the transparent and opaque compounds, which, in turn, caused comparable effects. Again, although the transparent and opaque compounds clearly differed with regard to their semantic structure, their morphological built-up and the priming effects did not differ. Moreover, even if transparent compounds and pseudo-compounds were orthographically similar, pseudo-compounds were less prone to prime the presented objects. Therefore, the effects can be explained on the basis of morphology but not on the basis of semantics or orthography. Overall, we see that ­morphological

9 Note that English examples from the authors are used to facilitate the comprehension of the study that was actually conducted with Dutch items. 10 Note again that English examples from the author are used for ease of clarification. The study was actually conducted with Dutch items.

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 13

structure clearly plays an autonomous role and cannot simply be subsumed under the labels phonology, semantics or orthography.11 The fourth argument against the separation of syntax and morphology is the idea that principles of the former can easily account for phenomena of the latter. Since Lieber (1992a) uncovers similarities between morphological and syntactic constructions, she regards morphology as a domain of syntactic provenance and rejects the concept of a distinct morphological module. The author not only focuses on affixed constructions and compounds but also extends her analyses to other processes of word-formation, e.g. circumfixation and conversion.12 Baker’s (1985) Mirror Principle is another example that transfers operations from one domain to the other. The principle states that “[m]orphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa)” (ibid.: 375). As a c­ onsequence, he also argues against the idea that morphology and syntax are located in different components (ibid.: 411).13, 14 However, arguing that morphology and syntax do not represent different domains because they have certain similarities has a serious problem: It does not disprove that differences between the two exist as well. I reflect more upon this point in the following paragraph.

2.1.2 General option two: Morphology ≠ syntax So far, we have concentrated on the idea that morphology and syntax can be integrated in one grammatical component. It is important to note, however, that the aforementioned proposal has a great disadvantage. Bisetto & Scalise (1999: 33) reformulate the controversy and believe that the decisive question “is not whether morphology and syntax should interact but whether morphological c­ onstructions

11 For further evidence that we have to separate morphological from semantic, phonological and/or orthographic effects, cf. Bölte, Dohmes & Zwitserlood (2013); Gumnior, Bölte & Zwitserlood (2006); Koester, Gunter & Wagner (2007); Kolan, Leikin & Zwitserlood (2011); Münte, Say, Clahsen, Schiltz & Kutas (1999); Silva & Clahsen (2008); Zwitserlood, Bölte & Dohmes (2000, 2002). 12 For discussions of Lieber (1992a), cf. Bauer, Körtvélyessy & Štekauer (2015: 2–3); Siddiqi (2014: 358–360). 13 For discussions of Baker (1985), cf. Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 56–61); Grimshaw (1986); ­Siddiqi (2014: 349). 14 Other contributions that contain the idea that morphology and syntax do not represent ­distinct grammatical domains are, for instance, Baker (1992) and Sproat (1988: 293). Discussions of this perspective can be found in, among others, Aronoff (2000: 345), Don (2014: 101) and ­Spencer (2000, 2005: 74–78).

14 

 2 Basic assumptions

can be entirely accounted for by syntax” (ibid., italics and bold added by MS). That means, the two types of constructions can overlap to a certain extent; however, the existence of similarities does not exclude the existence of clear-cut differences. Hence, assuming a distinction between morphology and syntax has a crucial advantage: Even if morphology and syntax resemble each other to a large extent, they are not identical if only a small amount of variation between the two exists. Apart from that, believing in a distinction between morphology and syntax has a second advantage. Spencer (2005: 94) expresses the advantage in the following citation: Other things being equal it would undoubtedly be simpler and hence methodologically superior to assume a single overarching model encompassing both sentence structure and word structure […]. However, other things are rarely equal. If we assume that morphology is governed by principles which are partially distinct from syntax, and it should turn out that actually all we need is syntactic (or morphological) principles to cover both domains, then no harm will be done. We will simply discover as our understanding progresses that the syntactic and morphological principles come to converge on each other. In other words, ‘splitting’ is a perfectly reasonable research strategy for the field as a whole to adopt. On the other hand, suppose there really are differences between morphology and syntax and we adopt one or other version of the monolithic approach to research. If we assume a ‘syntax-all-the-way-down’ approach we will never hypothesize possible independent morphological principles and therefore we will never find them. The monolithic strategy, in contrast to the ‘splitting’ strategy, uniquely brings with it the risk that it will seriously impede progress. (ibid.)

Based on the citation, the following paragraphs aim at presenting contributions that support the separation of morphology and syntax – an idea that goes back to the groundbreaking works on the lexicalist hypothesis by Chomsky (1970), Halle (1973) and Jackendoff (1975). Sadock (1985, 1988, 2012) believes in the morphological domain – “­responsible for all word building and for nothing else” (Sadock 1985: 386) – that is independent of the syntactic domain – “in which all syntax and nothing else is done” (ibid.). Sadock (1985) illustrates the contrast between morphology and syntax several times by using tree diagrams that contain the morphological tree of a construction or sentence on the one side and the syntactic tree of the same construction or sentence on the other side. The trees demonstrate how morphology and syntax differ. One example given by the author is the sentence They Americanized Belgium (ibid.: 388). According to Sadock (1985: 388), while syntax can only access the complex construction Americanize as a whole and does not have access to the base American and the derivational suffix -ize, morphology has individual access to American and -ize. The proposal can be summarized by stating “that morphological structure and syntactic structure are independent to the extent that the leaves of syntactic trees need not correspond to the roots

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 15

of morphological trees” (ibid.: 387). Keeping the analysis just outlined in mind, we can say that morphology and syntax differ with respect to the units they can access: Only morphological but not syntactic phenomena can refer to and work with bound morphemes. Generally speaking, we can say that many authors who separate morphology and syntax emphasize that one domain can only access its own units and rules but not the units and rules of the other domain. Spencer (1991), Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), Anderson (1992) and Wunderlich (1986) are representatives of this view. Spencer (1991: 455) writes that “[t]he morphology module is autonomous of other levels of representation, in that it has its own set of elements and principles of combination” (ibid.). He recognizes, however, that “it interacts with all other levels of representation […] by the fact that it runs parallel with the rest of the grammatical derivation” (ibid.: 455–456). Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 76) also distinguish morphological mechanisms from syntactic ones as only the former are capable of accessing the individual constituents of morphological constructions. Anderson (1992: 5) assumes that syntactic principles cannot be applied to units from the lexicon because “lexical insertion takes place (effectively) at S-structure rather than at D-structure” (ibid.). At this point, it is important to note that his proposal contains the thought that morphology is located in the lexicon. For instance, Anderson (1992: 184) claims that the morphological process of derivation takes place in the lexicon. We will come back to the suggestion in §2.2. For now, it is enough to realize that the author emphasizes the importance to separate morphology from syntax as they “represent distinguishable domains of grammar” (ibid.: 38). Wunderlich (1986: 218–225) maintains the contrast between morphology and syntax as well and illustrates why specific syntactic phenomena, e.g. movement/modification of constituents or anaphoric reference, cannot affect morphological constructions. He considers apparent counterexamples to originate in pragmatics or semantics but not in the grammar and refuses to give up the idea of two distinct domains. After some representatives of the idea that morphology and syntax differ were introduced, some specific principles that express this conception of grammar are now presented. The following principles aim at differentiating between morpho­ logical and syntactic constructions by stating that the rules of each domain, i.e. morphology and syntax, can only operate in their own domain but not in the other one.15, 16

15 All of the following principles listed in (a) to (g) are cited directly. 16 Overviews of such principles are also presented in Ackema (2014: 169), Fábregas & Scalise (2012: 142) and Lieber & Scalise (2006: 7).

16 

 2 Basic assumptions

(a) Generalized Lexical Hypothesis: No syntactic rule can refer to an element of morphological structure, where element of morphological structure here refers to any morphological feature, any morphological category, or any element dominated by such a category. (Lapointe 1981: 125; cf. also Lapointe 1985: 8, 66) (b) The Word Structure Autonomy Condition: No deletion or movement transformation may involve categories of both W-structure and S-structure. (Selkirk 1982: 70) (c) The Atomicity Thesis: Words are “atomic” at the level of phrasal syntax and phrasal semantics. The words have “features,” or properties, but these features have no structure, and the relation of these features to the internal composition of the word cannot be relevant in syntax – this is the thesis of the atomicity of words, or the lexical integrity hypothesis, or the strong lexicalist hypothesis […], or a version of the lexicalist hypothesis […]. (Di Sciullo & Williams 1987: 49)

Lieber & Scalise (2006: 7) emphasize that, despite minor deviations, these principles share the central idea “of preventing syntactic rules from looking into and operating on the internal structure of words” (ibid.). Therefore, they summarize these thoughts with the terms “Lexical Integrity Hypothesis” or “Lexicalist Hypothesis”. Apart from the aforementioned proposals, other well-known statements or principles exist, which are also discussed in Lieber & Scalise (2006: 9). (d) Lexicalist Hypothesis: The syntax neither manipulates nor has access to the internal form of words. (Anderson 1992: 84) (e) Revised Lexical Integrity: [S]yntactic rules cannot alter the lexical meaning of words (including argument structure); syntactic rules have no access to the internal structure of X0 categories. (Spencer 2005: 81)

So far, it can be stated that the five principles listed above share the assumption that morphology and syntax have their own and independent rules. However, the principles in (a), (c), (d) and (e) crucially differ in their formulations: While the principles in (a) and (c) only vaguely state that syntax cannot “refer to” morphology or that morphology is not “relevant” to syntax, the principles in (d) and (e) include a specific distinction, namely the idea that syntax can neither “access” nor “alter”/“manipulate” morphology. Booij (2005: 163–164) not only mentions these two different aspects but specifically emphasizes them and distinguishes between the following two subparts of lexical integrity:

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 17

The principle of Lexical Integrity […] excludes two kinds of syntax-morphology interaction: manipulation of parts of word-internal structure, and access to word-internal structure. As to the first, I fully agree that syntax cannot manipulate word-internal structure. […] Thus, this part of the Lexical Integrity principle serves as a test to find out if a sequence of morphemes is a word or a phrasal lexical unit […]. The second form of interface that is excluded […] is for syntax to have access to word-internal structure. It is this part of the principle that I will take issue with […]. That is, we have to allow for access of syntax to word-internal morphological structure. (ibid.; cf. also Booij 2009a: 86)

Lieber & Scalise (2006: 9) agree with Booij (2005: 163–164) because they only accept the first but not the second half of the principle in (e). One must elaborate on this idea by examining specific consequences of the abovenamed principles that have been investigated in the literature. The following phenomena show that morphology and syntax interact under specific circumstances (phenomena one through five). However, it is not easy to state precisely whether these forms of interaction should be considered “access” or “manipulation” of morphological structure by the syntax. Only phenomenon six, which Booij (2009a: 86) regards as manipulation, proves that certain syntactic rules cannot apply to the inner parts of morphological constructions and clearly supports the idea to separate morphology and syntax. Finally, I extend this view to the seventh phenomenon, which represents a basic assumption of the present book and is examined in detail in Chapter 3. We should now consider each of the seven proposals in turn. Note that I always refer to constructions that are under investigation in the current work, namely AN and NN constructions. First, it is suggested that a compound-external unit cannot be anaphorically connected to one of a compound’s constituents (Bisetto & Scalise 1999: 37–39; Guevara & Scalise 2009: 108 referring to Di Sciullo & Williams 1987). Support comes from the example in (1a). The example in (1b), however, violates the ­proposal if we believe Lieber (1992a: 129–130) who argues that it is possible in a specific dialect. (1) a. *The deserti shrew is able to survive in iti despite the extreme weather ­conditions.17 b. Harry was looking for a bookrack, but he only found racks for very small ones. (Lieber 1992a: 130 (Postal 1969 = original source)) We have to admit that the judgments of the two examples are from different authors (MS and Rochelle Lieber respectively). Other language users might ­disagree. Therefore, it should be asked what factors have an influence on the

17 For a similar example, cf. Arnaud & Renner (2014: 17).

18 

 2 Basic assumptions

decision whether a sentence sounds acceptable or not. Semantic transparency is one factor. Dressler (1987: 73) as well as Ward, Sproat & McKoon (1991: 454–455) argue that inner elements of a word, e.g. compound constituents, can be accessed more easily if the word/compound is semantically transparent. According to Ward et al. (1991: 454–455), both constituents of a semantically transparent compound such as cocaine use contribute to the meaning of the entire c­ ompound. This leads the authors to the following idea. Since the semantics of both constituents are accessed in order to understand the meaning of the whole construction, the constituents are activated and can be accessed from compound-external elements. In contrast, the individual meanings of the constituents of an intransparent compound, e.g. cowboy, are not accessed because the semantics of the whole compound are accessed immediately. Keeping in mind that transparency represents a gradual phenomenon (Ward et al. 1991: 455), we might say that the authors who judged the examples in (1) considered the r­ espective example to be too intransparent (1a) or transparent enough (1b). Note that Ward et al. (1991: 454–455) regard a compound such as cowboy not only as semantically opaque but also as institutionalized. Even though this is true, the distinction between semantic (in)transparency and institutionalization should be emphasized. While the first term “refers to the relationship between compound and constituent meanings” (Sandra 1990: 550), the second term refers to whether an item is “accepted by other speakers as a known lexical item” (Bauer 1983: 48). Looking at the examples cocaine use and cowboy discussed in Ward et al. (1991: 454–455), one can clearly say that the first compound is more transparent but less institutionalized than the second one. In the two examples in (1), it is much harder to decide which of the compounds is the more institutionalized one. Nevertheless, the degree of institutionalization or lexicalization probably has an influence on the accessibility of compound constituents.18 Gaeta & Ricca (2009: 49) argue that the phenomenon of “syntactic islandhood must be thought of as gradient and crucially connected with the degree of lexicalization of a certain construct” (ibid.; cf. also Gaeta 2015: 125). Relying on this proposal, one might say that the example in (1a) is more lexicalized for the author who evaluated its acceptability than the example in (1b) is for the author who judged (1b). Related to the issue of lexicalization is the naming status of a complex construction. As the analysis of Gunkel & Zifonun (2009: 210) shows, the individual constituents

18 We use the terms “institutionalization” and “lexicalization” interchangeably at this point. The notion of lexicalization is discussed in detail in §2.3.

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 19

of a complex construction that serves as a naming unit cannot be reached from construction-external elements. Another possible explanation is based on pragmatics and comes from Ward et al. (1991: 456). The authors believe that contrast (cf. 2a) and topicality (cf. 2b) can make a specific element more accessible and, thus, support the acceptability of the entire sentence. (2) a. Cliff Barnes: Well, to what do I owe this pleasure? Ms. Cryder: Actually, this is a business call, and I’d like to get right down to it. (‘Dallas’; 1987) (Ward et al. 1991: 456) b. In the distance, we heard the sound of an ambulance siren. Within a minute or so it arrived and stretcher bearers took the boy away.(ibid.) According to Ward et al. (1991: 456), a prosodic contrast as the one between the concepts of pleasure and business in (2a) can increase the accessibility of the element business and make the sentence acceptable. In (2b), the authors consider ambulance to be accessible because it represents a topical element in the particular context of injuries caused by criminal acts in a US-American city as reported in a magazine. In sum, although anaphoric connections between compound-external and compound-internal elements are often rejected, they seem to be possible in several cases. The acceptability of the sentences above can depend on various factors such as the semantic transparency, the institutionalization/lexicalization status as well as the naming status of the complex constructions. Pragmatic factors can also have an influence on the acceptability of sentences containing an anaphoric reference to a compound-internal constituent. Anaphoric reference represents one form of morphology-syntax interaction and cannot distinguish between morphological and syntactic ­constructions. The second phenomenon that is discussed as a possibility to keep apart morphological and syntactic constructions is coordination. It is claimed that coordination between a compound constituent and another construction is ruled out (Wandruszka 1976: 100). This is shown in (3a), which Bauer (1998: 75) does not accept, but violated in (3b), which he accepts. (3) a. We saw a landscape dotted with wind- and flour-mills. b. We saw a landscape dotted with wind- and water-mills.

(ibid.) (ibid.)

Many ideas have been proposed in order to explain why compounds sometimes allow coordination and, therefore, why the constraint is not appropriate to distinguish between compounds and phrases. First, Booij (1985) uses a phonological argument to explain cases where coordination across compounds is possible. He states that a phonological word is not necessarily identical to a syntactic word

20 

 2 Basic assumptions

(ibid.: 149–150). That means, “[t]here is a one-to-one-correspondence between syntactic and phonological words, except for compounds, in which each constituent is an independent phonological word” (ibid.: 150). As a consequence, coordination is possible if phonological words are erased (Giegerich 2015: 102). Second, Bauer (1998: 74–75) suggests that coordination is only acceptable if the meaning relationship between the constituents within one complex construction is identical to the meaning relationship between the constituents within another complex construction. The author uses the proposal to explain the different judgments of the two examples in (3). Third, Gaeta & Ricca (2009: 38) claim that the impossibility to separate the constituents of a compound is based “on the referential stability (or ‘nameworthiness’) of the given complex lexical unit” (ibid.). Fourth, Bauer (1998: 75) identifies two other aspects that make coordination more difficult: a high degree of lexicalization and idiomaticity. Fifth, Booij (2009b: 231, 2010a: 185–186), referring to Heynderickx (2001), and Härtl (2015a: 398–399) show that coordination is possible between two classifying and between two descriptive modifiers but not between a classifying and a descriptive one. Therefore, only the examples in (4a), where two classifying modifiers are coordinated, and (4b), where two descriptive modifiers are coordinated, are acceptable. (4c), where a descriptive and a classifying modifier are coordinated, is unacceptable. The examples and the translations in (4) are taken from Härtl (2015a: 399). Note that Härtl emphasizes the fact that lexicalization cannot explain the phenomenon because the compound in (4) is non-lexicalized. Overall, the proposal is in opposition to ten Hacken’s (1994: 100) claim. He states that coordination between two compounds and between two phrases is possible but not between a compound and a phrase. (4) a. Kanarische und Großkiefern ‘canarian and big_pines’ b. beeindruckende und große Kiefern ‘impressive and big pines’ c. *beeindruckende und Großkiefern ‘impressive and big_pines’ In sum, the semantic transparency, the naming/classification function and the lexicalization status seem to have an influence on whether coordination with compounds is permitted. However, even transparent compounds such as those in (3a) cannot always be coordinated. If this is the case, the acceptability of coordination depends on the semantic relationship between the constituents of ­compounds: If the semantic relationship is identical from one compound to the other, coordination is possible. The only proposal that does not explain a lot of the data is Booij’s (1985) phonological argument. It does not even explain why (3a) and (3b) differ

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 21

in acceptability. Overall, although coordination is more likely with phrases than with compounds, it is possible with compounds as well. Hence, coordination, the second form of morphology-syntax interaction, cannot keep apart morphological and syntactic constructions. Third, it should not be possible in English to substitute the head of a ­compound with one (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985: 1332).19 Generally speaking, one might say that “head deletion under coordination” (Bisetto & Scalise 1999: 37) should not be possible in compounds (ibid.: 37–38). The example in (5a), which Spencer (2000: 312) does not accept, goes well with this idea. Note that the example sounds even less acceptable if we put the compound at the end of the sentence (cf. 5b). However, it is argued that no safe rule exists to determine when a sentence is acceptable and when it is not (Bauer 1998: 77). (5) a. Tom used milkbottles and Dick used brown ones. b. Tom used brown bottles and Dick used milk ones.

(Spencer 2000: 312)

Again, we find different answers to the question why compounds are sometimes allowed to appear with one. Giegerich (2015: 104) explains the phenomenon on a semantic basis. According to the author, since the semantic relationship within the compounds windmill and watermill is identical, the construction a windmill and a water one is acceptable. In contrast, Giegerich (2015: 104) claims that a windmill and a flour one is not acceptable as the semantic relationship between the two constituents differs from one compound to the other. Schäfer (2013: 150–153) investigates German AN compounds and considers semantic transparency to be a decisive factor. Note that German does not use a form like one. Instead, the second adjective appears alone. According to the author, a sentence like (6a) is possible because the compound is semantically highly transparent. (6b), however, is more problematic as the compound is less transparent. (6a) and (6b) are entirely (­examples/glosses/translations) taken from Schäfer (2013: 151–152). (6) a. Ich hab [sic!] keinen Rotwein gekriegt, es gab nur noch weißen. ‘I have no red.wine received, there was only still white.’ i.e. I didn’t get any red wine, they only had white wine left. b. #Mein Vater hat in seinem Garten schon mal einen Grünspecht gesehen, aber noch nie einen schwarzen.

19 For discussion, cf. Bauer (1998: 76–78); Giegerich (2005a: 579–581, 2005b: 48–49, 2015: 34–38); Lieber & Štekauer (2009: 11–12).

22 

 2 Basic assumptions

My father has in his garden already once a green-woodpecker seen, but so_far never a black. Intended: ‘My father once saw a green woodpecker in his garden, but he has never seen a black woodpecker.’ Another explanation is based on the distinction between classifying and descriptive modifiers as discussed above and in Härtl (2015a: 398–399). The combination of two descriptive modifiers as in (7a) is indisputable. Although the example in (7b), which contains two classifying modifiers, seems to be a bit less acceptable, it is still possible. The combination of a classifying and a descriptive modifier is, however, not acceptable (cf. 7c). (7) a. a fast buzzard and a slow one b. a hard drive and a flash one ??a hard drive and a fragile one c.

(ibid.: 398) (ibid.)

To sum up, we see again that an identical semantic relationship within two compounds, semantic transparency or the function of the modifier (descriptive or classifying function) have an influence on whether a construction with head deletion/one is acceptable or not. Overall, head deletion/one-substitution, the third form of morphology-syntax interaction, cannot distinguish between ­morphological and syntactic constructions. Fourth, another element should not be able to appear between the compound constituents (Haspelmath 2002: 158; Lieber 1992a: 13; Lieber & Štekauer 2009: 11–12). The example in (8) illustrates the proposal. However, if we allow coordination, as shown in example (3b) above, the restriction does not always work. (8) *state big deficit

(Bauer, Lieber & Plag 2013: 432)

Béchade (1992: 142) notes that only complex constructions that are not totally fixed allow the insertion of supplementary material. That means, the lexicalization and naming status of a compound plays a crucial role here: The lower its degree of lexicalization and, therefore, the less established the name, the more likely it is that the compound can be interrupted. In sum, the fourth kind of morphology-syntax interaction cannot separate morphological and syntactic constructions either. Fifth, modification of only the first compound constituent should not be permitted (Bell 2011: 148–149; Lieber & Štekauer 2009: 11–12; Schlücker 2014: 42–43). The example in (9a) supports the claim but the example in (9b) might be used as a counterexample. Only the example, i.e. only the first line, of (9b) is taken from Schlücker (2014: 42).

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 23

(9) a. *Hellrotwein light_red_wine ‘[light red] wine’ b. psychologische Beratungsstelle psychological consultation_s_place ‘psychological advisory service’ Giegerich (2015: 119–120) claims that the modification of compound constituents is impossible in lexicalized, i.e., in his terms, listed, compounds that serve as names. It is well known that lexicalization is a gradual phenomenon (e.g. Zelinsky-Wibbelt 2012: 228). Accordingly, the difference of acceptability in the two examples can be based on the fact that Rotwein is much more lexicalized than Beratungsstelle. If one looks at the restriction from the other perspective, i.e. from the perspective of phrases, one understands why no adjective can appear after the first noun of a lexicalized NPN/NPDN phrase in a Romance language (Mondini, Luzzatti, Saletta, Allamano & Semenza 2005: 179): Adjectives can only modify the whole construction and, therefore, have to occur either before or after the entire phrase. Schäfer (2009: 281–282) also suggests that the modification of individual parts of a complex construction becomes impossible if the construction is lexicalized and serves as a name. For instance, if the phrase grüner Tee (‘green tea’) simply represents any tea of green color and, thus, does not function as a name for a particular kind of tea, the modification of the adjective does not create problems. If, however, the phrase appears in order to name a specific kind of tea, the modification of the adjective is ruled out (cf. also Booij 2009b: 225, 2010a: 178). In sum, we see that the fifth form of morphology-syntax interaction cannot distinguish morphological from syntactic constructions. Even if compounds, as opposed to phrases, do mostly not allow the modification of their first constituents, they sometimes permit it because they have not reached a high degree of lexicalization and do not yet represent an established name within a language community. Finally, the sixth claim is that individual units of a word/compound cannot change their position (Bisetto & Scalise 1999: 37–39; Booij 2009a: 86; Bresnan & Mchombo 1995: 187; Wunderlich 2006a: 11). The example in (10a) supports the point. However, Kremers (2015: 284) also remarks that phrases often obey comparable constraints and gives the example in (10b) (cf. also Ortner & Ortner 1984: 16). (10) a. *Teai, I have bought a ti pot. (Kremers 2015: 284) b. *Bluei, I have bought a ti tea pot.(ibid.) Note that the idea that the order of the compound constituents cannot change (Ortner & Ortner 1984: 17–18) is connected to the aforementioned examples.

24 

 2 Basic assumptions

Although phrases can also obey the constraint, syntactic and morphological constructions differ in a specific respect: While constituents often move within syntactic ­constructions, this is not possible within morphological ­constructions. Therefore, we see that syntactic movement is ruled out in morphological ­constructions. We have seen that morphology and syntax interact in several cases. Whether or not interaction is possible depends on several factors such as pragmatics, the semantic relationship connecting the constituents within a construction, the semantic transparency, the lexicalization status and the function of a construction (naming/classifying versus descriptive function). It is difficult to evaluate whether the first five of the aforementioned phenomena are best described as access or manipulation of morphological constructions by the syntax. One would probably consider the first phenomenon (anaphoric reference) to be access; the second to fifth phenomena can be regarded as either access or manipulation. So, for instance, the second phenomenon (coordination) is access to morphological structure by the syntax because a conjunction can appear between the constituents of a compound in some cases. However, since the head of one of the two compounds is deleted, it can also be regarded as manipulation. Leaving this terminological issue between access and manipulation aside, we see that some compounds obey the respective constraints but others do not. Similarly, while some phrases obey the constraints, others might not do so. Hence, the first five phenomena represent different forms of morphology-syntax interaction and cannot distinguish between morphological and syntactic constructions. The sixth phenomenon, however, clearly shows that certain syntactic operations are not active within any morphological construction. Although some syntactic constructions obey the constraint, many others do not. That means, the sixth phenomenon differs from the five other ones in that the syntactic operation is not permitted to operate within any morphological construction. In the present contribution, I assume that another syntactic phenomenon is ruled out within morphological constructions, namely inflectional agreement/inflection. That means, first, that the adjective and the noun of AN compounds do never agree for specific grammatical properties and, second, that grammatical properties of entire NN compounds are never expressed within the compound, i.e. on the left constituent, but always on the right one. I reflect upon inflectional agreement/inflection in detail in Chapter 3. If one wants to assume the independence of both morphology and syntax, one can approach this idea, as Lieber & Scalise (2006: 8–9) argue, from the following two perspectives (cf. also Corbin 1997: 83): On the one hand, it should not be possible that syntax sees morphology – an assumption that we have discussed so far by referring to the above-named principles and

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 25

phenomena; on the other hand, it should not be possible either that morphology sees syntax – an assumption that is expressed in the following well-known principle: (f) (The) No Phrase Constraint: Morphologically complex words cannot be formed (by WFRs) on the basis of ­syntactic phrases. (Botha 1981: 18) Or: Lexical rules do not apply to syntactic phrases to form ­morphologically complex words. (Botha 1984: 137) (g) Relaxed version of the No Phrase Constraint: Morphologically complex words cannot be formed (by WFRs) on the basis of syntactic phrases which are not possible deep structure constituents. (Botha 1981: 20)

Phrasal compounds, i.e. “compounds headed by a noun with a phrasal nonhead” (Lieber & Scalise 2006: 10), can be considered to violate the latter constraint. I do not discuss this particular issue in any more detail here.20 Instead, I simply want to emphasize that the assumptions that syntax does not see morphology and morphology does not see syntax are pretty strong. Therefore, I consider the following proposal from Lieber & Scalise (2006: 29) to be a good compromise: The data tell us that we do not need to sanction a complete collapse of morphology into syntax or other components, for that matter – this possibility predicts far more interaction than we find. Nor can we explain away the data and maintain that morphology is an island unto itself. There is a point of contact – a small one – between morphology and syntax […] and our theory must eventually allow for that point of contact. (ibid.)

I agree with the authors and believe that we have to permit several forms of interaction between morphology and syntax. On the one hand, syntax sometimes has to be able to see the inner parts of morphological constructions. For instance, coordination between two compound nouns sounds acceptable in some cases (cf. the example wind- and water-mills from Bauer 1998: 75). On the other hand, syntactic constructions occasionally appear within morphological constructions quite naturally. The phrasal compound a connect the dots puzzle from Lieber (1992a: 11) illustrates this point. Nonetheless, interaction between morphology and syntax does not automatically prove that the separation of the two domains is unnecessary. As Anderson (1982: 572) claims, “[t]he existence of […] an overlap

20 For discussion, cf. Bresnan & Mchombo (1995: 192–195); Carstairs-McCarthy (2005, 2010: 204–209); Giegerich (2015: 114–118); Lieber (1992a: 11–14, 1992b: 92–94).

26 

 2 Basic assumptions

in the classes of primes relevant to different subparts of a grammar in no way compromises the proposed distinctness of the areas involved” (ibid.). In other words, as Bisetto & Scalise’s (1999: 33) contribution suggests, the existence of similarities between two domains does not mean that the domains do not clearly differ in other respects. In order to further reflect upon this argument, let us finally look at a model presented in Ackema & Neeleman (2004), which is based on the idea of keeping apart morphology and syntax. The authors suggest a specific model in which semantics, syntax and phonology constitute the three decisive columns that cooperate with the lexicon and the phonological form (ibid.: 277). At first sight, it seems that the model ignores morphology; however, this is not the case. At second sight, it seems that the authors reject the distinction between morphology and syntax because morphology is considered a part of syntax; however, looking at their exact terminology, one realizes that this is not the case either. We assume that the modules of syntax, semantics, and phonology each contain a submodule that generates phrasal representations and a submodule that generates word-level representations. What is usually referred to as ‘syntax’ is, according to this model, a submodule of the syntax that we may call phrasal syntax. The syntax module also contains a distinct submodule that generates hierarchical structures for words, which we refer to as word syntax. In the same vein, we can distinguish phrasal phonology (prosodic phonology) from word phonology (lexical phonology), and phrasal semantics from word semantics (lexical semantics). (ibid.: 3)

For my purpose, it is important to observe that the authors intend to separate syntax, i.e. phrasal syntax, and morphology, i.e. word syntax. Although the two are located within the same global component, called syntax in the contribution, differences between morphology/word-syntax and syntax/phrasal syntax exist and explain why the authors establish two individual subcomponents within the module they call syntax. In other words, “word syntax and phrasal syntax are two independent submodules of a larger macromodule” (ibid.: 10). The model goes well with the proposals by Bisetto & Scalise (1999: 33) as well as Lieber & Scalise (2006: 29) mentioned above: Morphology and syntax may resemble each other and interact in some cases; however, they are distinct.21 Note that the model described in Jackendoff & Audring (2015) is similar to that of Ackema & Neeleman (2004) in several respects. Jackendoff & Audring (2015)

21 Other authors who maintain the distinction between morphology and syntax are, for instance, Allen (1978), Borer (1991), Di Sciullo (2009), Lowe (2015), Villoing (2012) and Zwicky (1990). Discussions of the position outlined in this section can be found in, among others, Fábregas & Scalise (2012: 133–137), Giegerich (2009a: 178–180) and Siddiqi (2014: 346–356).

2.1 Morphology versus syntax: Conceptions of the grammar of language 

 27

discuss morphology within the theory of the Parallel Architecture of grammar. The authors assume that word and phrase grammar operate in a parallel fashion and consider phonology, syntax and semantics to be subdivided into a phrasal and a word part. As in the model of Ackema & Neeleman (2004), individual levels are connected to each other. According to Jackendoff & Audring (2015), word semantics, word phonology as well as phrasal syntax share an interface with morphosyntax. Morphosyntax and the aforementioned interfaces are referred to as morphology.

2.1.3 Specific assumption about compounds: Morphology, syntax or neither? So far, we have only been interested in the question whether researchers argue for or against a distinction between morphology and syntax. However, it has to be kept in mind that some authors consider only some processes, which have tradionally been regarded as morphological processes, to be distinct from syntax but not others. This becomes evident if one analyzes inflection, derivation and compounding, which are usually listed in the chapter on morphology in introductory textbooks of linguistics (cf., e.g., O’Grady & de Guzman 2010). Anderson (1992), for instance, regards derivation as a morphological process that operates within the lexicon and cannot be characterized as a syntactic phenomenon. Inflection and compounding, however, are treated as syntactic operations or at least as operations at the morphology-syntax interface (cf. also Wunderlich 2006a: 8). Distinguishing between several processes, such as derivation and inflection, has led to the occurrence of two versions of the lexicalist hypothesis: While the strong version implies that compounding, derivation and inflection are nonsyntactic and lexical, the weak version differentiates between the lexical process of derivation and the syntactic phenomenon of inflection (Lieber & Scalise 2006: 7; Neef & Vater 2006: 40; Scalise & Guevara 2005: 170).22 Note that the opinions of the aforementioned authors diverge with respect to the position of compounding in weak lexicalism: While Lieber & Scalise (2006: 7) state that compounding resembles derivation in being lexical/morphological, Neef & Vater’s (2006: 40) contribution suggests that compounding resembles inflection in being syntactic. Following Allen (1978: 82), Corbin (1997: 82), Gaeta (2015: 120) and Spencer (1991:

22 Authors who argue in favor of the strong version of the lexicalist hypothesis are, among others, Lieber (1981) and Selkirk (1981). Allen (1978) and Anderson (1982, 1992), among others, prefer weak lexicalism.

28 

 2 Basic assumptions

455), I consider compounds to be of morphological origin. Phrases are regarded as syntactic constructions. Specifically, it is assumed that compounds differ from phrases in that certain grammatical properties, such as gender, number, case and definiteness, that refer to the entire construction, i.e. to the compound or phrase, cannot be expressed within compounds but within phrases (­Anderson 1982: 574; Booij 2009b: 224, 2010a: 181). The definitions of compounds and phrases are discussed in Chapter 3. Regarding compounds as morphological constructions, I disagree with Baker (1998), Harley (2009) and Liberman & Sproat (1992: 133) who place compounds in the syntax. Also, I refuse to accept the proposals by Carstairs-McCarthy (2005: 35) as well as Sadock (1998) who renounce to include compounds in any of the two domains of morphology and syntax and, instead, aim at establishing a third domain specifically for compounds.23 Without any doubt, it is possible that compounds share more similarities with phrases than other kinds of morphological constructions. Guevara & Scalise (2009: 102) state that “compounds are the morphological constructions which are closest to syntactic constructions, to the point that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between compounds and phrases” (ibid.; for a similar point, cf. Gaeta & Zeldes 2012: 199; Scalise & Vogel 2010: 2; Štekauer et al. 2012: 47). Mithun (2010: 37) notes the following about compounds: “On one side, it produces lexical items, a classic morphological function. On the other, it can take words as its input, and, in some languages, phrases which are the products of syntactic operations” (ibid.; for a similar point, cf. Libben 2006: 3). Despite the fact that compounds resemble syntactic combinations more than other morphological constructions do, I regard compounds as morphological constructions, which have to be distinguished from syntactic constructions.

2.2 Lexicon versus grammar The debate on the relation between morphology and syntax introduced in the previous section has an impact on the controversy presented in the current section, namely the nature of lexicon and grammar. In this context, one can ask two decisive questions: Is there something like a lexicon that fundamentally differs from the grammar and how are the four notions of lexicon, grammar, morphology and syntax interrelated? To start with a traditional proposal, one might state the following:

23 For discussion, cf. Fernández-Domínguez (2009: 43).

2.2 Lexicon versus grammar 

 29

The most simple assumption about any language is that it has a lexicon and a grammar. In the lexicon all actual ‘words’ are stored, pairing sounds and meanings (or gestures and meanings), whereas the grammar is a computational system that characterizes which sequences of ‘words’ can constitute meaningful ‘utterances’. (Wunderlich 2006a: 1)

However, it becomes clear in the following paragraphs that this straightforward idea has been subject to a controversial and long-lasting debate.

2.2.1 For a gradual nature of lexicon and grammar In the tradition of Cognitive Grammar, researchers such as Langacker (1987:  3) reject the idea of a clear-cut separation between lexicon and grammar and, instead, regard them as gradual phenomena. It is claimed that “[l]exicon, morphology, and syntax form a continuum of symbolic structures, which differ along various parameters but can be divided into separate components only arbitrarily” (ibid.). Tuggy (2005: 259) expresses a comparable thought by emphasizing that morphology and syntax “are not in separate ‘modules’ of the grammar” (ibid.; cf. also Langacker 1987: 82).24 In the spirit of Construction Grammar, which is “a sub-theory of cognitive grammar” (Giegerich 2015: 5), Goldberg (1995: 4) goes in a similar direction and refuses to accept a clear separation between the lexicon and other parts of the grammar.25 In the citation below, she emphasizes the fact that the lexicon cannot be absolutely distinguished from syntax and, in addition to that, outlines her view on the morphology-syntax debate: Lexical constructions and syntactic constructions differ in internal complexity, and also in the extent to which phonological form is specified, but both lexical and syntactic constructions are essentially the same type of declaratively represented data structure: both pair form with meaning. It is not the case, however, that in rejecting a strict division, Construction Grammar denies the existence of any distinctly morphological or syntactic constraints (or constructions). Rather, it is claimed that there are basic commonalities between the two types of constructions, and moreover, that there are cases […] that blur the boundary. (Goldberg 1995: 7)

The citation shows how difficult it is to categorize different approaches with respect to their conception of fundamental notions such as lexicon, syntax and morphology. Although Goldberg (1995: 7) gives up the clear-cut split between

24 For an overview of Cognitive Grammar/Linguistics, cf. Broccias (2013); Heyvaert (2009: 234–243); Lampert & Lampert (2010: 30–41); Onysko & Michel (2010: 6–12). 25 For an overview of Construction Grammar, cf. Goldberg (2013); Hoffmann & Trousdale (2013).

30 

 2 Basic assumptions

syntax and lexicon, she intends to maintain the terms “morphology” and “syntax”. Nevertheless, I agree with Lieber & Scalise (2006: 24) who criticize her because the exact difference between morphological and syntactic constructions remains obscure. In this sense, her contribution is similar to Booij’s (2010a) analysis in his book on Construction Morphology. Although Booij (2010a: 1) applies the term construction to both morphological and syntactic products and, thus, emphasizes similarities between them, his theory does not neglect aspects that distinguish morphology and syntax. Booij (2010a: 11) underlines that syntax and morphology are not entirely distinct components as they interact in many ways. Nevertheless, he clearly states that his “book takes the lexicalist position that the grammars of natural languages have a relatively autonomous morphological sub-grammar” (ibid.: 3). That means, “morphological generalizations or rules […] cannot be reduced to either syntax or phonology” (ibid.). The author roughly defines morphology as “word grammar” (ibid.: 11) and syntax as “sentence grammar” (ibid.: 11). Therefore, “[i]t is only with respect to the domain of linguistic entities that morphology is different from sentence grammar since morphology has the word domain as its focus” (ibid.). His view can be summarized by stating that there is no strict boundary between syntactic and lexical constructs: syntax permeates the lexicon because syntactic units can be lexical. The grammar is a network of syntactic and morphological constructions, with conventionalized instantiations of both types of constructions listed in the lexicon. (ibid.: 191)26

Overall, Construction Grammar and Construction Morphology as developed by Goldberg and Booij assume a continuum of lexicon and grammar rather than a clear-cut split between the two. Although the distinction between the two grammatical domains of morphology and syntax is not abandoned, constructions of both types can enter the lexicon. Giegerich’s approach resembles the aforementioned proposals and explicitly contains another aspect that is worth mentioning. The author rejects a strict separation between lexicon and syntax because complex constructions can have typical properties of both (Giegerich 2004: 15, 2005a: 588, 2005b: 45–51, 2009a: 200, 2015: 41). In addition to that, and crucially, he regards morphology as an integral part of the lexicon (Giegerich 2005a: 589). To sum up, Cognitive Grammar, Construction Grammar/Morphology and ­Giegerich assume that rigid borders between domains disappear. That means,

26 On Construction Morphology and similar ideas, cf. also Booij (2009a, 2009b, 2010b, 2013, 2014); Booij & Audring (2015); Jackendoff (2007: 9–11); Jackendoff & Audring (2015); Masini & Benigni (2012).

2.2 Lexicon versus grammar 

 31

these approaches do not consider the lexicon to be strictly separated from the grammar or, specifically, from morphology and syntax. This implies also that morphology and syntax represent gradual rather than absolute terms. As stated in §2.1, certain forms of interaction between morphology and syntax have to be permitted. Similarly, lexicon and grammar must be allowed to interact. The question now arises whether it is necessary to give up the separation between, for instance, lexicon and grammar. Based on the argumentation presented in §2.1, I assume that an efficient model of our language system must maintain the separation between the lexicon, which contains the grammatical domain of morphology or which is at least more closely connected to morphology than to syntax, and syntax, which is lexicon-external grammar, because the differences between domains outnumber the similarities. I continue discussing evidence for this position in Chapter 3. Before that, my assumptions are further specified by means of models that are compatible with my point of view.

2.2.2 For a separation of lexicon and grammar Although Scalise & Guevara (2005: 182–183) are convinced that certain interactions between morphology and syntax have to be permitted, they argue against the idea that morphology is syntax and propose to keep these two domains apart. This attitude harmonizes with the central idea of Lexicalism, or, as Chomsky (1970: 188) calls it in his seminal work, the “lexicalist position” (ibid.), namely the conception of a lexicon that is responsible for the creation of derivatives as well as compounds and whose mechanisms differ from and do not depend on those of syntax (Scalise & Guevara 2005: 147).27 Therefore, we can say that lexicalists usually regard morphology, or at least word-formation, as a part of the lexicon (Lipka 1981: 119), which has “generative force” (Motsch 1977: 192, translated by MS)28 (cf. also Anderson 1992: 182; Fábregas 2016; Jackendoff 1975: 668; Jensen & Stong-Jensen 1984). Looking specifically at compounds, which are under investigation in the present work, Lieber (1981: 16) argues that they are created in the lexicon. Considering the lexicon an active compartment of our language system differs from proposals that regard morphology as a part of syntax and, thus, interpret the lexicon as a mere storage space (Wunderlich 2006a: 1–2). Note, however, that regarding morphology as a lexicon-internal grammar implies a dual nature

27 Note that some theories state that inflection also takes place in the lexicon (Scalise & Guevara 2005: 147). 28 Motsch (1977: 192) writes in German and uses the expression “generative Kraft” (ibid.).

32 

 2 Basic assumptions

of the notion of lexicon. Gaeta (2015) emphasizes that the lexicon can be regarded as a storage space on the one hand and as a morphological component that is responsible for the creation of regular constructions, such as products of derivation or compounding, on the other hand. The author argues that this crucial differentiation is often neglected and, thus, the term “morphological” does not represent more than a synonym of the term “lexical” in many contributions (ibid.: 119; cf. also Carstairs-McCarthy 2010: 38–39). I agree with Gaeta (2015) and continue separating the terms “lexical” and “morphological”. The idea derives from the distinction between lexicalization status and grammatical status. Corbin (1997: 55–56) reminds the reader that lexicalization and grammatical, i.e. either morphological or syntactic, origin represent two different phenomena. Bauer (1998: 83) emphasizes the same point and argues that we can oppose morphology to syntax on the one hand and lexicalization to non-lexicalization on the other hand. He illustrates the problem by showing that some factors cannot distinguish between compounds and phrases because they simply indicate whether a construction is lexicalized or not. Similarly, Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 4) “reject the idea that listedness is a grammatical property” (ibid.). The idea to separate the grammatical origin of a complex construction and its status of lexicalization is illustrated in Gaeta & Ricca (2009). The authors claim that morphological constructions are not necessarily lexical (lexicalized)29 constructions (ibid.: 63; cf. also Gaeta 2015: 122; Ralli 2013: 183). Gaeta & Ricca (2009: 38) propose the following quadripartite differentiation: A complex construction can be (1) morphological and lexical, (2) morphological but not lexical, (3) lexical but not morphological or (4) neither morphological nor lexical. Although the authors regard number (1) as a typical morphological construction, specifically a compound, and number (4) as a usual syntactic construction, specifically a phrase, their approach is capable of explaining why syntactic constructions can in principle be lexical/lexicalized and why morphological constructions can be non-lexical/non-lexicalized (ibid.: 36–42). I rely on the suggestions of the aforementioned authors and always keep apart lexicalization status and grammatical (morphological/syntactic) origin.30 So far, we have looked at contributions where morphology is considered to be syntactic in nature or a part of the lexicon. Keeping the discussion of the previous paragraph in mind, one realizes that another option exists – as the following citation shows. Wunderlich (2006a: 7) states that

29 Note that Gaeta & Ricca (2009) use the adjectives lexical and lexicalized interchangeably. 30 Other authors who also pay attention to the distinction are, for instance, Bücking (2009: 198, 2010: 259) and Hüning (2010: 199).

2.2 Lexicon versus grammar 

 33

it is still a matter of debate whether morphology constitutes a separate module of grammar which is nearer to the lexicon than syntax (hence, pre-syntactic) (which is the traditional assumption) or even part of the lexicon (because it deals with word forms), or just a subcomponent of syntax in that it deals with word syntax and is mainly controlled by syntactic principles […]. (ibid.)

The citation expresses that it is possible to establish three autonomous modules, namely the lexicon, word-formation and syntax – an idea expressed in Štekauer (2001: 19, 2005a: 212–214, 2005b: 45, 2005c: 154).31 Štekauer (2005a: 213) assumes “a direct connection between the Word-Formation and the Lexical components, and [only] a mediated connection between the Word-Formation and the Syntactic components” (ibid.). Specifically, Štekauer (2001: 20, 2005a: 214) describes the coexistence of the lexicon, word-formation and syntax in the following way. Whereas word-formation serves to build novel complex constructions, the lexicon takes and stores them. The lexicon also delivers elements (e.g. bases) to the word-formation module that, in turn, uses them to construct complex items. Furthermore, the lexicon functions as a bridge between the word-formation module and the syntactic one since a direct link between these two grammatical domains does not exist. The author believes in a serial procedure during which the products of the work of word-formation and the lexicon proceed to syntax. His model goes well with Schwarze’s (1999: 73) citation that morphology is “an autonomous, generative system which operates on the lexicon and helps to provide syntax with words” (ibid.). The aforementioned conception of morphology, syntax and the lexicon is much closer to proposals where morphology is located within the lexicon than to theories where morphology is regarded as syntax (Plag 1999: 9). All in all, as concluded in §2.1, although the grammatical domain of syntax and the grammatical domain of morphology can interact, I believe that the two differ. Moreover, I regard morphology as a key part of the lexicon or, at least, as a domain that is closely connected to the lexicon. That means, two grammatical domains exist, one within/next to the lexicon (morphology) and one outside the lexicon (syntax). Even though both morphology and syntax can create constructions that enter the lexicon, I argue that morphology is better equipped than syntax to fulfil this job. This issue is discussed in detail in the chapters following the current one.

31 Other authors who do not believe that morphology is located in the lexicon are Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), Spencer (1991: 456) and ten Hacken (2010: 250). This implies that the ­morphology module can be separated from the syntax module on the one hand and from the lexicon on the other hand (cf. also Aronoff & Anshen 2001: 242).

34 

 2 Basic assumptions

2.3 On the relationship between memorization and lexicalization In the previous section, we began to reflect on the notion of lexicon. The belief that morphological constructions are more prone to enter the lexicon than syntactic constructions was presented. Before being able to investigate this idea, one must define two crucial terms, namely lexicalization and memorization. In the literature, the term “lexicalization” is not defined in a consistent way and, instead, is used to refer to several phenomena (Bakken 2006: 106; Lipka 2002: 111; Lipka, Handl & Falkner 2004: 2). First of all, Blank (2001: 1596) states that lexicalization “can denote a process as well as the result of this process” (ibid.). Furthermore, the notion of lexicalization can occur in both diachronic and synchronic considerations (Bußmann 2008: 404; Hohenhaus 2005: 353–357). Diachronic lexicalization may refer to alternations of linguistic material throughout history, e.g. graphemic, phonological, morphological, semantic or syntactic changes (Bauer 1983: 50–61; Hohenhaus 2005: 353–356; Sauer 2004: 1628–1632). Stress changes and the disappearance of inflectional markers are two examples of possible diachronic changes (Blank 2001: 1601–1602; Coulmas 1985: 255). Some authors use additional terminology in order to distinguish different hyponyms of lexicalization. Sauer (2004: 1626–1627) relies on the term “idiomatization” when referring to semantic lexicalization and prefers the term “obscuration” when discussing formal, i.e., e.g., phonological or morphological, lexicalization.32 Note that the aforementioned conceptions of lexicalization are much broader than the definition given in Siddiqi (2014: 355) where lexicalization is simply described as an operation turning a semantically compositional complex construction into a semantically non-compositional one. In the current contribution, I concentrate on the second sense of the term “lexicalization” mentioned in Bußmann (2008: 404), namely on synchronic lexicalization. According to the author, one speaks of synchronic lexicalization if a linguistic unit becomes part of the vocabulary of a language, is stored in the lexicon and can be retrieved from the lexicon.33 At this point, a general aspect with respect to the notions of lexicalization and lexicon must be emphasized. If one uses the term “lexicon”, one can refer to either “a socially or mentally defined lexicon” (Bakken 2006: 107). That means, on the one hand, lexicalization can

32 For a discussion of idiomatization, cf. Hohenhaus (2005: 355); Lipka (1977: 155, 1981: 121). 33 Bußmann (2008: 404) writes in German and states that lexicalization is “[u]nter synchronischem Aspekt [die] Aufnahme in den Wortbestand der Sprache als usuelle Bildung, die im Lexikon gespeichert und bei Gebrauch dort abgerufen wird” (ibid.).

2.3 On the relationship between memorization and lexicalization 

 35

describe the integration of a concept together with its formal representation in the lexicon of a specific language community. Note that the term conventionalization rather than lexicalization is sometimes used. Booij (2010a: 3) prefers this term and regards a linguistic form as conventionalized if it expresses a specific concept within a group of language users.34 Assuming that a linguistic unit is a form that has a meaning, one can say that a concept is lexicalized if a specific form permanently serves to represent the concept (Bakken 2006: 106; Blank 2001: 1596). Quirk et al. (1985: 1526) propose a similar definition and emphasize the aspects of compression and stability. They suggest that a concept is lexicalized if “we now ‘have a word for it’” (ibid.) and do not have to express it by using larger syntactic constructions anymore, which can differ from one language user to another. Quirk et al. (1985: 1526) include a crucial point in their definition, namely the notion of stability. Lexicalization used in such a way implies that a particular form permanently expresses a particular meaning. Put differently, lexicalization refers to the phenomenon when a form functions as the permanent name of a concept (Gaeta & Ricca 2009: 38; Lipka 1981: 131). I continue using the term “lexicalization” with this meaning. Note, however, that lexicalization can also be defined as the process that establishes a particular concept together with its linguistic representation in the mental lexicon (for this sense of the term “lexicalization”, cf. Blank 2001: 1599; Mithun 2010: 53). Using lexicalization in this sense, one realizes that memorization and lexicalization refer to the same process (as well as to the same state) and can be used interchangeably. Montermini (2010: 83) is one author who uses the two terms as synonyms. If lexicalization as a state is defined as “[t]he property of being stored in memory” (Mithun 2010: 53), its definition is identical to the definition of memorization given in Wunderlich (1986: 230).35 If lexicalization as a process is defined as “the mechanisms by which novel words are integrated into the listener’s mental lexicon” (Gaskell & Dumay 2003: 106), we also see that the same definition could be used to refer to memorization as a process. Considering memorization and lexicalization synonyms goes also well with Hohenhaus (2005: 356–357) who remarks that synchronic lexicalization is equivalent to both listing, which is a process, and listedness, which is a state. Assuming that listedness is the “property of being memorized” (Di Sciullo & Williams 1987: 3),

34 Note that Cognitive and Construction Grammarians prefer a different terminology in some cases. That means, they use the term “conventionality” (or “conventionalization”) (instead of “lexicalization”) if they refer to items that belong to the shared vocabulary of a speech community and “entrenchment” (instead of “memorization”) if they refer to items that belong to the mental lexicon of an individual language user (cf. Broccias 2013: 193). 35 Wunderlich (1986: 230) writes in German and states that “memorisiert” (ibid.) means “im Gedächtnis gespeichert” (ibid.).

36 

 2 Basic assumptions

one observes again that memorization and lexicalization are treated as terms referring to the same phenomena. In the present work, however, I do not use the terms “memorization” and “lexicalization” as synonyms. Schwarze & Wunderlich (1985: 16) as well as ­Wunderlich (1986: 231) argue that memorization refers to a process of individual language users, i.e. people memorize linguistic items. They speak of lexicalization if such memorized items enter the lexicon of a particular language. Crucially, Wunderlich (1986: 231) notes that memorization can be a step towards lexicalization. Consequently, lexicalization can be considered to be “collective memorization” (Lüdi 1986: 226; cf. also Fiedler 2007: 21). Combining these proposals, I consider memorization to be the process of the integration of a linguistic unit into the mental lexicon of a language user. As a result or state, a linguistic unit is memorized if it is part of the mental lexicon of an individual speaker. Lexicalization, however, is the process of the integration of a linguistic unit into the lexicon of a specific speech community. As a result or state, a linguistic unit is lexicalized if it is part of the lexicon of a speaking community. It is clear from the aforementioned distinction between memorization and lexicalization that lexicalization does not always follow memorization. Pawley & Syder (1983: 209) claim that a linguistic unit is not necessarily lexicalized if language users have memorized it. According to the authors, a unit is lexicalized, i.e. it belongs to a speaking community’s shared lexicon, if it is not semantically compositional, functions as a syntactic island and “is a conventional label for a conventional concept” (ibid.). They illustrate their conception of lexicalization by examining the complex construction long house: While long house represents a lexicalized item if one applies it to a specific kind of house in Borneo, it is not lexicalized if one uses it to describe any house that is long. According to Nation (2001: 324), a memorized item in Pawley & Syder’s (1983: 208–209) understanding is, as opposed to a lexicalized one, “transparent, regularly formed” (Nation 2001: 324). Hadikin (2014: 22) critically reflects on Pawley & Syder’s (1983: 208–209) contribution and wonders when exactly a specific construction should be classified as a lexicalized rather than a memorized item. Although the boundary between memorization and lexicalization as used by Pawley & Syder (1983: 208–209) can be fuzzy, the general opposition between the two terms is based on the idea that only lexicalized items represent permanent names of established concepts within a speaking community. As a consequence, their suggestion that lexicalized items are not semantically compositional and function as syntactic islands is connected to the fact that names usually have these two properties as well (cf. Herbermann 1981: 334–335).

2.3 On the relationship between memorization and lexicalization 

 37

First of all, I agree with Pawley & Syder (1983: 208–209) with regard to the idea that memorization does not necessarily trigger lexicalization. An individual language user can coin and memorize a linguistic unit in order to refer to a specific concept. If the novel construction is not adopted by the entire speech community, it will never be lexicalized. Second, I share the opinion that an item is lexicalized if it expresses a specific concept, i.e. if it is accepted in a particular speech community as a name of a concept. Third, I also regard semantic non-­compositionality and syntactic islandhood as typical features of lexicalized items. We saw in §2.1, for instance, that the constituents of lexicalized complex constructions often resist syntactic access. Nevertheless, in opposition to the authors, my definition of lexicalization does not depend on semantics or syntax. That means, the definition of lexicalization that my argumentation is based on in the present work is simply the one described above: If a linguistic unit, specifically a complex construction, has entered the lexicon of a speech community and serves as a p ­ ermanent name of a concept, it is considered to be lexicalized. Finally, I want to take issue with Nation’s (2001: 324) point that memorized items are “transparent, regularly formed” (ibid.). It is not quite clear what he actually means by this but if he intends to say, as I suppose, that memorized items in Pawley & Syder’s (1983: 208–209) sense are, as opposed to lexicalized items, semantically compositional, I disagree. I do not believe, as, for instance, Schlücker & Hüning (2009a: 221) do, that semantic non-compositionality always represents the result of l­ exicalization. Nor do I think that memorization necessarily creates semantic non-compositionality. Instead, I follow researchers who argue that novel constructions can be semantically non-compositional right from the beginning of their existence, i.e. right from the moment they are created and used for the first time, if they function as names for new specific concepts (Herbermann 1981: 334–335; cf. also Barz 1996: 143; Härtl 2015a; for discussion, cf. Chapter 4). In sum, in the present work, memorization as a process is used to refer to the integration of a linguistic unit, specifically a complex construction, into the mental lexicon of an individual language user. Therefore, when describing memorization as a state or result, a complex construction is considered memorized if it is part of an individual mental lexicon. Lexicalization as a process is regarded as the integration of a linguistic unit, specifically a complex construction, into the lexicon of a speech community. Hence, when looking at lexicalization as a state or result, a complex construction is regarded as lexicalized if it is part of the lexicon of a speaking community. Put differently, a complex construction is lexicalized if it functions as the permanent name of a complex lexical concept within a speech community. Using both the terms “memorization” and “lexicalization”, I refer to both the mental lexica of individual language users and the lexica of speech communities. Note, however, that the primary concerns of the

38 

 2 Basic assumptions

present work are the mental lexica of individuals. It is assumed that insights from the mental lexicon also have implications for the social lexicon.

2.4 Summary The present chapter has specified the global context of my contribution and has defined as well as contrasted basic terms that are relevant throughout my work. In sum, I assume that: (1) Morphology differs from syntax and represents a separate grammatical domain (cf. §2.1). (2) Morphology represents either a lexicon-internal grammatical domain or a grammatical domain that is more closely connected to the lexicon than syntax. Syntax represents a lexicon-external grammatical domain. Overall, the demarcation between lexicon, which contains or is closely linked to ­morphology, and grammar – or syntax – is maintained (cf. §2.2). (3) Both memorization and lexicalization describe both processes and results/ states. Memorization is the integration of a linguistic unit, specifically a complex construction, into the mental lexicon of individual language users. Lexicalization refers to the integration of a linguistic unit, specifically a complex construction, into the lexicon of a particular speech community. Therefore, lexicalization means that a complex construction serves as the permanent name of a complex lexical concept (cf. §2.3).

3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects 3.1 General remarks Having discussed some fundamental aspects of the present work in the preceding chapter, I now look at compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos in German, French and English. Specifically, complex constructions that are composed of an adjective and a noun as well as constructions that contain two nouns/two nouns and a preposition/two nouns and a preposition as well as a determiner are analyzed. The objective is to show how one can define and characterize the aforementioned types of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos on structural grounds. Semantic-functional (Chapter 4) as well as cognitive aspects (Chapter 5) are taken into consideration later. First of all, the difficulty of defining compounds is well known (Guevara & Scalise 2009: 106; Lieber & Štekauer 2009: 3; Štekauer et al. 2012: 42). Connected to this problem is the fact that it is difficult to find a definition of the term “compound” that is valid across different languages (Bauer 2009: 356; Dressler 2006: 24; Nicoladis 2006: 100). Nevertheless, when searching for an appropriate definition of the term “compound”, one realizes that many short definitions of the term exist. In the first step, some of these formulations are presented in order to see whether they can distinguish between compounds and phrases.36 (a) “Compounding is a process that takes lexical items and joins them into a single lexical item […]” (Lieber 1981: 16). A compound … (b) “is made up of at least two free lexical morphemes” (Lipka 2002: 99). (c) “consists of at least two lexemes” (ibid.). (d) “contains at least two bases which are both words, or at any rate, root morphemes” (Katamba 1993: 54). (e) is a word formed “through the combination of bases” (Bauer et al. 2013: 431). (f) is “the combination of (two or more) existing words into a new word” (Anderson 1992: 292). (g) is the combination “of two free forms or stems to form a new complex word” (Olsen 2000a: 897).

36 For another overview, cf. Scalise & Vogel (2010: 5). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-003

40 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

(h) “is a complex lexeme that can be thought of as consisting of two or more base lexemes” (Haspelmath 2002: 85). (i) is “[a] word-sized unit containing two or more Roots” (Harley 2009: 130). (j) is a lexeme “whose stem is formed by combining two or more stems […]” (Lyons 1977: 534–535). (k) “is a lexical unit consisting of more than one base […] and functioning both grammatically and semantically as a single word” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1567). (l) is “a lexical unit made up of two or more elements, each of which can function as a lexeme independent of the other(s) in other contexts, and which shows some phonological and/or grammatical isolation from normal syntactic usage” (Bauer 2001: 695).

The aforementioned simple definitions of the term “compound” represent a first approximation to this kind of complex construction. However, the definitions do not suffice to specify what exactly a compound is and how precisely it differs from a phrase for several reasons. First, as Guevara & Scalise (2009: 106) claim, it is hard to find a definition of the compound because it often depends on the definition of other terms, e.g. the word, the morpheme, the root or the stem, which are, however, “hotly debated (and never agreed upon)” (ibid.). Since the majority of the above-listed definitions contain at least one of these controversial terms, it becomes clear that the definitions cannot suffice to define the compound. But even the definitions that do not use one of these terms include other ones that are not easy to define either, e.g. the terms “lexeme”, “lexical item” or “lexical unit”. Second, remember that I aim at distinguishing between compounds and phrases. Bauer et al. (2013: 431) realize that the definition of the compound given in (e) above (“the combination of bases” (ibid.)) can be used to describe phrases as well. Looking at most of the other definitions cited above, one observes the same problem because the definitions are not able to differentiate between compounds and phrases in an adequate way. Relying on the definitions (a) to (k), one cannot separate compounds from phrases. This becomes clear if one tries to apply the definitions (b), (c) and (d) to English AN minimal pairs such as the traditional examples in (11), which are mentioned in, for example, Bloomfield (1933/1935: 227). (11) a. blackbird b. black bird The aforementioned three definitions can be used to refer to both (11a) and (11b). However, many linguists, e.g. Bloomfield (1933/1935: 227), regard (11a) as a compound and (11b) as a phrase. The definitions (a) and (e) to (k) might work to distinguish between the potential compound and the possible phrase in (11) but turn out to be unreliable if we look at other examples. Fuzzy definitions of other fundamental terms prevent us from finding a clear answer to the question whether a specific definition is appropriate to establish a difference between compounds

3.2 Primary factor and secondary factors 

 41

and phrases. Take the definitions (e), (f), (g), (i) and (k), which express the idea that a word is created, and try to apply them to the examples in (12) taken from Adams (2001: 81). (12) a. hothouse b. happy hour Two potential factors that might be relevant to the definition of the term “word”, which are discussed in Haspelmath (2011: 35–36), are solid orthography and semantic non-compositionality. Using semantic non-compositionality as a criterion, one might be tempted to consider both (12a) and (12b) words and, thus, compounds because the two complex constructions are not semantically compositional. Relying on orthography, however, one would probably claim that (12a), where no space separates the constituents, represents a word/compound but (12b), where a space occurs between the adjective and the noun, is a phrase. Even if the term “word” is substituted by other terms such as “lexical item” in definition (a), “complex lexeme” in definition (h) or “lexeme” in definition (j), one is still confronted with the same problem: How exactly does one define these terms in an unambiguous way? Does one favor orthography, semantic (non-)compositionality or even another criterion in order to define each of these terms? In sum, the definitions (a) through (k) are not appropriate to define compounds and distinguish them from phrases. So far, I have not yet referred to definition (l). The first part of the definition is as imprecise as the other definitions discussed above. Nonetheless, the idea that a compound “shows some phonological and/or grammatical isolation from normal syntactic usage” (Bauer 2001: 695) goes a step further and is part of the upcoming discussion.

3.2 Primary factor and secondary factors Instead of relying on simple definitions as the ones analyzed above, several factors/aspects with respect to their potential to distinguish compounds/CoLiCos from phrases/PhraLiCos in the three above-named languages are examined. Specifically, the structural factors inflection/inflectional agreement, head position, stress and other minor factors are investigated (Chapter 3). Moreover, we are concerned with semantic-functional aspects, e.g. the distinction between naming and describing (Chapter 4). Finally, and crucially, the examinations deal with psycholinguistic phenomena (Chapters 5–7). Circular argumentation is a problem that is frequently encountered in the literature on the compound-phrase distinction (on circularity and compounding, cf. Berg 2012: 3). If one wants to keep apart compounds and phrases, one needs an appropriate starting point in order to

42 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

ensure that the discussion proceeds in a non-circular manner. In other words, it is of utmost significance to specify one factor that always distinguishes between compounds and phrases. If this particular factor is available in a language, it always tells us – without a single exception – whether a complex construction is a compound or a phrase. I call this factor the primary factor. The primary factor is independent and allows to judge whether specific levels of other factors, namely secondary factors, are preferred by compounds and phrases. In order to illustrate the idea, it is applied to German AN constructions by hypothesizing that inflectional agreement represents the primary factor and stress a secondary factor. Since the adjective in (13a) agrees with the noun in terms of gender, number, case and definiteness, the construction is a phrase. In this case, agreement is expressed by means of the inflectional suffix -e, which attaches to the adjective. In (13b), one finds a compound because no suffix attaches to the adjective and, therefore, the adjective does not agree with the noun. (13) a. der grüne Reiher der the.M.SG.NOM.DEF ‘the green heron’ b. der Grünreiher the green_heron ‘the green heron’

grün-e green-e.M.SG.NOM.DEF

Reiher heron.M.SG.NOM.DEF

While inflectional agreement between the adjective and the noun indicates that a complex AN construction is a phrase, the lack of inflectional agreement shows that a complex AN construction is a compound. Considering compounds morphological constructions goes well with Wunderlich (2006b) who regards the absence of construction-internal agreement as a typical characteristic of morphological units. Moreover, German AN compounds and AN phrases can have other typical characteristics. For example, AN compounds usually carry stress on the initial syllable but AN phrases normally bear stress on a non-initial syllable. However, factors such as stress do not define AN compounds and AN phrases but can only characterize them. That means, AN compounds, which are defined by the lack of inflectional agreement, can be stressed on a non-initial syllable and AN phrases, which are defined by means of inflectional agreement, can be stressed on the initial syllable. In sum, whereas the primary factor always distinguishes between compounds and phrases, secondary factors can do so in many cases but can also show exceptional behavior. The question now arises what happens if the primary factor is not available for a specific type of complex constructions in a language. In this case, constructions cannot be called compounds or phrases but only compound-like or

3.2 Primary factor and secondary factors 

 43

­phrase-like constructions provided that good reasons to do so exist. That means, “there is […] a cline of more compound-like and less compound-like complexes” (Lieber & Štekauer 2009: 14). The idea to categorize potential factors that are discussed in the context of the compound-phrase distinction is not a new one. Other authors contrast different factors and evaluate their importance as well. In the following, some of these approaches are analyzed and it is shown what aspects they share with my idea and how they differ from my proposal. Ortner & Ortner (1984: 11–39) discuss a total of 16 criteria with regard to their ability to define compounds.37 Overall, the authors distinguish between compounds that fulfil all of the 16 compoundrequirements – the core of compounding – and compounds that do not meet all of the requirements – marginal cases of compounding. In Ortner & Ortner’s (1984: 11–39) analysis, each of the 16 criteria belongs to one of three groups: There are criteria that refer to the compound as a whole, criteria that refer to the compound’s constituents and criteria that describe the behavior of the compound in texts.38 In the first group, they include the following nine requirements. Compounds are typically (1) stressed in a special way, (2) written as one unit, (3) inseparable and (4) semantically non-compositional. Furthermore, they (5) have a binary structure, (6) a single and specialized meaning and (7) do not include sentential categories. Finally, (8) compounds represent constructions with compatible elements (9) whose position cannot be altered as the initial constituent is subordinated to the second constituent. In the second group, the authors mention the following five requirements. (10) The constituents of compounds are autonomous. The first constituent (11) does not carry inflectional markers and (12) is generic. The second constituent serves as the (13) grammatical and (14) semantic head of the compound. In the third group, Ortner & Ortner (1984: 11–39) list the requirements that compounds (15) represent anaphoric islands and (16) can be modified only as a whole. At this point, the individual criteria suggested in Ortner & Ortner (1984: 11–39) are not discussed because most of them were already analyzed in §2.1 or will be examined in detail later. Instead, a general point that goes well with the current work and an aspect that differs from my contribution are mentioned. Ortner & Ortner’s (1984: 11–39) investigation implies the idea that a specific construction can be more or less compound-like. They distinguish compounds that stick

37 For discussion, cf. also Klos (2011: 7–11). 38 In the following, the numbers are supposed to facilitate the recognition of the individual requirements mentioned in Ortner & Ortner (1984: 11–39). Note, however, that I do not list the requirements in the order of the authors.

44 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

to all of the aforementioned requirements from compounds that do not do so. As a consequence, an individual compound can fulfil more requirements than another one and, thus, is a more typical compound than the other one. This idea is particularly relevant for the discussion of AN constructions in English where the primary factor inflectional agreement is not available. Nevertheless, Ortner & Ortner’s (1984: 11–39) work also differs from my proposal because it seems to be the case that they consider all requirements at the same level. I argue, however, that we need to establish different levels and assign one factor the status of the primary factor and other factors the status of secondary factors. A comment in Giegerich (2015: 1) turns out to be quite interesting in this respect (although the author does probably not have the model that my work is based on in mind). Comparing German with English with regard to the compound-phrase distinction, he observes the following: English compound nouns and noun phrases are not reliably distinct, in terms of inflection, stress or whatever else, as they are for example in German, where a phrase such as schwarze Drossel (‘black thrush’) is easily distinguished from a compound such as Schwarzdrossel (‘blackbird’) on a number of levels. (ibid., bold added by MS)

The citation shows that the author believes that different factors that play a role in the compound-phrase distinction constitute individual levels of the demarcation. The idea that I have in mind differs from this proposal in that potential factors do not represent different levels but are located at different levels. That means, for instance, while the primary factor belongs to one level, secondary factors belong to another level where they exist next to other secondary factors. Circularity and unclear definitions are the major problems of Giegerich’s (2015) contribution. Without claiming that a specific factor is superior to all other factors, one cannot define a compound and distinguish it from a phrase. As a consequence, one cannot claim that a particular factor, in my terminology a particular secondary factor, does not help shed light on the separation of compounds and phrases because one does not know when constructions are compounds and when they are phrases. I argue that Giegerich’s (2015: 2) observation that “there does not appear to be a single feature shared by all compounds that is not also present in at least some phrases” (ibid.) is false because if there was no common and defining feature of compounds, it would not make any sense to use the term “compound” at all. As already mentioned, Ortner & Ortner (1984: 11–39) do not place the factors under discussion on different levels. As opposed to them, Meineke (1991), who analyzes their work in detail, argues for a specific hierarchy of criteria that define or characterize compounds. According to the author, some criteria are reliable to define compounds in a consistent manner and are, thus, more v ­ aluable

3.2 Primary factor and secondary factors 

 45

than others. In the introduction of his paper, Meineke (1991: 28) claims that a ­classification of this kind is indispensable because criteria that refer to the ­compound as a whole should be located at a higher level of the hierarchy than criteria that refer to the compound’s constituents or criteria that describe the behavior of the compound in texts. Looking at the criteria that refer to the entire compound, Meineke (1991: 71–76) establishes a hierarchy of the criteria. He claims that the criterion of binarity is located at the highest place in the hierarchy. Below binarity, the author distinguishes between morphological as well as semantic criteria and creates sub-hierarchies of these groups. For instance, in the morphological sub-hierarchy, the upper level contains the criterion of fixed constituent order/subordination of the initial to the non-initial constituent. One level further below, the author places the criterion of inseparability, which, in turn, is situated above stress and orthography.39 Meineke’s (1991) proposal contains a number of aspects that are not quite clear. So, for example, it is unclear why he places stress and orthography in the sub-hierarchy of morphological criteria. Also, the value of the morphological subhierarchy in comparison to the semantic sub-hierarchy remains obscure. Moreover, the exact relationship between criteria that refer to the entire compound and criteria that refer to its constituents or to its behavior in texts should have been stated precisely. However, as in the case of Ortner & Ortner (1984: 11–39), it is not my goal to discuss the role of the criteria in detail at this point because the most important criteria found in the literature were already discussed in §2.1 or will be discussed later. Instead, I would like to point to a useful characteristic of the author’s analysis. Despite its deficiencies, Meineke’s (1991) model incorporates a valuable idea for my present contribution: He regards one criterion, namely the criterion of binarity, as superior in comparison to all other criteria under investigation in his work. The concept of the primary factor, which is a fundamental ingredient of my work, is similar to Meineke’s (1991) highest criterion in his hierarchy. The specific primary factor of my work, namely inflection/ inflectional agreement, however, differs from Meineke’s (1991) highest criterion, namely binarity. There is a third contribution that is relevant for my idea that one primary factor and several secondary factors exist. Investigating nominal determinative compounds, Donalies (2003) aims at establishing a definition of the term “compound” that is valid in the major linguistic families of Europe and, thus, applies to the three languages of my work. She concludes her paper by distinguishing between criteria that clearly separate compounds from other item types and

39 For a different interpretation of Meineke (1991), cf. Klos (2011: 11).

46 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

c­ riteria that do not always characterize compounds. The criteria that are ­examined in her paper can be summarized in the following way. Donalies (2003) states that, first, compounds can be unambiguously differentiated from simplexes because only compounds are made up of more than one constituent. Second, compounds differ from derivatives because all constituents of compounds are, as opposed to derivatives, free morphemes. Third, compounds differ from phrases because, in a compound, the only constituent that carries inflectional markers of the entire compound is the head. Focusing on the distinction between compounds and phrases, Donalies (2003) adds that the two types of constructions cannot be safely separated by the criteria orthography, stress, availability of a linking element, head position, syntactic separability, syntactic accessibility or semantic unity. Since I am only interested in the comparison between compounds and phrases, the demarcations of compounds and simplexes on the one hand and compounds and derivatives on the other hand are ignored. Looking at Donalies (2003) with respect to the compound-phrase distinction, one realizes that inflection represents the only factor that always keeps apart compounds and phrases. All the other factors can, in principle, mirror the distinction but do not always distinguish compounds from phrases. In this respect, Donalies’ (2003) proposal is similar to my contribution: I agree with her that only the factor inflection/inflectional agreement defines the construction types compound and phrase. Although the other factors reflect the separation between compounds and phrases in many cases, I also agree with her that they do not define compounds and phrases. Now, the question arises how one decides which of the potential factors is the primary factor and which are secondary factors. Since we are concerned with the separation between morphological constructions, namely compounds, and syntactic constructions, namely phrases, it is plausible to regard a morphosyntactic factor as the primary factor rather than a, for example, phonological or orthographic one. The procedure is in agreement with several proposals in the literature. Bell (2012: 63), for instance, refers to Payne & Huddleston (2002: 451) and states the following: In fact, as argued by Payne & Huddleston (2002: 451), if phrases and compounds cannot be distinguished on the basis of inflectional morphology, then it is appropriate to turn to syntactic criteria: considerations of semantics, phonology and orthography are secondary since the purported distinction is between morphological and syntactic constructions. (Bell 2012: 63, bold added by MS)

The crucial part of the citation is highlighted. As Donalies (2003), Bell (2012: 63) considers inflection/inflectional agreement the most important factor in the compound-phrase distinction. Zwicky (1986: 58) formulates a thought that is similar to the one just expressed: “My proposals have built on the assumption that the distinction between compounds and phrases is to be made on

3.2 Primary factor and secondary factors 

 47

syntactic and morphological grounds, though the distinction has considerable phonological consequences” (ibid.). That means, phonological phenomena can only mirror the difference between morphological and syntactic constructions but cannot establish the separation. Therefore, following these authors, I consider inflection/inflectional agreement the primary factor in order to distinguish between compounds and phrases. Note that headedness, another morphosyntactic factor, is not appropriate to fulfil the job of the primary factor. Looking back at the examples in (13), one realizes that inflectional agreement has the potential to keep apart compounds and phrases. Headedness, however, does not do so because both the German AN phrase grüner Reiher (‘green heron’) and the German AN compound Grünreiher (green_heron, ‘green heron’) are right-headed. Before examining the primary as well as secondary factors, I would like to point to the fact that I was partly inspired by Optimality Theory when specifying the theoretical approach just outlined. Optimality Theory can be summarized in the following way: This theory emphasizes the role of competition in determining which forms are grammatical and which are not. The crucial question is which of a number of forms that compete for the realization of a particular concept satisfies the principles of grammar better than the others […]. This will be the grammatical structure. This implies that grammatical structures can violate principles of grammar – as long as there is no competitor that does better. […] Such a grammar consists of two components. The first is a device, called GEN(erator), that determines how elements can be combined into a structure. The demands that GEN imposes on structures cannot be violated. (Thus, there remains room for inviolable principles in OT [(= Optimality Theory)]). […] [W]e will assume a minimal GEN component for morphology […] [, which] is distinct from the syntactic one […]. The second component of an OT-grammar is an evaluation metric that chooses from the output of GEN the structure that best satisfies a set of universal constraints. These constraints are all violable. Their impact in a specific language follows from a languageparticular constraint ranking, against which the various candidate structures are evaluated. (Ackema & Neeleman 2005: 285–286) (on Optimality Theory, cf. also Archangeli 1997: 11; Kager 1999: 3–4; McCarthy & Prince 1993/2001a: 1–24, 2001b: 295; Prince & Smolensky 2004: 1–8)

First of all, it must be emphasized that the current book is not supposed to be considered an example of how Optimality Theory can be implemented. Rather, it is only briefly shown that parts of the general idea of Optimality Theory are compatible with the distinction between primary and secondary factors as assumed in my work. A compound or phrase that is defined according to the primary factor and, in addition to that, characterized by a secondary factor can be regarded as more optimal than a compound or phrase that is defined by the primary factor but

48 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

not characterized by a secondary factor. For instance, a German AN ­construction whose constituents are not in agreement and which has non-initial stress is a less optimal compound than a German AN construction whose constituents are not in agreement and which has initial stress. With regard to the two components mentioned in the citation above, namely the GEN and the evaluation metric, we can say the following. If the primary factor is available for a specific construction type (e.g. AN/NA constructions) in a language, it has to be used. That means, we define AN/NA compounds/phrases in German and French as well as NN/NPN/ NPDN compounds/phrases in German, French and English on the basis of inflectional agreement/inflection. For instance, there is no German AN compound with agreement between the adjective and the noun because this is ruled out by its definition. While compounds are created in the morphological GEN, phrases are built in the syntactic one. In English, where agreement between an adjective and a noun does not exist, the GEN does not have an entry for this factor. That means, since the primary factor does not exist for English AN constructions, the principle is not specified in the English grammar (although it is, for instance, in German and French). Hence, not only the evaluation metric, i.e. the second component, but also the GEN, i.e. the first component, can differ across languages. In the evaluation metric, secondary factors are ordered according to their importance in each language. So, for instance, since stress does not play any role to distinguish between compounds and phrases in French, it does not belong to the evaluation metric. In German and English, however, it does.

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement The first structural factor to be investigated in German, French and English is inflection/inflectional agreement. The factor is the primary factor and, if available in a specific language, always distinguishes between the kinds of compounds and phrases under examination in the present contribution. AN/NA constructions are analyzed in §3.3.1, NN/NPN/NPDN constructions in §3.3.2.

3.3.1 Adjective-noun/noun-adjective constructions (Inflectional) agreement refers, generally speaking, to the “matching of feature specifications between two separate elements” (Corbett 2001: 191). Inflectional agreement between an adjective and a noun can refer to agreement in terms of gender, number, case and definiteness (Anderson 1982: 574; Stump 2001: 26–27; Zwicky 1990: 229).

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 49

3.3.1.1 German In German, the adjective of an AN construction only bears an inflectional marker to agree with the noun in terms of gender, number, case and definiteness in phrases but not in compounds (Bell 2011: 139–140; Motsch 2004: 379; Schlücker & Plag 2011: 1540). The contrast was already presented in (13) and is repeated in (14): (14) a. der grüne Reiher der the.M.SG.NOM.DEF ‘the green heron’ b. der Grünreiher the green_heron ‘the green heron’

grün-e green-e.M.SG.NOM.DEF

Reiher heron.M.SG.NOM.DEF

It is assumed that inflectional agreement represents the reliable criterion to distinguish AN compounds from AN phrases in German: While the AN construction in (14a) is a phrase, the AN construction in (14b) is a compound. My analysis is compatible with Booij (2009b: 224, 2010a: 181) who regards inflectional agreement between an adjective and a noun, which defines phrases, and the lack thereof, which defines compounds, as a clear-cut criterion to keep apart the two types of constructions. Generally speaking, inflectional agreement represents a phenomenon operating within phrasal constructions (Anderson 1982: 574). Zwanenburg (1990: 133) claims “that in the unmarked case languages organize their word structure hierarchically in such a way that inflection is peripheral to compounding” (ibid., italics added by MS). Using inflectional agreement as the primary factor to distinguish between AN compounds and phrases, I even go a step further as Zwanenburg (1990: 133) and assume that inflectional agreement never occurs within compounds. Note that my primary factor is compatible with Booij’s (2005: 163–164) idea introduced in §2.1: Focusing on inflectional agreement, we see that syntax cannot manipulate the inner parts of a morphological construction. Inflectional agreement, or “the (syntactic) rule of agreement” (Anderson 1982: 574, cf. also ibid.: 587–588), is regarded as an example of syntactic manipulation, or alteration, that is ruled out to operate within morphological constructions (Fábregas 2016). That means, it is assumed “that the internal structure of words [, specifically compounds,] is not in fact created by syntactic principles” (Anderson 1982: 591). One might now ask how the examples in (15) below are treated. Only the examples in (15a) and (15b), i.e. only the first line, are taken from Ortner & Ortner (1984: 35).

50 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

(15) a. der Hohepriester der the.M.SG.NOM.DEF ‘the high priest’ b. das Hohelied das the.N.SG.NOM.DEF ‘the canticle’

Hoh-e-priester high-e.M.SG.NOM.DEF-priest.M.SG.NOM.DEF

Hoh-e-lied high-e.N.SG.NOM.DEF-song.N.SG.NOM.DEF

First of all, I agree with Ortner & Ortner (1984: 35) who argue that the examples in (15a) and (15b) are almost never used in everyday conversations. Moreover, it has to be added that the example in (15a), as the one in (15b), can, in principle, appear in two different forms: The element between the adjective and the noun can express agreement or not. So, for example, the genitive form of (15a) can be both (16a) and (16b) (Wolfgang U. Dressler p.c.). (16) a. des Hohepriesters des the.M.SG.GEN.DEF ‘of the high priest’ b. des Hohenpriesters des the.M.SG.GEN.DEF ‘of the high priest’

Hoh-e-priesters high-e-priest.M.SG.GEN.DEF

Hoh-en-priesters high-en.M.SG.GEN.DEF-priest.M.SG.GEN.DEF

Although an adjectival suffix is present in both examples, only the suffix in (16b) expresses inflectional agreement. Following my definition of an AN phrase, I consider the example in (16b) a phrase. The interpretation is supported by the fact that the examples above are composed of the stem hoh- that usually appears in German AN phrases but not in AN compounds, which use hoch- instead (Mattissen 2003: 116–117). That means, the German translation of the adjective high has a different form in an AN phrase, where the adjective and the noun agree (cf. 17a), and in an AN compound, where the adjective and the noun do not agree (cf. 17b). (17) a. das hohe Bett das the.N.SG.NOM.DEF ‘the high bed’ b. das Hochbett the high_bed ‘the loft bed’

hoh-e high-e.N.SG.NOM.DEF

Bett bed.N.SG.NOM.DEF

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 51

The different realization of the adjective high can be observed in several ­examples (cf., e.g., Ortner & Ortner 1984: 23). One might claim that (16b) must be a compound because it has two typical compound characteristics, namely stress on the initial element and solid orthography (cf. Section 3.4). This is, however, not permitted for a simple reason: Inflectional agreement, which is the primary factor and available in German, has priority over secondary factors such as stress and orthography. That means, if the primary factor exists in a language, it always has to be applied first in order to define a complex construction as either a compound or a phrase. The example in (16a) cannot be a phrase and has to be regarded as a compound because the adjective and the noun are not in agreement. It might seem odd to call one variant of a complex construction a phrase and the other variant a compound. However, keeping in mind that the examples in (15a) and (15b) are so rare and do not belong to the vocabulary of today’s average native speaker of German, one realizes that the decision turns out to be legitimate because I follow Payne & Huddleston (2002: 450) who “take the view […] that the existence of borderline cases does not provide a reason for abandoning a distinction that can be recognised in a great range of clear cases” (ibid.). Before continuing, I would like to point to a general aspect of German AN compounds. As outlined in Eisenberg (2006: 227), not all adjectives can be used in AN compounds. The author mentions the following limitations. The compounds but not the glosses/translations are taken from the aforementioned contribution. Adjectives in AN compounds are mostly simplex or have a pseudo-suffix, e.g. eigen (‘own’) in Eigentor (own_goal, ‘own goal’). Complex adjectives can only be used in a productive way if the adjective is non-native and has the suffix -al or -iv, e.g. lokal (‘local’) in Lokalzeitung (local_newspaper, ‘local newspaper’) and relativ (‘relative’) in Relativsatz (relative_sentence, ‘relative clause’). Note that Schlücker (2012: 10–11, 2014: 29–33) gives two further non-native adjectives that can be used in German AN compounds, namely those with the suffixes -är (cf. Primärliteratur, primary_literature, ‘primary literature’) and -ar (cf. Polareis, polar_ice, ‘polar ice’); however, she also admits that other types of complex adjectives, e.g. those with the native suffix -ig (cf. Fertighaus, finished_house, ‘prefabricated house’), can occur in German AN compounds (cf. also Barz 1996: 134).40 Superlatives (cf. Niedrigstpreis, lowest_price, ‘lowest price’) and participles (cf. Gebrauchtmöbel, used_furniture, ‘used furniture’) occasionally occur in compounds (Barz 1996: 134; Eisenberg 2006: 227).41 As opposed to adjectives of AN compounds, adjectives of AN phrases do not face any restriction in German (Schlücker 2014: 199).

40  The three examples, but not the glosses/translations, are taken from Schlücker (2014: 29, 31). 41  The two examples, but not the glosses/translations, are taken from Eisenberg (2006: 226).

52 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

In sum, since only AN compounds but not AN phrases show certain restrictions with respect to the adjectives that appear in these constructions, the current contribution primarily focuses on monomorphemic adjectives, which can definitely appear in both compounds and phrases (cf. also Schuster 2016: 4). 3.3.1.2 French The primary factor, inflectional agreement, also distinguishes between AN/NA compounds and phrases in French. The complex construction in (18a) is considered a phrase because the adjective and the noun are in agreement. Note that, in French, inflectional agreement between an adjective and a noun only concerns gender and number (Bouchard 2002: 71; Schane 1970: 290; Stump 2016: 8; Treffers-Daller 2005: 487). Looking at the adjective and the noun, one observes that there is no difference between a definite and an indefinite construction. Case is not relevant either (Van Goethem 2009: 249). Therefore, in contrast to the German phrases listed earlier, only gender and number are indicated. The complex construction in (18b) is a compound because there is no agreement between the constituents. (18) a. la grande mère la grand-e the.F.SG big-e.F.SG ‘the big mother’ b. la grand-mère the big-mother ‘the grandmother’

mère mother.F.SG

However, inflectional agreement between an adjective and a noun in French requires some further comments because it differs from German, where agreement is always expressed by means of inflectional suffixes – both in spoken and written language. First of all, one has to distinguish between the orthographic and the phonetic form of an AN/NA construction. In written language, an additional letter, typically an -s, attaches to the singular form of both the adjective and the noun of an AN/NA phrase in order to create the plural form of the phrase (Lübke 2007: 96–97). So, for instance, (19) represents the plural form of (18a). (19) les grandes mères les grand-e-s the.PL big-e.F-s.PL ‘the big mothers’

mère-s mother.F-s.PL

However, as Lang & Perez (2004: 31) point out, an additional letter can also attach to the adjective of an AN compound if the latter is pluralized (even if this

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 53

is not obligatory). Note that the noun must be marked for plural anyway, in both ­compounds and phrases. Furthermore, although the difference between the singular and the plural form of an AN/NA phrase is expressed in written language, there is usually no difference between the two forms in spoken language (cf. Spence 1969: 23).42 Therefore, since I focus on spoken language, number agreement cannot be used to differentiate AN/NA compounds and phrases in French in many cases. Concentrating on spoken language, we understand why the adjective of an AN compound can be marked with a written plural suffix. By our definition of AN compounding, agreement between the adjective and the noun is impossible. However, in spoken French, there is no difference between the uninflected singular and the plural form and, thus, we can consider the construction to be a compound. Overall, gender agreement is the only feature that remains in order to decide whether a construction represents a compound or a phrase. French gender agreement, however, requires some further remarks as well (cf. also Lübke 2007: 96–100). First, the singular masculine form of an adjective is often identical to the basic form of that adjective both in written and spoken language (e.g. vert [vɛʀ], ‘green’).43 The term “basic form” refers to the adjective without an inflectional suffix. In these cases, the existence of a zero morpheme that expresses agreement between the adjective and the noun is assumed. A zero morpheme also exists in the plural of these forms; however, it only occurs in spoken language because an additional (unpronounced) letter expresses the plural in written language. Note that the feminine form of the adjective (verte) has an additional letter, namely the final e, or an additional speech sound as it is pronounced [vɛʀt].44 It follows that French AN compounds cannot be masculine but only feminine. One cannot distinguish between the adjectival base and the masculine form in several adjectives. That means, masculine AN/NA constructions are regarded as either phrases or compounds. Considering them compounds is not at all an attractive solution because, then, a simple descriptive unit such as pull vert (sweater green, ‘green sweater’) would be a compound. Hence, examples such as the latter one are treated as phrases. This implies that I argue that grand-père (big-father, ‘grandfather’) is a phrase but grand-mère (big-mother, ‘grandmother’) is a compound because we find agreement between the adjective and the noun in the first but not in the second example. The solution seems to be bizarre at first glance; however,

42 Systematic exceptions are adjectives whose singular masculine form contains the suffix -al (e.g. régional, ‘regional’). The plural masculine form ends in the suffix -aux (e.g. régionaux) (cf. Lübke 2007: 98). In these cases, one can hear the difference as the ultimate syllable of the singular form is [nal] but that of the plural form is [no] (cf. Robert 2008: 2165). 43 For the pronunciation, cf. Robert (2008: 2698). 44 For the pronunciation, cf. Robert (2008: 2698).

54 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

keeping in mind that only a handful of AN compounds exist in French, I maintain it.45, 46 Second, it is also possible that the feminine form of an adjective is simply the basic form of the adjective (e.g. rouge, ‘red’). In these cases, the feminine and the masculine form of the adjective are identical in both spoken and written language. Here, it is assumed that the adjective, together with a noun, can only form phrases but not compounds. That means, I always consider these adjectives to be in agreement with the noun. Third, in some cases, the adjective has a different stem both in spoken and written language depending on whether its masculine (e.g. beau [bo], ‘beautiful’) or feminine form (e.g. belle [bɛl], ‘beautiful’) is used.47 Note that, even though no suffix is added to these forms, the adjective and the noun in phrases such as beau-frère (beautiful-brother, ‘brother-in-law’) are considered to be in agreement because gender is expressed through the stems. In sum, although the contrast between phrases and compounds exists in French, Treffers-Daller (2005: 487) states that French normally uses AN/NA constructions where the adjective and the noun agree. That means, French has just a few AN compounds. 3.3.1.3 English Since inflectional suffixes expressing gender, number, case or definiteness never attach to adjectives in English AN constructions, adjectives and nouns cannot be considered to be in agreement (Bell 2011: 142–143; Lapointe 1985: 212). Therefore, the primary factor inflectional agreement cannot be used to distinguish AN compounds from AN phrases in this language. In this respect, English differs from a language like German, where AN compounds and AN phrases can be separated on the basis of inflectional agreement (Gaeta 2015: 124; Schlücker 2012: 1–2, 2013: 123, 2014: 268). Therefore, the terms “compound” and “phrase” are avoided when referring to English AN constructions. Instead, the terms “CoLiCos” and “PhraLiCos” are used (cf. §3.2). I come back to these terms. At this point, note that my approach is located between two extremes: On the one hand, Spencer (2003) argues that AN compounding does not exist at all in English. He considers examples that are sometimes referred to as compounds to be lexicalized phrases (cf. also Booij 2002: 315; Hüning 2010: 211; Van Goethem 2009: 248). On the other hand, Lieber (1992b: 80, 2005: 378) regards English AN compounding as a productive phenomenon.

45 For examples, cf. Lang & Perez (2004: 30–31). 46 Note that NA compounding is also possible in French. However, the only example that I found was exocentric and, thus, not relevant for my discussion. 47 For the pronunciation, cf. Robert (2008: 235).

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 55

As is shown in the following sections/chapters, I argue that AN constructions are either compound- or phrase-like.

3.3.2 Noun-noun/noun-preposition-noun/noun-preposition-determiner-noun constructions With respect to NN and NPN/NPDN constructions, the primary factor inflection is used in the following way. In a compound, features of the whole complex construction, i.e. gender, number and/or case, are derived from and, thus, identical to the features of the right noun of the complex construction. This is in agreement with Höhle (1982: 89) and Lieber (1983: 258–259). Moreover, if a determiner is used, it has to agree only with the right constituent in terms of gender, number and/or case. If a modifier precedes the complex construction, it also agrees with the right constituent of a compound. In a phrase, the left noun expresses the aforementioned features of the entire complex construction and a determiner and/or a modifier, if they occur at all, has/have to agree only with the left noun for the features specified above. Overall, looking at inflectional agreement/inflection, one realizes that AN/NA and NN/NPN/NPDN constructions share the following characteristic: The syntax can only cause changes within phrases but not within compounds (cf. §3.3.1.1; cf. also Anderson 1982: 591; Booij 2005: 163–164). 3.3.2.1 German The example in (20) is a compound because the right noun determines the abovenamed grammatical features gender (cf. 20a–c), number (cf. 20b) and case (cf. 20c) of the entire construction. (20) a. das Müllauto das Müll-auto the.N.SG.NOM trash.M.SG.NOM-car.N.SG.NOM ‘the garbage truck’ b. die Müllautos die Müll-auto-s the.N.PL.NOM trash.M.SG.NOM-car.N.NOM-s.PL ‘the garbage trucks’ c.  des Müllautos   des Müll-auto-s   the.N.SG.GEN trash.M.SG.NOM-car.N.SG-s.GEN   ‘of the garbage truck’

56 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

At this point, it is important to note that the left noun of a compound can, by coincidence, also have the same gender as the whole compound and/or be inflected for number. Crucially, however, if the complex construction is a compound, the features expressed in the left noun do not determine the features of the entire complex construction. Therefore, the construction in (21a), whose left noun appears in the plural, is also a compound because the (gender and) number of the entire complex construction is/are derived from and expressed on the right constituent. Another example of a compound containing the word Männer is listed in (21b). In this case, the gender of the two nouns differs and, thus, there is clear evidence that the compound takes its gender from the right noun. The example and the translation, i.e. the first and the fourth line, of (21b) are taken from Lieber (1981: 14, determiners added by MS). (21) a. der Männertag der Männer-tag the.M.SG.NOM man.M.PL.NOM/GEN-day.M.SG.NOM ‘the Men’s Day/Father’s Day (which takes place on Ascension Day in Germany)’ b. die Männerkleidung die Männer-kleidung the.F.SG.NOM man.M.PL.NOM/GEN-dress.F.SG.NOM ‘the man’s dress’ In (22), it is shown that case behaves in a similar way. Although the left noun can be argued to be in the genitive form (Donalies 2005: 55–56), the case of the whole compound is reflected in the agreement between the determiner and the right constituent: Both the determiner and the right noun are in nominative case in (22). Only the first line, i.e. only the example itself, of (22) is taken from Donalies (2005: 55, determiner added by MS). (22) die Sohnespflicht die Sohn-es-pflicht the.F.SG.NOM son.M.SG-es.GEN-obligation.F.SG.NOM ‘duty of the son to his parents (determined by law)’48 Sometimes, however, it cannot be argued that the left noun is inflected; instead, a linking element is used. Note that linking elements can be regarded as elements

48 The definition is taken from Bibliographisches Institut GmbH (2016), where it is given in German in the following way: “[rechtlich festgelegte] Pflicht des Sohnes seinen Eltern gegenüber” (ibid., square brackets in original).

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 57

without semantic content that simply serve to connect the constituents of ­compounds, at least from a synchronic perspective (Anderson 1992: 296; Bauer 2009: 346; Donalies 2005: 54; Fabb 2001: 81; Lieber & Štekauer 2009: 13–14; Nicoladis 2002a: 48). In (23), the -en- has to be regarded as a linking element because the plural form of the noun Storch (‘stork’) is Störche rather than *Storchen. Note that the -en- is not a suffix expressing case either (cf. Bibliographisches Institut GmbH 2016; cf. also Anderson 1992: 296 for a different example). (23) das Storchenpaar das Storch-en-paar the.N.SG.NOM stork.M.SG.NOM-en-couple.N.SG.NOM ‘the stork couple’ Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that we cannot always tell whether a compound contains a linking element or rather a suffix attached to the left noun. (24) is an example (das Bärenhaus): In (24a), -en- is treated as a suffix expressing plurality. In (24b), it is considered a suffix expressing genitive case. In (24c), it is regarded as a suffix expressing both plurality and genitive case. Finally, in (24d), it is analyzed as a linking element. (24) a. das Bär-en-haus the.N.SG.NOM bear.M.NOM-en.PL-house.N.SG.NOM ‘the bears house’ b. das Bär-en-haus the.N.SG.NOM bear.M.SG-en.GEN-house.N.SG.NOM ‘the bear’s house’ c. das Bär-en-haus the.N.SG.NOM bear.M-en.PL.GEN-house.N.SG.NOM ‘the bears’ house’ d. das Bär-en-haus the.N.SG.NOM bear.M.SG.NOM-en-house.N.SG.NOM The discussion above shows that not only the right but also the left noun in German NN compounds can be specified for grammatical features. However, the gender, number and case of the entire compound are, by definition, not derived from the left but only from the right noun. Moreover, the absence or presence of a linking element does not have an influence on the compound status either. Having defined and discussed German NN compounds, I briefly mention examples that are phrases and differ from the compounds discussed so far. First, two nouns can occur next to each other but do not form a compound. The example in (25a) is not a compound because the gender, number and case of the whole complex construction are derived from the left noun. Also, the determiner only

58 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

agrees with the left noun with respect to all of these features. Second, as shown in (25b), two nouns can be connected by a preposition. Such a complex construction represents a phrase rather than a compound for the same reasons.49 (25) a. der Sack Birnen the.M.SG.NOM sack.M.SG.NOM pear.F.PL.NOM ‘the sack filled with pears’ b. der Bus aus Holz the.M.SG.NOM bus.M.SG.NOM of wood.N.SG.NOM ‘the wooden bus’ In sum, the left noun in German NN compounds can be inflected or can be followed by a linking element. These aspects are, however, irrelevant for the definition of the NN compound. In a NN compound, the gender, number and case of the right constituent determine the gender, number and case of the whole NN construction. Moreover, only the right noun has to agree with determiners or modifiers – if there are any – in terms of these features. 3.3.2.2 French Applying the primary factor inflection to French NPN constructions, I consider them phrases because the gender and number of the entire complex constructions are derived from the left nouns. This is in agreement with Booij (2012: 85–86) and Zwanenburg (1990: 136, 1992: 224–225) who regard the inflectional behavior of these complex constructions as an indication of their phrasal origin. Note, however, that French differs in an important respect from German. Guevara & Scalise (2009: 124) report the opinion of a reviewer who reminds us that one often sees plural suffixes in French but does not hear them (cf. also Spence 1969: 23). Arnaud & Renner (2014: 24) add to this point that one only hears a contrast between singular and plural if the plural form is irregular. Hence, the example in (26) is chosen to illustrate why NPN constructions are considered phrases: First, the plural of the complex construction in (26a) is derived from and expressed on the left noun (cf. 26b). One clearly sees and hears a difference between the ­singular form cheval de bataille, which is pronounced [ʃ(ə)val də batɑj], and the plural form chevaux de bataille, which is pronounced [ʃ(ə)vo də batɑj].50 Second, as the determiner in (26a) shows, the gender of the construction is also derived from the left noun. Third, if another item modifies the entire complex ­construction, it has to agree only with the left noun (cf. 26c). Looking at (26c),

49 Similar examples are given in Haspelmath (2002: 155) and Motsch (1970: 208, 1981: 213). 50 For the pronunciation, cf. Robert (2008: 229, 414, 615).

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 59

note that the feminine form of the adjective blanc [blɑ̃ ], i.e. blanche [blɑ̃ ʃ], differs from the masculine one in both written and spoken language.51 (26) a. le cheval de bataille the.M.SG horse.M.SG of battle.F.SG ‘the battle horse’ b. les chevaux de bataille the.PL horse.M.PL of battle.F.SG ‘the battle horses’ c. les chevaux de bataille blancs the.PL horse.M.PL of battle.F.SG white.M.PL ‘the white battle horses’ As mentioned above, the difference between the singular and the plural form of a noun is often not realized phonetically. If this is the case, we have to rely on gender alone. Since the gender of NPN constructions is always derived from the left noun, these constructions are phrases. Concentrating on the element between two nouns in a French complex construction, one can actually observe two different cases described in Gunkel & Zifonun (2009: 213) and ten Hacken (2013: 103–104).52 One option is that a preposition like de (‘of’) appears between the two nouns (cf. 27a; cf. also 26). As stated in the introduction, these complex constructions are called NPN constructions (noun-preposition-noun constructions). Alternatively, a preposition like de (‘of’) can combine with a definite article. In the latter case, the preposition-article combination agrees with the right noun in terms of number and gender (cf. 27b). These complex constructions are called NPDN constructions (noun-prepositiondeterminer-noun constructions). Both (27a) and (27b) are regarded as phrases because the genders (and numbers) of the entire complex constructions are derived from the left nouns and because the initial determiners agree with the left nouns for these features.53 (27) a. le club de nuit the.M.SG club.M.SG of night.F.SG ‘the night club’ b. la robe du soir the.F.SG dress.F.SG of.the.M.SG evening.M.SG ‘the evening gown’

51 For the pronunciation, cf. Robert (2008: 261). 52 For a similar point in Italian, another Romance language, cf. Semenza & Mondini (2006: 92). 53 Other examples are given in Gunkel & Zifonun (2009: 213).

60 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

In general, Gunkel & Zifonun (2009: 213) see a functional difference between the two types of complex constructions given in (27). Examples à la (27b) contain “(classifying) PP-modifiers” (ibid.) and are “syntactically well-formed while nevertheless being non-referential” (ibid.). Despite the existence of examples like the one in (27b), the authors add that “in classifying function it is more common for a PP-modifier in French to lack an internal article” (ibid.) (cf. 27a). ten Hacken (2013: 103–104) expresses a similar point by claiming that NPN constructions are usually generic and refer to particular concepts. However, he also admits that exceptions to the rule exist. Note that Béchade (1992: 141) goes in a different direction. He claims that a NPDN construction is interpreted generically, as can be seen in (28a), where the final noun does not refer to a specific group of letters. According to the author, the generic meaning becomes evident, for instance, by the fact that we cannot substitute the article by a possessive pronoun (cf. 28b). Only the examples in (28), i.e. only the first line of (28a) and (28b), are taken from Béchade (1992: 141, initial determiners added by MS). (28) a. la boîte the.F.SG box.F.SG ‘the mailbox’ b. *la boîte the.F.SG box.F.SG ‘the box of my letters

aux of.the.PL à of

mes my.PL

lettres letter.F.PL lettres letter.F.PL

Both NPN and NPDN constructions can be used in a classifying and generic sense. In Italian, another Romance language, the situation is similar. On the one hand, Masini (2009: 261) claims that more Italian NPN constructions appear in a common dictionary than NPDN constructions. Items that occur in a dictionary are more likely to have a classifying function than items that do not appear in a dictionary. On the other hand, Semenza & Mondini (2006: 92), who refer to Dardano (1978), as well as Mondini et al. (2005: 179) state that the selection of either NPN or NPDN constructions is usually unpredictable in Italian. Therefore, it can be kept in mind that both NPN and NPDN constructions can be used with a classifying function. Semantic-functional aspects such as classification are not further discussed here but in Chapter 4. For now, it is enough to say that both NPN and NPDN constructions are, independent of their specific function, considered phrases because grammatical features of the constructions as wholes are derived from the initial nouns. Note that NN constructions exist in French as well. Applying the primary factor inflection as defined earlier to a NN construction of this language, I consider it to be a phrase if the gender of the entire construction is derived from the left noun (cf. 29a, only first line taken from Zwanenburg 1992: 224, determiner added by MS). Again, since the focus is on spoken language, number can only be decisive if the left noun has an irregular plural that phonetically differs from the

3.3 Primary factor: Inflection/inflectional agreement 

 61

singular form (cf. 29b–c). However, we are not very concerned with French NN constructions because they are relatively uncommon (cf. Chapter 1). Looking at the combination of two nouns in French, we focus on NPN/NPDN constructions. (29) a. le timbre-poste le timbre-poste the.M.SG stamp.M.SG-postal.service.F.SG ‘the postage stamp’ b. le cheval sauteur the.M.SG horse.M.SG jumper.M.SG ‘the jumper’ c. les chevaux sauteur the.PL horse.M.PL jumper.M.SG ‘the jumpers’ 3.3.2.3 English An English NN construction is a compound if the number of the entire complex construction is derived from and expressed on the right noun (cf. 30a). If the complex construction is not in nominative case, the right noun also represents the case of the whole construction (cf. 30b). My assumption goes well with Lieber (1983: 258–259). (30) a. the soccer fields b. the soccer field’s (owner) As was shown for the German data earlier, the left noun in a NN compound can also be inflected; however, it does not provide number and case of the whole compound. Selkirk (1982: 52) gives the example in (31a) and argues that the suffix -s does not signal plurality of the compound. Case behaves in a similar way, as shown in the example in (31b), which is taken from Lieber (1992b: 84, 2009: 369). (31) a. parks commissioner b. children’s hour Note, however, as pointed out by Lieber (2009: 369), Marchand (1969: 27) analyzes elements as those in (31) as linking elements. The issue is not discussed in any more detail here because, as Lieber (2009: 369) puts it, “neither internal inflection nor the use of linking elements plays any strong role in English compounding” (ibid.).54 What is important is the fact that the complex constructions

54 For further examples, cf. Adams (2001: 80); Bauer (2009: 347); Selkirk (1982: 52); for ­discussion, cf. Lieber & Štekauer (2009: 13).

62 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

are ­compounds because the number and case of the complex constructions are derived from and shown on the right noun. Furthermore, I disagree with authors who consider all English right-headed NN constructions to be of syntactic nature (Liberman & Sproat 1992: 133; Spencer 2003) but agree with Olsen (2000b: 55) who regards them as “morphological compounds” (ibid.). I also agree with Bell (2011: 138) and Bell & Plag (2012: 487–488) who go in a similar direction as Olsen (2000b: 55). Finally, a NPN construction in English is treated as a phrase because the number of the entire complex construction is derived from the left noun (cf. declarations of love). However, as stated earlier, I focus on NN compounds, and not on NPN phrases, in English.

3.3.3 Summary In the present contribution, inflectional agreement/inflection is the primary factor that distinguishes between compounds and phrases. The primary factor defines compounds and phrases and always separates them. Other factors, namely secondary factors, can mirror the distinction but do not establish it. With regard to AN/NA constructions, the adjective and noun of a compound do not agree. In a phrase, they agree. The primary factor inflectional agreement is available to keep apart compounds and phrases of the type AN/NA in German and French but not in English. German and French slightly differ with respect to the features of agreement. Whereas the adjective and the noun of a German phrase agree for gender, number, case and definiteness, the adjective and the noun of a French phrase only agree in terms of gender. Number agreement can also be expressed in French; however, it is often not perceivable in spoken language. In the case of NN/NPN/NPDN constructions, a complex is called compound or phrase if the grammatical features of the complex construction are derived from the right noun or from the left noun respectively. Moreover, apart from English, the determiner of a compound or phrase agrees with the right noun or with the left noun respectively.

3.4 Secondary factors Secondary factors, which cannot define but might characterize compounds and phrases in the three languages under investigation, are the topic of the present section.

3.4 Secondary factors 

 63

3.4.1 Headedness The analysis of headedness requires, first of all, a definition of the term “head”. In their discussion of headedness, Guevara & Scalise (2009: 111–112) distinguish a compound’s formal head from its semantic head in the following way: While the formal head has all formal characteristics with the entire compound in common and passes them on to the compound, e.g. the part of speech, the semantic head provides aspects of meaning and represents the hypernym of the compound (cf. also Bauer 2009: 348; Di Sciullo & Williams 1987: 24; Williams 1981: 247). Therefore, compounds can be used to create different subcategories of their head (Li 1971: 57). Clark (1980: 5, 2016: 291) argues that even young children use compounds to subcategorize concepts. Clark, Gelman & Lane (1985) found that children were already capable of subcategorizing lexical concepts by using new compounds at around three years of age. Gelman, Wilcox & Clark (1989: Experiment 1) taught children from 35 to 71 months of age new items – either single words (e.g. zav) or compounds (e.g. zav-flower) – in combination with pictures that showed the respective objects (e.g. a flower) and, finally, interviewed the children on the material previously taught. Investigating how well the two item types were used to subordinate lexical concepts, the authors showed that the children responded significantly more accurately if they had learned a compound in comparison to the examples where they had learned a single noun. Therefore, compounds are particularly appropriate to subcategorize new concepts. All this goes well with Allen’s (1978: 105) The IS A Condition, which expresses the idea that the whole compound represents a subcategory of its head and reads as follows 55:

The IS A Condition: In the compound

[ [….]X [….]Y]Z’ Z “IS A” Y. (ibid.)56

It is important to note, as Guevara & Scalise (2009: 112) do, that the head of an endocentric compound functions as both the formal and the semantic head. Since we are only concerned with endocentric constructions, we do not have to distinguish between the terms “formal head” and “semantic head” in the following analysis. Overall, the head and the compound have “semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties” (Dressler 2006: 31) in common.57 Having defined the

55 All principles presented in §3.4.1 are directly cited from the respective author. 56 Note that the author uses once Z’ and once Z. 57 For discussion, cf. Scalise & Fábregas (2010: 109–113).

64 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

term “head”, we can now turn to its position within complex constructions. In this context, the following principle has repeatedly been cited in the literature.58 Righthand Head Rule (RHR): In morphology, we define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the righthand member of that word. (Williams 1981: 248)

The rule goes well with Allen’s (1978: 105) The IS A Condition as well as with Marchand’s (1969: 54) claim “that the determinant precedes the determinatum” (ibid.) in compounds in English. Moreover, keeping in mind the definition of the term “head” presented above, one realizes that the rule harmonizes with the following principle: Feature Percolation Convention (Convention IV: Compounds): In compound words in English features from the righthand stem are percolated up to the branching node dominating the stems. (Lieber 1981: 54; cf. also Lieber 1983: 253)

Note, however, that Selkirk (1982: 19–21) suggests a modified version of the Righthand Head Rule in order to explain apparent English counterexamples, e.g. verbparticle constructions. She proposes that “the rightmost category in Xn with the feature complex X will be the head” (ibid.: 21), i.e. the first element from the right that shares specific aspects with the complex construction serves as the head.59 A similar idea is presented in Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 26). Crucially, Selkirk (1982: 21) restricts her analysis to English and notes that other languages, e.g. French, can diverge from this pattern (cf. also Katamba & Stonham 2006: 328–329). In this respect, it is similar to Lieber’s Feature Percolation Convention. We realize, however, that Selkirk (1982: 21) and Katamba & Stonham (2006: 328–329) regard several left-headed constructions in French as compounds, which I consider phrases (cf. §3.3). They agree with Lieber (1992a: 65), Jarema, Busson, Nikolova, Tsapkini & Libben (1999: 363) as well as Schpak-Dolt (2010: 137). If they are considered phrases and not compounds, the Righthand Head Rule cannot be applied to them because the latter refers to morphological constructions only. Therefore, using the definition of the term “compound” presented in §3.3, one observes that head position can be used to characterize compounds in German and French as well: Overall, if compounds are available in the language, endocentric AN and NN compounds are right-headed in German, French and English (cf. also Barz 1996: 139; Höhle 1982: 104; Lieber 1992b: 80; Pörings & Schmitz 2003: 60).

58 For discussion, cf. Katamba & Stonham (2006: 324–328); Lieber (1992a: 30–32); Selkirk (1982: 20–22). 59 For discussion, cf. Lieber (1992a: 30–32).

3.4 Secondary factors 

 65

Approaching the topic from the other side, i.e. by considering phrases, one notices that the situation is different. As shown in Ackema & Neeleman (2004: 31–32), while morphological constructions of a language are right-headed, syntactic constructions of the same language are either right- or left-headed. A similar proposal is presented in Borer (1991: 122–123) who claims that the morphological head, as specified in Williams’ (1981: 248) Righthand Head Rule, differs from the syntactic one, “a primitive defined as X0” (Borer 1991: 123), in that its location represents its main criterion. The author proposes that head position does not play an equally decisive role in a syntactic structure and gives the example of a non-verbal element that occurs on the right side of a verb phrase in a head-final language without being the head of this particular verb phrase (cf. also Sadler & Arnold 1994: 207–208). Indeed, this is what is observed in the three languages under investigation here (cf. §3.3). German AN phrases are right-headed (Barz 1996: 139) but NN as well as NPN phrases are left-headed. In French, both left- and rightheaded AN/NA phrases exist (Dethloff & Wagner 2007: 68). NPN/NPDN as well as NN phrases are left-headed in French. However, overall, left-headed phrases clearly outnumber right-headed ones in French – a fact that might explain why left-headedness is regarded by authors (Di Sciullo 2005: 19–20; Zwanenburg 1992: 224–225) as an indication of a construction’s phrasal nature. Finally, in English, AN constructions are right-headed but NPN phrases are left-headed. As in French, left-headedness is considered to signal a syntactic origin here (Di Sciullo 2005: 19; Kastovsky 2006: 209). Researchers have not only discussed the position of heads in morphological and syntactic constructions but have also tried to differentiate morphological and syntactic heads in other respects. Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 23–24) distinguish morphological from syntactic heads in the following way. A syntactic head is situated one bar level below the phrase itself and “is the only daughter of the phrase that is not a maximal projection” (ibid.: 23). In contrast, “the daughters of a compound are not intrinsically distinct from one another” (ibid.; cf. also Olsen 1986: 41; Selkirk 1982: 19–20; Williams 1981: 248). The approach differs from aspects that have been considered so far and from aspects that will be considered later in the present contribution because it seeks a contrast between morphological and syntactic constructions in deep structure rather than in surface structure. I ignore these approaches and continue focusing on “what we see or hear” rather than on how complex constructions might be analyzed in X-bar theory. In sum, having examined compounds and phrases in German, French and English, we can say that, if the respective constructions are available in a language, endocentric nominal compounds containing an adjective and a noun or two nouns are right-headed. In contrast, some of the phrases under investigation

66 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

are right-headed but others are left-headed. Strictly speaking, only phrases ­composed of an adjective and a noun can be right- or left-headed. NN, NPN and NPDN phrases are always left-headed.

3.4.2 Stress The present section discusses stress and its role in the compound-phrase distinction in the three languages under investigation. I consider a syllable to be stressed if it carries primary stress, i.e. if it is the most prominent syllable of all syllables of a linguistic unit (Cruttenden 1997: 17; Giegerich 1992: 250). Syllables that do not bear primary stress can be unstressed or have non-primary stress, e.g. secondary stress (Cruttenden 1997: 17–18; Giegerich 1992: 250). It is clear that deviations from the “normal” or neutral stress pattern exist, which can have different reasons. Information structure is one potential reason and refers to the following (cf. also Krifka 2008): […] [W]ith the term information structure we understand aspects of natural language that help speakers to take into consideration the addressee’s current information state, and hence to facilitate the flow of communication. The view behind this is that communication can be seen as continuous change of the common ground, i.e., of the information that is mutually known to be shared in communication; speakers plan their contributions with respect to the common ground. (Krifka & Musan 2012: 1)

In English, for example, stress shifts can be used to indicate that the common ground is modified. Consider the example in (32). Note that stressed syllables are always written in capital letters in my own examples. (32) Speaker A: I was shopping yesterday. Speaker B: Really, what did you buy? Speaker A: I bought a GREEN shirt. Speaker B: Wow, you didn’t get another BLACK one. Imagine that speaker B has always seen speaker A wearing black shirts. Therefore, the two speakers know that speaker A likes black shirts. However, speaker A but not speaker B also knows that speaker A likes shirts of different colors as well. By placing the primary stress of the AN combination on green, speaker A introduces this information, which did not belong to the common ground before. We can say that green is in focus, i.e. “the presence of alternatives [such as black] that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions” (ibid.: 7) is indicated.

3.4 Secondary factors 

 67

Prosodic adjustments can further express contrasts and/or distinguish given information, i.e. “something that is present in the immediate linguistic context” (ibid.: 22), from new information, i.e. something that “has not been present in the immediate linguistic context before” (ibid.) (Bell & Plag 2012: 486; Matthews 1974: 191–192; Plag, Kunter, Lappe & Braun 2008: 772; cf. also Finegan 2015: 280). In (33), for instance, emphasis is put on blue because it represents new information  – as opposed to car, which has been used before – and because it is ­contrasted with another color. (33) Speaker A: Brian has a red CAR. Speaker B: That’s true but he also has a BLUE car. Overall, stress distribution in languages such as English may vary according to information structure (cf. also Chen 2012; Winkler 2012). Apart from information structure, the sentence type and/or position in which complex constructions occur have an influence on stress. For instance, if a construction is placed in sentence-final position in a yes-no question, the rising intonation of the question affects the usual stress pattern of the complex differently in comparison to the lowering intonation of statement-final position (Morrill 2012). Furthermore, individual language users are another reason for stress variation (Bell & Plag 2012: 499–500; Kunter 2011: 174–201; Plag et al. 2008: 787). On the one hand, looking at language production, we can say that one and the same person can speak differently from one situation to the next (within-speaker variation) and that one person differs from another one in her/his speech (between-speaker variation). That means, for example, the stress pattern of complex constructions can vary across situations or speakers. On the other hand, concentrating on speech comprehension, we sometimes observe that language users differ in their perception. That means, individuals can differ in their judgments on how complex items are stressed. In the current section, stress variation that is related to sentence type/ position, individual language users or adjustments of the information structure is ignored. Instead, the section focuses on general tendencies, analyzes the role of stress in complex constructions in isolation and/or in neutral contexts (cf. also Bauer 1983: 102–103). We can now look at the role of stress in the context of the compound-phrase distinction in the three languages. French is discussed first because it differs from the two Germanic languages in this respect. It is important to note that there is no lexical stress in French and, thus, stress does not contribute to the differentiation between compounds and phrases in this language (Arnaud & Renner 2014: 16; Spence 1969: 23; Van Goethem 2009: 242). Researchers examined the consequences of the absence of lexical stress in French in several studies.

68 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

Dupoux, Pallier, Sebastián & Mehler (1997) compared the perception of stress in French and Spanish, which has lexical stress. The following two observations from their first and second experiments are interesting for our present purpose: On the one hand, the authors found that native speakers of Spanish were better than French subjects at discriminating between different stress patterns. On the other hand, French participants were better than Spanish ones at ignoring prosodic/suprasegmental differences and focusing on segmental differences only. As shown by Dupoux, Sebastián-Gallés, Navarrete & Peperkamp (2008), the perception of stress is even deficient in native speakers of French whose knowledge of Spanish has reached an advanced level. Other studies, e.g. Peperkamp, Vendelin & Dupoux (2010) and Vroomen, Tuomainen & de Gelder (1998: Experiment 3), confirm that French native speakers do not make much use of suprasegmental information. Taken together, one knows both from a theoretical and from an empirical perspective that lexical stress is not available in French. Therefore, stress does not contribute anything to the compound-phrase distinction in this language. The situation is different in the two Germanic languages. The analysis starts with German. While AN compounds usually carry stress on the initial constituent (cf. 34a), AN phrases favor stress on the non-initial constituent (cf. 34b) (Motsch 2004: 379; Schlücker 2013: 123, 2014: 23). NN compounds prefer initial stress as well (cf. 34c) (Neef 2009: 393) and, thus, differ from NPN (cf. 34d) or NN phrases (cf. 34e), which favor non-initial stress. Berg (2012: 10–11) provides empirical evidence and shows that all of the 500 German NN compounds analyzed in his study carry stress on the initial constituent. (34) a. ROTfuchs red_fox ‘red fox’ b. roter FUCHS red fox ‘red fox’ c. POSTauto mail_car ‘post bus’ d. Hütte aus LEHM hut of clay ‘hut made of clay’ e. Glas BIER glass beer ‘glass filled with beer’

3.4 Secondary factors 

 69

Note that a few German compounds are not stressed on the initial c­ onstituent (Eisenberg 2002: 354). Although their prosodic structure is unusual for ­compounds, they are compounds as defined in §3.3 on the basis of inflectional ­agreement/inflection. An example is given in (35). Only the example (first line) is taken from Schlücker (2014: 24). (35) Schlechtwétter60 bad_weather ‘bad weather’ We now consider English. The objective is to discuss whether English NN compounds as well as AN constructions are typically characterized by a specific level of stress, i.e. either by initial or non-initial stress. On the one hand, it is suggested that stress distribution in (German and English) compounds and phrases relies on the same rules (Jacobs 1993: 99, 1999: 64). On the other hand, several principles state the opposite by emphasizing that compounds and phrases differ with respect to their stress pattern. In his seminal work, Bloomfield (1933/1935: 228) regards stress as the decisive criterion to keep apart NN compounds and NN phrases. He argues that the two constructions ice-cream, which has initial stress, and ice cream, which is equally stressed on both syllables, are identical in terms of semantics but represent different types of constructions: While the first construction is a compound, the second one is a phrase. At this point, a general remark on the difference between initial and non-initial stress must be made. Strictly speaking, these terms can be defined in two ways. On the one hand, one can simply say that a construction has initial stress if its first constituent is the most prominent one, i.e. carries the primary stress of the entire construction, or non-initial stress if its second constituent is the most prominent one (cf., e.g., Hall & Moore 1997: 256). The distinction is reflected in several well-known principles that are introduced below (e.g. Chomsky & Halle 1968: 94; Giegerich 1992: 253–257; Vogel & Raimy 2002: 228). On the other hand, one can distinguish the terms “stress” and “accent” as in the autosegmental-metrical framework and proceed in the following way (Gussenhoven 2004: 277–278; Kunter 2011: 12–13; cf. also Gordon 2014: 96; Plag 2003: 6). Compounds and phrases are composed of more than one lexeme. Each of these lexemes, in turn, has a stressed syllable (or more than one), i.e. a

60 Note that evaluative adjectives such as gut (‘good’), schlecht (‘bad’) or schön (‘nice’) are rather uncommon constituents of AN compounds. The reason for this observation is probably the fact that compounds usually represent kinds, e.g. sub-kinds of their head (for discussion, cf. Chapter 4), and that evaluative adjectives are not as appropriate as, for instance, dimensional or color adjectives to establish kinds.

70 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

syllable whose duration is longer and/or whose intensity is greater than the duration/intensity of other syllables. Combining two lexemes to form a compound or a phrase requires us to introduce the notion of accent: A syllable is accented in comparison to another syllable if its fundamental frequency (F0) is higher than that of the other syllable. In this approach, while compound prominence means that a construction has an accent only on the first constituent, constructions with phrasal prominence carry an accent on both the first and the second constituent. If one intended to follow this tradition and to continue using the terms “initial stress” and “non-initial stress”, one would have to say that a construction had initial stress if it was accented on the first constituent or non-initial stress if it was accented on both constituents. Note, however, that Gordon (2014: 92) claims that “[i]t is typically the case that a phrasal pitch-accent falls on the rightmost content word under default semantic and pragmatic conditions” (ibid.). Even if the latter citation uses, as the second approach, the notion of accent, it seems to be more compatible with the first approach mentioned above. Moreover, although the two approaches differ with respect to the interpretation of phrasal prominence, they share the idea that compound prominence means that the initial constituent is more prominent than the second one. I follow the first approach outlined above and maximize the difference between compound and phrasal stress, i.e. I consider initial stress to be prominence on the first constituent and non-initial stress to be prominence on the second constituent. Apart from Bloomfield, other authors who rely on stress to distinguish NN compounds from NN phrases are Liberman & Prince (1977: 257) and Marchand (1969: 24–29) (for the idea that compounds have initial stress, cf. also Ladd 1996: 51–52). More recently, two other principles were presented that go well with the aforementioned traditional accounts61: Phrasal Prominence Rule: In a pair of sister nodes [N1 N2]P , where P is a phrasal category, N2 is strong. (Giegerich 1992: 253) Compound Prominence Rule: In a pair of sister nodes [N1 N2]L, where L is a lexical category, N2 is strong if it branches above the word level. (ibid.: 256)62

61 The principles are directly cited from the author. Square brackets are in the original. 62 The Phrasal Prominence Rule and the Compound Prominence Rule are similar to the Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) and the Compound Stress Rule (CSR) as presented in Liberman & Prince (1977: 257) respectively. These rules read as follows: “In a configuration [CA BC]: a. NSR: If C is a phrasal category, B is strong. b. CSR: If C is a lexical category, B is strong if it branches” (ibid., square brackets in original).

3.4 Secondary factors 

 71

According to Giegerich (1992: 256–257), “the Phrasal Prominence Rule […] ­invariably makes the phrase-final word the most prominent one, while […] [the Compound Prominence Rule] never assigns an S [(= strong)] to the final word in a compound” (ibid.). However, since some problematic cases exist, the author emphasizes that the prominence pattern alone is not in itself an indicator of compound and phrase status (so that every construction with final stress is a phrase and every one with nonfinal stress a compound). If that were so then ˌLondon ˈRoad would be a syntactic phrase and ˈLondon ˌStreet a compound, ˌChristmas ˈpudding a phrase and ˈChristmas ˌcake a compound – hardly a categorisation that could be justified on syntactic grounds! (ibid.: 258).

The thought expressed in the citation is also present in a later contribution by the same author. Giegerich (2004) compares complement-head constructions, e.g. tea spoon, with attribute-head constructions, e.g. steel bridge, of the type NN in English. According to the author, whereas the former bear initial stress and are lexical, the latter tend to carry non-initial stress and are syntactic.63 He adds, however, that syntactic constructions can – but do not have to – develop initial stress through lexicalization. In general, indicating lexicalization is a possible function of initial stress in complex constructions in English (cf. also Adams 1973: 59). Overall, Giegerich (2004) argues that lexical constructions can have initial or non-initial stress. In contrast, non-lexical syntactic constructions always have non-initial stress. Giegerich’s (2004) proposal represents an advancement in comparison to another contribution that contains a similar idea. Cinque (1993: 281) argues that the head of an English NN construction carries stress if the nonhead functions as a modifier/specifier; however, the nonhead bears stress if it is a complement. To illustrate the idea, he uses the example toy factory. On the one hand, factory is stressed if toy is the modifier/specifier of factory (“‘a factory that is a toy’” (ibid.)). On the other hand, toy is stressed if it is the complement of factory (“‘a factory producing toys’” (ibid.)). Although Cinque (1993: 281) is able to explain the aforementioned examples, his account does not hold for constructions such as fruit juice, which is mentioned in Giegerich (2004: 12) as an example of an attribute-head combination with initial stress and is originally taken from Liberman & Sproat (1992: 142), where the initial noun serves as

63 Note that Giegerich (2004) prefers the terms “fore-stress” and “end-stress”. I favor the terms “initial stress” and “non-initial stress” instead. Other terms that are used are, for instance, “initial stress”/“final stress” (Fudge 1984), “forestress”/“afterstress” (Zwicky 1986), “nonfinal stress”/“final stress” (Giegerich 1992: 258) and “lefthand stress”/“righthand stress” (Olsen 2000b).

72 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

a modifier/­specifier and is stressed at the same time. Lexicalization, as suggested in Giegerich (2004), is a possible reason for this observation. However, the idea that initial stress in English modifier-head compounds of the form NN results from lexicalization has been questioned. Plag (2006: 159) examined stress placement in a reading activity and found that English native speakers pronounced novel modifier-head compounds not only with non-initial stress – as would be predicted on the basis of Giegerich (2004) – but also with initial stress (for a similar result, cf. Zubizarreta, He & Jonckheere 2013: 195). Since novel compounds are not lexicalized, Plag (2006: 159) rejects the proposal that initial stress of modifier-head compounds is based on lexicalization. If we keep in mind that the typical and unmarked stress pattern of English NN compounds is initial stress (Fudge 1984: 144; Zwicky 1986: 51), Plag’s (2006: 159) result is not surprising. For instance, Liberman & Sproat (1992: 134) suggest that approximately 75 percent of NN compounds carry initial stress. Plag, Kunter & Lappe (2007: 207–208) even report that almost 90 percent of the NN compounds they examined were stressed in this way. Although Plag & Kunter (2010: 357) only found about 67 percent of NN compounds with initial stress in one corpus, they report almost 90 percent and more than 94 percent for two other corpora. Similarly, almost 94 percent of the English NN compounds investigated in Berg (2012: 11) had initial stress. Clark et al. (1985: 89) state that 95 percent of the English NN compounds uttered by children, who were between 27 and 52 months of age, in their examination had the main stress on the initial syllable. Therefore, Plag’s (2006: 159) finding might be a kind of frequency effect. Since initial stress is the normal and by far the most frequent stress pattern of English NN compounds, it might be argued that language users access it more easily. The idea is compatible with empirical evidence from Schiller, Fikkert & Levelt (2004: 237–238) who found that a frequent stress pattern accelerated the naming process in comparison to a less frequent one. Overall, Plag’s (2006: 159) finding is evidence against Giegerich’s (2004) proposal that initial stress in English NN modifier-head compounds results from lexicalization. In two other studies, initial stress could be shown to signal lexicalization, but not only for modifier-head compounds. Plag et al. (2007) as well as Plag et al. (2008) considered both frequency and orthography to signal lexicalization. That means, first, if the frequencies of two compounds differed, the more frequent one was regarded as the more lexicalized one. Second, if the constituents of a compound were separated by a space or hyphen, the compound was considered to be less lexicalized than a compound written as one unit. The analysis in Plag et al. (2007: 212) revealed that the frequency of English NN compounds with initial stress did not significantly differ from the frequency of NN compounds with noninitial stress. In Plag et al. (2008: 776), however, compounds of high frequency

3.4 Secondary factors 

 73

tended to carry initial stress (cf. also Bell & Plag 2013: 141–144). Looking at orthography, both studies revealed that compounds that were written as one unit were more likely to have initial stress than compounds with a space between the constituents (Plag et al. 2007: 214–215, 2008: 778). The authors emphasize, however, that lexicalization effects did not only occur for modifier-head compounds but also for argument-head compounds. That means, the lexicalization effect was of a general nature. The conclusion, however, contradicts the above-mentioned fact from Plag (2006: 159). For now, we keep the idea in mind and see later whether it can be applied to English AN constructions. Investigating constructions composed of an adjective and a noun in English is much more promising in this respect because their normal stress pattern is not initial stress – as in the case of NN compounds – but non-initial stress (Giegerich 1992: 252; Liberman & Sproat 1992: 134; Sadler & Arnold 1994: 216; Zwicky 1986: 51). Coming back to Giegerich, we see that the author mentions the point introduced above in another paper but slightly modifies the terminology: “The reality seems to be that phrases invariably have end-stress while both stress patterns are available to compounds” (Giegerich 2009a: 185, italics added by MS). Keeping in mind my definition of the term NN compound given in §3.3, I agree with Giegerich in the latter aspect. NN compounds can be stressed on the initial syllable or not. However, I also disagree with him because I would not simply interchange the terms “lexical construction” and “compound”. As argued in §2.2.2, both compounds, i.e., in my opinion, morphological constructions, and phrases, i.e. syntactic constructions, can be lexical/lexicalized. Related to this point is the question how exactly Giegerich (2004) calls syntactic constructions that have become lexical/lexicalized. Are they lexical and, in addition to that, still syntactic? Are they lexical and non-syntactic? Have they become compounds? If so, what would the term “compound” refer to in this respect – to a lexical construction, to a morphological construction or to a lexical morphological construction? For now, one can state two things. First, NN compounds can have initial or non-initial stress. Second, initial stress possibly signals lexicalization. I continue discussing the first point now and come back to the second one when analyzing English AN constructions. The idea that NN compounds are not necessarily stressed on the initial syllable is examined in other works as well. Olsen (2000b) considers all English NN constructions compounds, which are “not subject to the dictates of X’ theory and hence […] morphological in nature” (ibid.: 59). According to her, stress variations are based on semantic differences. Initial stress appears in primary compounds if the semantic relation between the compound members can be derived from the meaning of one element. For this case, she gives the example space scientists, where the relation ‘study’ can be derived from the element scientist. In ­contrast,

74 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

typical relations of constructions with non-initial stress are ­ conjunction, ­modification (temporal, locative), a made-of relation and predication. Such a kind of relation becomes evident in summer night, an example of temporal modification.64 Semantic relations between the individual compound constituents have also been investigated empirically. While some authors report only weak empirical evidence (Plag 2006: 161–164; Plag et al. 2007: 215–221), other studies clearly support the idea that specific semantic relations trigger a particular stress pattern (Bell & Plag 2012: 506–507; Plag et al. 2008: 778–782). For instance, Bell & Plag (2012: 506–507) found that a locative relation within a complex construction increased the likelihood of non-initial stress. Overall, a mixed picture emerges: Although one has to admit that counterexamples to the generalizations exist (Fudge 1984: 144–146; Liberman & Sproat 1992: 133; Olsen 2000b: 67–68), several claims have been confirmed. Bell & Plag (2012, 2013) also assume that English NN compounds can have initial or non-initial stress. They argue that the stress pattern of the entire compound depends on the informativity of the individual compound members. Note that the authors consider different definitions of informativity. A constituent is informative (1) if its meaning is precise, i.e., e.g., if the constituent does not have many different interpretations, or (2) if it is located in one position (either the initial or the non-initial position) in just a few or no other complex NN constructions. Moreover, if the constituent C has a high positional family size, the constituent C’ turns out to be more informative relative to C. Put the other way around, if the constituent C has a small positional family size, the constituent C’ turns out to be less informative relative to C. One of their findings was that the likelihood of initial stress increased if the degree of informativity of the final noun decreased (Bell & Plag 2013: 141–143). In addition to that, the final noun was more likely to be stressed if the informativity of the first noun decreased (ibid.). The analysis of the authors goes well with an observation described in Ladd (1984: 260). He reflects upon the question why complex names containing the head Street have initial stress, while constructions using Avenue have non-initial stress. According to the author, constructions with Street are not stressed on the head because Street ­represents the item with the lowest degree of preciseness and markedness. Therefore, the non-head constituent plays a more important role in these constructions and carries stress. Zwicky (1986: 59) expresses a similar thought.

64 Fudge (1984: 144–146) and Zwicky (1986: 54–57) also give overviews and examples of English NN compounds that carry non-initial stress.

3.4 Secondary factors 

 75

So far, we have discussed two kinds of approaches where all NN constructions in English are treated as compounds: The fact that some compounds have initial stress but others non-initial stress is explained either on the basis of ­semantic ­relations or on the basis of informativity. There is a third kind of explanation, namely analogy, which was already investigated in Schmerling (1971: 56–57). Recently, it was extensively studied by Plag and colleagues (Arndt-Lappe 2011; Bell 2011; Bell & Plag 2013; Plag 2006, 2010, 2014: 216–217; Plag & Kunter 2010; Plag et al. 2007, 2008). The idea is simple: “[I]n an analogical system […] existing (i.e. lexicalized) compounds influence new (i.e. nonlexicalized) compounds to behave similarly” (Plag 2006: 147). The constituent family, defined as “the set of compounds that share the first, or the second, constituent with a given compound” (Plag 2010: 244), plays the key role in analogical models. A constituent family can have a specific bias, namely a constituent family bias, which “is the tendency of a given constituent family to favor a particular kind of stress” (ibid.). Empirical evidence for the idea that the stress pattern of an English NN compound depends on the constituent family comes from Plag (2006: 164–167, 2010) and Plag et al. (2007: 221–225). Overall, analogy certainly has an influence on the stress pattern of a novel NN compound in English. Imagine, however, a novel compound is created and contains two constituents that have never been used before in any compound. At this point, the constituent family cannot determine the stress pattern of the new compound. Therefore, analogical processes can only operate if at least one compound exists that shares a constituent with the novel compound to be created. In sum, we have discussed three kinds of approaches that share the idea that English NN constructions are morphological compounds – independent of their stress pattern. They differ, however, with respect to their explanation for why various stress patterns occur at all. In the first approach, the semantic relation between the two nouns is considered to be responsible for the stress pattern of a NN compound. In the second approach, informativity is claimed to play the crucial role when stress is assigned to an English NN compound. Finally, in the third approach, stress variation is explained by referring to analogy. All proposals explain a good amount of the data that we find. Nevertheless, at least the first and the third approach are not without problems. Overall, even though theories as those just mentioned aim at explaining why English NN compounds are stressed in the way they are, they do not contribute to the compound-phrase distinction. Take approaches discussing semantic relations between the compound members. As Bauer (1998: 71) points out, “it is [, for instance,] not clear that the ‘made of’ relation is in any sense less lexical than the ‘used for’ relation” (ibid.). That means, even if we accept that the stress pattern of English NN compounds depends on the semantic relations between the compound constituents,

76 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

the informativity of the constituents and analogy, we cannot say that some NN constructions are compounds and others are phrases. Stress, as a secondary factor, only characterizes compounds/phrases but does not define them. What is ­important is the fact that I agree with authors such as Olsen (2000b) because I consider all English NN constructions to be compounds and morphological constructions. This is a fundamental assumption that differs from claims found in other works. Liberman & Sproat (1992) state that “[p]osition 1 modifiers – compound modifiers – are […] adjunctions to N0, whereas position 2 modifiers – phrasal modifiers – are daughters of N1, modifying a right sister that is either N1 or N0” (ibid.: 132). Moreover, the authors “agree that constructions dominated by N0 are words, but […] see no good evidence for assuming that they should be considered anything other than syntactic constructions in English” (ibid.: 133). All in all, I believe that Liberman & Sproat’s (1992) proposal is problematic and agree with Bell (2011: 160–161) who states the following: Liberman and Sproat (1992) […] regard all NNs as syntactic constructions in which the stress pattern reflects the level at which the modifier is attached to the head. However, this distinction is not correlated with any other criteria, and so the argument is essentially circular: left stress indicates attachment at N0 (word level), but the only distinguishing characteristic of such attachment is that it produces left stress. (Bell 2011: 160–161).

I reject the syntactic treatment of English NN constructions and, instead, regard them as morphological compounds for the reasons discussed in §3.3. We now look at AN constructions in English, which have not been investigated as extensively as NN compounds of this language (Bauer et al. 2013: 448). From §3.3 we know that inflectional agreement, the primary factor, cannot be referred to in order to distinguish AN compounds from AN phrases in English. Therefore, no AN construction in English is called compound or phrase. Instead, they are called CoLiCos and PhraLiCos if good reasons to do so are found. This terminological peculiarity enables me to discuss the topic in a non-circular way and originates in the belief that no other factor can fulfil the job of our primary factor. Put differently, there is no primary factor that distinguishes AN compounds from AN phrases in English and we can only regard certain constructions to be compound-like and others phrase-like.65 Stress cannot function as the primary factor. A short excursion to English NN constructions illustrates why this is the case. Fudge (1984: 136), Lees (1963/1968: 180), Levi (1978: 42) and Plag (2003: 139)

65  Note that Su (1999) also uses the terms “compound-like” and “phrase-like” when ­investigating constructions in Chinese.

3.4 Secondary factors 

 77

contrast complex constructions that differ in their stress pattern, although their meaning structure is identical, e.g. apple pie, which is stressed on pie, versus apple cake, which is stressed on apple, from Lees (1963/1968: 180). Plag (2003: 139) emphasizes that these complex constructions do not mirror other ­noticeable differences except stress, i.e. they contain the same parts of speech and the head is located at the right position. Therefore, “there seems to be no independent argument” (ibid.) in order to regard one construction as a compound and the other one as a phrase. Even though stress is not the primary factor, there are two good reasons why it can be used as a secondary factor and, additionally, why it might justify the terms “CoLiCos” and “PhraLiCos”. First, as stated earlier, we know from German that AN compounds, defined by the primary factor, are normally stressed on the initial constituent and that AN phrases usually have non-initial stress (cf. §3.3.1.1 & §3.4.2). Keeping in mind that both German and English are West Germanic languages that use “the basic word-initial stress system characteristic of Germanic languages” (Pereltsvaig 2012: 10)66, we see that it makes sense to consider AN constructions with initial stress to be CoLiCos and AN constructions with noninitial stress to be PhraLiCos. A second reason to do so comes from English NN compounds. As shown in §3.3.2.3, they can be clearly defined on the basis of the primary factor. Assuming that at least around 67 percent (Plag & Kunter 2010: 357), approximately 75 percent (Liberman & Sproat 1992: 134), almost 90 percent (Plag & Kunter 2010: 357; Plag et al. 2007: 207–208) or even around 94 percent (Berg 2012: 11; Plag & Kunter 2010: 357) of NN compounds in English are stressed on the initial syllable, we realize again that it makes sense to regard initial stress in English AN constructions as compound-like but non-initial stress as phraselike. Overall, a specific stress pattern cannot define compounds and phrases but it often characterizes them. Lieber & Štekauer (2009: 11) express a similar thought by stating that “left-hand stress is often a mark of compoundhood, but certainly cannot be taken as either a necessary or a sufficient condition for distinguishing a compound from a phrase” (ibid.) (cf. also Lieber 1992b: 83). As already shown earlier, the idea that compounds prefer initial stress and phrases non-initial stress is not a new one. Chomsky & Halle (1968: 15–17) distinguish between the Nuclear Stress Rule and the Compound Rule, which are claimed to explain, for instance, why black board is a phrase but blackboard a compound. The two rules can be summarized as follows: “The Nuclear Stress

66 Items with non-initial stress might be traced back to the influence of non-Germanic ­languages (Fudge 1984: 4; Pereltsvaig 2012: 10).

78 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

Rule assigns primary stress to the rightmost sonority peak in the string under consideration […], the Compound Rule assigns primary stress to the leftmost sonority peak in the string under consideration” (ibid.: 94). A similar idea is presented in Vogel & Raimy (2002: 228). We already know from the discussion on NN constructions that compounds and phrases in English have been argued to differ in terms of stress. Authors who go in such a direction often argue that different types of complex constructions obey specific rules. So, for instance, we discussed Giegerich (1992: 252–257) and Marchand (1969: 24–29) earlier but can now cite them again because they do not only analyze NN but also AN constructions. Similarly, Chomsky & Halle (1968: 15–17) illustrate their rules by using the two aforementioned AN constructions but argue that the rules apply to other nominal as well as non-nominal construction types as well. Finally, there is another idea that we already know from our discussion of NN constructions. Giegerich (2005a: 586–589) claims that AN compounds can have either initial or non-initial stress; in contrast, AN phrases always have noninitial stress. Note that the author emphasizes the fact that initial stress always signals compoundhood/lexical status (for the same point on English NN compounds, cf. Giegerich 2009b: 8, 2015: 63; Bauer et al. 2013: 434); it is only non-initial stress that does not behave in a uniform manner and can occur in both compounds/lexical constructions and phrases/non-lexical constructions. Therefore, it seems to be the case that some authors simply believe that different kinds of complex constructions, namely NN and AN constructions, follow the same pattern. Comparing NN and AN constructions in English, however, we realized and will realize that this procedure is problematic. Having discussed NN constructions above, I continue focusing on AN constructions in English and claim that the role of stress is in some respects similar to but in other respects different from NN constructions. As opposed to NN constructions, the majority of AN constructions in English has non-initial stress, which has been regarded as the normal stress pattern of this type of complex constructions (Giegerich 1992: 252; Zwicky 1986: 51). According to Liberman & Sproat (1992: 134), less than ten percent of English AN constructions bear initial stress. A typical explanation for the fact that some constructions are stressed on the initial syllable is their compound status. Apart from the linguists mentioned above, Ladd (1984: 257–259) goes in this direction. The author distinguishes normal, i.e. unmarked, stress from marked stress and states that marked stress can have two reasons: Either it expresses a contrast or it signals compoundhood. For the purpose of the present contribution, stress shifts based on contrast are ignored. Therefore, we are left with unmarked/normal stress, which is noninitial stress, and marked/compound stress, which is initial stress. Ladd’s (1984:

3.4 Secondary factors 

 79

257) central claim “is that compound stress represents the deaccenting of the head of the compound” (ibid.; cf. also Eisenberg 2002: 353). He explains why the deaccentuation of the head is necessary in the following way: In green hóuse, for example, nothing special is signaled about the interpretation of house in this context; house is more precisely described, but not newly subcategorized. In gréenhouse, on the other hand, house is deaccented to signal that it contributes only part of what is necessary for identifying the new category of things named by the compound as a whole. (Ladd 1984: 259)

The author clearly expresses the thought that compounds, defined by initial stress, name categories and phrases, defined by non-initial stress, simply describe objects. Fudge (1984: 146) formulates a similar proposal that, however, contains a crucial difference. He states that an “[a]djective followed by [a] noun normally forms a full noun phrase, with final stress. This may sometimes be transformed into a more close-knit compound noun, which is usually signalled by initial stress” (ibid., bold added by MS). The decisive aspect in the citation is that initial stress usually but not always characterizes compounds. I agree with the author because the statement goes well with my distinction between the primary and a secondary factor. Although initial stress does not define compounds, it represents a typical feature of them (in Germanic languages). Therefore, I call AN constructions with initial stress CoLiCos, at least for now. Despite the little difference between Ladd (1984: 257–259) and Fudge (1984: 146), both contributions resemble each other with respect to an important issue. Fudge (1984: 146) claims that compounds, which mostly have initial stress, are semantically “more narrowly specified than […] what might be expected from the phrase adj. + noun” (ibid.). The proposal is similar to Ladd’s (1984: 259) citation given above: The two works contain the idea that initial stress goes well with semantic non-compositionality and non-initial stress harmonizes with semantic compositionality. In other words, while AN constructions whose meaning is a combination of the meanings of the adjective and the noun tend to have non-initial stress, AN constructions whose meaning is more than just the sum of the meanings of the adjective and the noun are typically stressed on the initial constituent. These or similar points also occur in other contributions. Kingdon (1958: 156) argues that constructions with “a specialized meaning” (ibid.) take initial stress in many cases. Zubizarreta et al. (2013: 186) point to the fact that compounds with a non-compositional meaning usually have initial stress. Giegerich (2009b: 6) claims that “endstress favours transparent over non-transparent semantics” (ibid.). Although

80 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

he mentions this point in a discussion on NN c­ onstructions, it goes well with the suggestions made by the authors above. Note that Giegerich (2009b, 2015) argues most of the time that non-initial stress goes better with semantic transparency than with semantic intransparency (Giegerich 2009b: 6–7, 2015: 60). However, based on the following direct citations from the aforementioned author, I do not think that he distinguishes between the terms “transparency” and “compositionality”. This kind of attribution may in many cases […] be regarded as ascriptive; certainly it is semantically straightforward and transparent, in the sense that the meaning can be comprehensively inferred from the attribute-head relationship and the meanings of its participants. (Giegerich 2009b: 7) I want to conclude the present section by arguing that in associative AdjNs, the semantic relationship between the adjective and the head noun is not as predictable – in the sense of transparency, or compositionality – as we would expect it to be if such AdjNs were formed in the syntax. (Giegerich 2015: 31, bold added by MS) Non-compositionality is associated with the lexicon in that such semantic behaviour occurs with some, but by no means with all, members of lexical categories: it is perfectly possible for a morphologically complex form to be semantically transparent. (ibid.: 34, bold added by MS) While there clearly is evidence suggesting that in attribution, non-compositional semantics favours fore-stress while end-stress favours transparency, both features being more phrase-like, there is also a clear tendency for end-stress favouring ascriptive attribution while associativeness […] prefers fore-stress. (ibid.: 62, bold added by MS) Associative attribution simply has more room for specific, non-inferable (and in that sense non-transparent) interpretations than ascriptive attribution has. I will argue in the final chapter that associative attribution naturally gives rise to listing; and this connection in turn establishes a link in the present argument between associativeness and semantic non-compositionality as features in favour of fore-stress. (ibid.: 63, bold added by MS)

The definition of semantic transparency given in the first citation above actually represents, to my mind, the definition of semantic compositionality as given below. Whereas the former notion [, i.e. semantic transparency,] refers to the relationship between compound and constituent meanings, the latter [, i.e. semantic compositionality,] refers to the possibility of determining the whole-word meaning from the constituent meanings. The example of the word blackbird […] illustrated that transparent words are not necessarily compositional. (Sandra 1990: 550)

3.4 Secondary factors 

 81

[S]emantic transparency is not the same as compositionality. Although the semantic ­relation between transparent compounds and their constituents might be easy to establish, the meaning of the compound as a whole is often more than the meaning of its component words. (Zwitserlood 1994: 366)

As the two latter citations show, a complex construction is only semantically compositional if its meaning is the sum of the constituent meanings. If this is not the case, it can still be transparent if the meanings of the individual constituents contribute to the meaning of the entire construction but it cannot be compositional. In Giegerich’s first citation presented above, a construction is transparent if one constituent, the attribute, describes the other constituent, the head. That means, only the constituent meanings, but not a specific semantic relationship in the sense of R (cf. Chapter 4), are relevant for the interpretation of the construction. Using the citations by Sandra (1990: 550) as well as Zwitserlood (1994: 366), I believe that this is relevant if one analyzes the compositionality, and not the transparency, of a construction. Furthermore, looking at Giegerich’s four other citations, I think that he uses the terms “transparency” and “compositionality” interchangeably. I disagree with Giegerich and distinguish the two terms. However, assuming that the definition in Giegerich’s first citation refers to semantic compositionality, I agree with him that compositionality harmonizes with non-initial stress (cf. his fourth citation above). If we look at the idea from the other side, I accept his thought expressed in the fourth and fifth citations that semantic non-compositionality goes better with initial stress. So, overall, a connection between initial stress and semantic non-compositionality might be assumed. Note that, instead of establishing this connection for AN constructions only, it can be considered to be of a more general nature. As mentioned before, NN compounds are typically stressed on the initial syllable in English. If one now follows the idea “that nouns are conceptually richer and more complex than adjectives” (Murphy 1990: 266), one sees why NN compounds favor initial stress. Combining a modifying and a modified noun in a meaningful way seems to be more demanding than combining an adjective and a noun in most cases (ibid.). Put differently, NN compounds are semantically non-compositional because the meaning relationship between the two constituents always has to be known in order to comprehend the meaning of the entire construction (Bronk, Zwitserlood & Bölte 2013: 10). Comparing AN and NN constructions, one observes that the former are typically compositional and the latter are non-compositional (Weiskopf 2007: 162). Furthermore, as stated earlier, whereas AN constructions normally bear stress on the second constituent in English, NN compounds tend to carry primary stress on the first noun. Combining the last two findings, one realizes

82 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

that the connection between initial stress and semantic non-­compositionality as well as between non-initial stress and semantic ­compositionality seems to be real.67 We now turn to another phenomenon that we were already confronted with when discussing English NN compounds, namely the potential connection between initial stress and lexicalization. The connection is also suggested for AN constructions of this language (Bauer 2004: 19; Giegerich 2004: 16–17; Kingdon 1958: 156). First of all, note that the idea that initial stress mirrors diachronic lexicalization has been questioned. Klinge (2009: 173–174) mentions the examples polar bear and red wine that have been part of the English language for centuries but still carry non-initial stress. Although it remains unclear why some lexicalized English AN constructions do not have initial stress, Klinge’s (2009: 173–174) criticism is problematic because Giegerich (2004: 16) does not state that lexicalized constructions always have initial stress, or fore-stress, in his terms. Instead, he says that AN constructions can “be capable of lexicalization and then be able to adopt fore-stress” (ibid.). Similarly, Kingdon (1958: 156) only speaks of “a tendency for the noun to lose its stress” (ibid.). The relation between initial stress and lexicalization – as well as the relation between initial stress and semantic noncompositionality as discussed above – in English AN constructions are a crucial part of the psycholinguistic experiments to be reported later. For the moment, we keep in mind that initial stress, semantic non-compositionality and lexicalization

67 Synthetic compounds are actually ignored in the current work; nevertheless, consider the following problem (Holden Härtl p.c.). It might be argued that synthetic compounds such as beer drinker, which bear initial stress, are semantically compositional. This would refute the aforementioned interaction between stress and compositionality. However, one should keep in mind two facts. First, many synthetic compounds exist that are clearly non-compositional: Sunday driver refers to a person who drives very slowly rather than to someone who drives on Sunday only, a whistle-blower is not someone who blows a whistle and a town crier is not everyone who cries in a town. Numerous other synthetic compounds exist that are non-compositional and stressed on the initial noun; all these constructions are in line with the idea that initial stress signals non-compositionality. Second, several initially stressed synthetic compounds that seem to be clearly compositional can actually be argued to be non-compositional as well. Bus driver, at least in its lexicalized sense, does not refer to anyone who might potentially drive a bus; instead, it refers to a person whose job is to bring people from one place to another with a bus. A beer drinker does (usually) not only drink beer but also sparkling water, milk or other drinks; a beer drinker simply prefers beer over other alcoholic drinks and/or drinks beer on a regular basis. If we take these hidden semantic aspects of synthetic compounds into consideration, we see that they are typically not compositional and do not per se disprove the interaction of stress and semantic compositionality in English.

3.5 Further structural factors 

 83

seem to be connected to each other. We will see whether the connection is also reflected cognitively. Before concentrating on cognitive aspects, however, I would like to conclude the current section and look at further structural as well as semantic-functional aspects of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos in the three languages under investigation. The present section can be summarized in the following way. In French, stress does not have to be considered at all in the context of the compound-phrase distinction. In German, stress usually mirrors the distinction between compounds and phrases established on the basis of inflectional agreement/inflection: While AN and NN compounds normally have initial stress, AN, NN and NPN phrases usually have non-initial stress. In English, most of the NN compounds have initial stress but some show non-initial stress. It is not entirely clear why some NN compounds of this language take the unexpected stress pattern, i.e. non-initial stress. Researchers have tried to explain it in several ways. Some consider the semantic relationship between the nouns of a compound to have an influence on the stress pattern, others believe that the informativity of the constituents plays the crucial role in stress distribution. In the third approach, analogy represents the explanation. Most of the approaches have their advantages as well as their drawbacks. I leave this question open to future research. What is crucial for the purpose of the present work is that English NN constructions, as defined in §3.3, are compounds, which have initial stress in the majority of cases. So, initial stress is a typical marker of English compounds and, hence, it is not surprising that NPN phrases do not have initial stress. Looking at AN constructions in English, one realizes that the situation is overall more complicated. Since the primary factor, inflectional agreement, does not exist to distinguish between compounds and phrases, I argue that one should not call AN constructions compounds and phrases but rather CoLiCos and PhraLiCos provided that there are good reasons to do so. I think there are good reasons to do so and use the term “CoLiCos” to refer to constructions with initial stress (Chapter 6) or to constructions with initial stress that are, additionally, semantically non-compositional (Chapter 7). In contrast, PhraLiCos are AN constructions with non-initial stress (Chapter 6) or AN constructions with non-initial stress that are, additionally, semantically compositional (Chapter 7).

3.5 Further structural factors This section aims at summarizing some other minor structural factors that have also been suggested to characterize compounds and phrases.

84 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

3.5.1 Orthography Since the present contribution primarily focuses on spoken language, orthography is not considered to be as important as stress and will be ignored beyond this subsection. This goes well with ten Hacken’s (1994: 4) opinion; he states that “the writing system of a language is not part of the language system” (ibid.). Similarly, Bauer (1998: 68–69) claims that “spoken language is, in theory at least, independent of any orthography” (ibid.). Nonetheless, he also emphasizes that written language could be argued to mirror linguistic tendencies and should, therefore, be taken into account. In German, while a space typically separates the individual constituents of AN phrases, one usually writes AN as well as NN compounds as single orthographic units (Bell 2011: 139; Hüning 2010: 200; Klinge 2009: 160). This is shown in examples that I already cited, e.g. in the AN phrase grüner Reiher (‘green heron’), the AN compound Grünreiher (green_heron, ‘green heron’) as well as the NN compound Müllauto (trash_car, ‘garbage truck’). Schlücker (2012: 1) regards the aforementioned observation as a general tendency of German compounds and phrases. Therefore, it can be added that a space normally interrupts the elements of NPN and NN phrases – as shown in the phrases Hütte aus Lehm (hut of clay, ‘hut made of clay’) and Glas Bier (glass beer, ‘glass filled with beer’) mentioned earlier. Note, however, that compounds sometimes appear in one of the three following forms, which are mentioned in Simoska (1999: 166).68 First, compounds can be hyphenated. In this case, the initial letters of both constituents are capitalized (cf. Edel-Schrott, noble-scrap, ‘a Ferrari that has been written off’)69, 70. Second, compounds are written as single orthographic units but the initial letters of both constituents are capitalized (cf. AktivFrische, ActiveFreshness). Third, a space separates the constituents of compounds and the initial letters of both constituents are capitalized (cf. Frisch Fleisch, fresh meat, ‘fresh meat’) (for the second and third aspect, cf. also Barz 1993: 167–169). Simoska (1999: 166) observes the phenomena for some non-lexicalized AN compounds and interprets them as strategies to facilitate the recognition of the individual compound constituents. Altmann (2011: 36) gives further reasons for the application of the aforementioned special orthographic conventions. These include, among others, the emphasis of

68 Only the German examples but neither the glosses nor the translations (if available) are taken from this author. 69 The original source of the example given in Simoska (1999: 166) is RTL (April 12, 1997). 70 The meaning of the example is the translation of the meaning given in Simoska (1999: 166), i.e. the translation of “‘ein zu Schrott gefahrener Ferrari’” (ibid.).

3.5 Further structural factors 

 85

specific parts of compounds. Note that German AN phrases can also vary in their spelling. Schuster (2016: 73–74) shows that, at least in inofficial language use, a hyphen sometimes connects the constituents of phrases and that the adjective can be capitalized (cf. Rote-Paprika, red-pepper, ‘red pepper’).71 Overall, the constituents of German phrases are typically, but not always, separated by a space. In contrast, compounds normally appear as single orthographic units but can also be subject to variation, especially if they are not lexicalized. In French, the situation is different. The few AN compounds that I can think of and that are listed with their English translations in Lang & Perez (2004: 30–31) contain a hyphen between the two constituents (cf. grand-mère, big-mother, ‘grandmother’) (cf. also Nicoladis 2002a: 46). A space normally separates the constituents of AN/NA phrases (cf. carte grise, card gray, ‘car registration papers’ or ‘gray card’) but a hyphen appears in some constructions of this type (cf. beau-frère, beautiful-brother, ‘brother-in-law’) (cf. also Catach 1981: 127). Although NPN/ NPDN phrases are usually written as three/four individual orthographic units (cf. cheval de bataille, horse of battle, ‘battle horse’), they can also be represented with hyphens (cf. arc-en-ciel, bow-in-heaven, ‘rainbow’, only the example is from Catach 1981: 150) (cf. also ibid.; Nicoladis 2002a: 46). NN phrases are hyphenated in most cases (cf. timbre-poste, stamp-postal.service, ‘postage stamp’).72 From a general perspective, note that complex constructions in French can be hyphenated if they become highly lexicalized (Thiele 1993: 81). In sum, compounds of the aforementioned type are typically hyphenated in French. The constituents of phrases, however, can be connected by means of a hyphen or separated by a space. The orthography of French complex constructions is highly variable (Béchade 1992: 140–141; Catach 1981: 48) and, therefore, does not shed a lot of light on the distinction between compounds and phrases. Since a lot of orthographic variation exists in complex constructions in English, orthography has not been regarded as an appropriate mean to define compounds or to separate them from phrases (Katamba 1993: 293–294; Lieber 1992b: 84; Lieber & Štekauer 2009: 7). While spaces occur between the constituents of NPN phrases (e.g. declaration of love), NN compounds can contain a space or hyphen but can also be represented as single orthographic units. This is shown in the famous examples girl friend/girl-friend/girlfriend and word formation/wordformation/wordformation, which are argued to have three orthographic forms (Bauer 1983: 105, 1998: 69, 2003: 134; Klinge 2009: 160; Matthews 1974: 188–189).

71 Only the German example but neither the gloss nor the translation is taken from the aforementioned author. 72 For the example, cf. Zwanenburg (1992: 224).

86 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

Note, however, that the orthographic form of a complex construction seems to be influenced by several factors. Rakić (2009) investigated English NN compounds and found that over 80 percent of the constructions in a corpus that were made up of three or more syllables contained either a space or a hyphen between the constituents. In contrast, almost two third of the bisyllabic constructions were represented as single orthographic units. Moreover, the analysis revealed, for instance, that the constituents were mostly separated by a space if any of the two compound constituents contained a prefix or suffix. Overall, longer constructions and complex constituents favor a space/hyphen in order to facilitate the recognition of the whole constructions (for the tendency of long constructions to contain spaces, cf. also Bauer 1998: 69). Crucially, Rakić (2009) adds that individuals can disagree in their subjective perception of complexity if they have to opt for one of the three spelling versions. Therefore, discrepancies among language users explain the inconsistent orthography of several constructions. The degree of lexicalization is another factor that has an influence on the orthography of complex constructions in English. Hüning (2010: 200) argues that long-established constructions are represented as single orthographic units. In contrast, more recent constructions do not behave in a uniform manner and can appear in any of the three aforementioned orthographic forms. Inhoff, Radach & Heller (2000: 24) claim that frequent and familiar English NN compounds tend to be spelled as single units but new and unfamiliar ones usually contain a space between the constituents. Similarly, Quirk et al. (1985: 1537) believe that the constituents of unestablished NN compounds are interrupted by a space in many cases. According to the authors, the more established a compound is, the more likely it is that the compound is hyphenated or, as a fully established construction, written as a single orthographic unit. Finally, Berg (2012: 15) found that English NN compounds of a token frequency higher than one were more likely to be spelled as single units than compounds that were hapaxes. Before summarizing the present section, I point to another interesting finding. Plag et al. (2007: 214– 215) found that English NN compounds that were written as single orthographic units almost always had initial stress. If a space separated the constituents of NN compounds, initial stress still occurred more frequently than non-initial stress; however, the percentage of non-initial stress was much greater here. The results of hyphenated compounds were between those of the two other groups (no space versus space). Therefore, Plag et al. (2007: 214) claim “the tighter the orthography, the more likely becomes leftward stress” (ibid.; cf. also Plag et al. 2008: 778 for a similar finding). This finding might be used to argue that not only initial stress but also solid orthography are typical features of compounds. As a consequence, looking at AN constructions in English, where the primary factor is not available, one might consider a construction that is a single orthographic unit to be more

3.6 Summary 

 87

compound-like. This would also go well with the facts from German, a closely related language of English. However, since the present contribution concentrates on spoken language, this possibility is not investigated in my experiments to be reported later and, thus, is ignored here.

3.5.2 Binarity Compounds represent constructions with a binary structure (Meineke 1991: 38–45; Ortner & Ortner 1984: 16–17; Plag 2003: 133–134). Searching for factors that distinguish between compounds and phrases, we see that binarity does not contribute a lot to the distinction. Not only compounds, or morphological constructions, but also phrases, or syntactic constructions, have a binary structure (Eisenberg 2002: 352). This is illustrated in (36): Both the compound in (36a) and the phrase in (36b) consist of a non-head, which is itself made up of a non-head and a head, and a head.73 (36) a. Rotfuchspfote [[red_fox]_paw] ‘paw of a red fox’ b. psychologische Beratungsstelle [[psychological consultation]_s_place] ‘psychological advisory service’

3.5.3 Recursivity Since compounds, e.g. soccer stadium, can be extended and become bigger compounds, e.g. soccer stadium roof, recursivity is regarded as a typical compound feature (Plag 2003: 134, examples are my own creation). However, syntax is known to make use of recursivity as well (ibid.).

3.6 Summary The chapter has examined the potential of structural factors to distinguish between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. Specifically, AN/NA

73 Note that (34b) was already used earlier (see example 9b as well as Schlücker 2014: 42).

88 

 3 Compound-phrase distinction I: Structural aspects

and NN/NPN/NPDN constructions in German, French and English have been ­investigated. Before comparing compounds and phrases, it is of utmost significance to establish an appropriate point of departure that ensures a non-circular argumentation. Therefore, several factors that might play a role for the compound-phrase distinction were analyzed and categorized into primary and secondary factors. Inflectional agreement/inflection is the only primary factor. That means, a combination composed of an adjective and a noun represents a phrase if the adjective agrees with the noun in terms of specific grammatical properties such as gender. In a compound, the two constituents are not in agreement with regard to these features. Therefore, the primary factor exists only in German and French but not in English. In the case of NN/NPN/NPDN constructions, the primary factor works a bit differently. Instead of asking whether or not the constituents of a complex construction are in agreement, the position where grammatical features, e.g. plurality, of the entire construction are expressed must be considered. If these properties are expressed on the right noun, the complex construction is a compound. If, however, they are expressed on the left noun, the construction is a phrase. For both AN/NA and NN/NPN/NPDN constructions one can say that a compound, i.e. a morphological construction, can be recognized by the fact that the syntax does not change the inner parts of the construction through the application of inflectional processes. That means, only the right member of a compound “participates” in inflectional processes. Phrases are not subject to this restriction. Having decided when a specific construction is a compound and when it is a phrase, we are able to see whether the two different kinds of constructions favor certain levels of other factors, so-called secondary factors. As outlined above, the factors cannot determine whether a construction is a compound or a phrase. Instead, they can only mirror the compound-phrase distinction by showing a particular pattern in the great majority of cases. So, first of all, compounds are right-headed but phrases can be either right- or left-headed. Therefore, head position is not very helpful because right-headedness frequently occurs in both compounds and phrases. Second, whereas compounds preferably take initial stress in German and English, phrases favor non-initial stress in these languages. In French, stress does not play a role at all for the compound-phrase distinction. Hence, one observes language variation in that only Germanic compounds can be characterized by stress. Based on that, it is assumed that English AN constructions with initial stress (Chapter 6) or with initial stress and non-compositional semantics (Chapter 7) are compound-like but AN constructions with non-initial stress (Chapter 6) or non-initial stress and compositional semantics are phraselike (Chapter 7).

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects Having defined and characterized compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos on structural grounds in Chapter 3, I look at semantic-functional aspects in this chapter. First of all, while compounds are claimed to fulfil the naming function, phrases describe things (Bauer 2003: 135; Bücking 2010: 253–254; Hüning 2010: 197). Naming is considered to be the process that links a specific linguistic form to a concept (Booij 2010a: 169; Koefoed 1993). The functional contrast is easily recognizable in German AN constructions. For example, the compound Grünreiher (green_ heron, ‘green heron’) names a specific kind of heron but the phrase grüner Reiher (‘green heron’) simply describes a heron that is green. Although the distinction works in the majority of cases, it is not absolute because German AN phrases exist that are used as naming units (ibid.; Schlücker & Hüning 2009a: 211, 2009b: 150). Booij (2009b: 220) believes that compounds and phrases can, in principle, serve either the naming or the descriptive function. Note that Landsbergen (2009: 49) claims that phrases can function as descriptive and naming units; however, compounds always represent naming units. Although Booij (2009b: 220) is right, Landsbergen’s (2009: 49) idea is also very close to the reality. Without any doubt, phrases often have a dual function, e.g. in French; compounds, however, almost always represent naming units. I believe that NN compounds are always naming units because they are always semantically non-compositional. The issue as well as relevant references are discussed later in the present chapter. Basically, one normally stores only naming units (Booij 2010a: 169) – and not descriptive ones – because only naming units – and not descriptive ones – are semantically non-compositional. We look more closely at the connection between naming and semantic non-compositionality below. Furthermore, as will become clear soon, AN compounds are almost always semantically non-compositional and, as a consequence, function as naming units in most cases. Note, by the way, that the term “naming unit” can refer to items that are permanently stored in the lexicon or to items that are only used in a specific text as (non-lexicalized) names (Fleischer 1997: 16). In the following, we concentrate on those complex constructions – c­ ompounds/ CoLiCos as well as phrases/PhraLiCos – that function or can function as naming units that are or can become part of the lexicon (cf. also Booij 2010a: 169). Focusing on the naming function of complex constructions from a crosslinguistic perspective, one sees even clearer that not only compounds but also phrases have to be able to represent naming units. It is assumed that the languages under investigation differ with respect to the use of compounds and phrases as naming units. While German prefers using compounds, French favors phrases https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-004

90 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

for the same purpose (Bücking 2009, 2010; Van Goethem 2009). For instance, German relies on the AN compound Grünreiher (green_heron, ‘green heron’) to name the particular kind of bird, namely the so-called Butorides virescens74, but French opts for the phrase héron vert (heron green, ‘green heron’). Therefore, a crucial difference between German and French exists: Whereas German usually has a compound (Grünreiher) as a naming unit and a phrase (grüner Reiher) as a descriptive one at its disposal, French normally uses a phrase (héron vert) for both functions. That means, many AN/NA constructions have two meanings in French (Catach 1981: 127). Van Goethem (2009: 249) aims at explaining why French tends to use AN/NA phrases rather than AN/NA compounds as naming constructions. She states the following: Modern French, unlike German, does not undergo inflection according to the syntactic function of the A+N or N+A phrase. Only gender and number inflection applies to French. However, gender inflection of the adjective is not an obstacle to the formation of univocal form-meaning pairs in French, since adjectives in lexicalized A+N or N+A phrases always combine with the same noun and hence always have the same gender […]. Number inflection of the adjective and the noun should not constitute an obstacle to an unambiguous interpretation either, since in spoken French it is mostly not even observable […]. In sum, since French lexicalized A+N and N+A phrases do not show much formal variation, at least not in the spoken language, French does not need to make use of the morphological naming strategy, which could explain why it prefers lexicalized phrases to compounds. (ibid.)

As the citation shows, French AN/NA phrases meet the criterion of structural stability, a feature of a typical name (cf. Hüning 2010: 205–207). This observation is further supported by the fact that the masculine form of many French adjectives is identical to the adjectival stem and, therefore, no inflectional suffix indicating masculine gender has to be attached to the stem (cf. §3.3.1.2). Overall, French differs from German whose AN phrases change their form according to number, case and definiteness both in spoken and written language. This is not the case in spoken French where only number, and only rarely, changes the form of an AN/NA phrase. Van Goethem’s (2008, 2009: 249) analysis is based on a similar proposal from Hüning (2010: 205–207), who compared Dutch and German AN constructions. According to Hüning, German AN compounds, unlike AN phrases of this language, represent exemplary naming units because they have a stable form. Since Dutch AN phrases always maintain a unique form as well, they might be more appropriate for naming than German

74 Cf. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grünreiher (Accessed on June 22, 2016) and https:// fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Héron_vert (Accessed on June 22, 2016).

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 91

phrases. Having introduced a p ­ ossible reason for the different preferences in German and French, I finally turn to English. It is assumed that this language prefers using AN constructions with initial stress, i.e. CoLiCos, as naming units and AN constructions with non-initial stress, i.e. PhraLiCos, as descriptive ones (cf. McCauley et al. 2012: 27). Although both compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos can have a naming function and although “the morphosyntactic property of being a compound is independent of the semantic function of naming” (Spencer 2011: 503), I claim that compounds/CoLiCos are more prone to function as names than phrases/PhraLiCos. Before looking at specific evidence for my position, one must state what naming precisely means for the purpose of the present contribution. First of all, naming can be considered to be kind reference (Krifka, Pelletier, Carlson, ter Meulen, Link & Chierchia 1995: 107). Kinds are “special types of individuals” (ibid.: 64, italics added by MS) or “regularities that occur in nature” (Chierchia 1998: 348). Therefore, kind reference is “reference […] not made to an individual object, but to a genus, a species, or more generally a kind, which is an abstract entity that captures generalizations about individual objects of a certain type” (Borthen 2007: 146). These definitions go well with the observation that “[a]nything at all can be described, but only relevant categories are given names” (Zimmer 1971: C15). Considering naming to be equivalent to kind reference implies that I do not discuss proper names here, which refer to specific individuals, objects or phenomena and not to kinds (Gallmann 2009: 147–148; Nübling, ­Fahlbusch & Heuser 2012: 32–33; cf. also Fleischer 1982: 74, 1996: 149–150). Specific examples of kind reference are given below. In (37a), potato does not refer to one specific potato but is the name of a kind of plant. If one specifically looks at endocentric complex constructions, which are investigated in my work, it becomes clear that these constructions refer to kinds that are hyponyms of the kind the head of the complex construction refers to (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 205). Note that I am interested in only one of the three semantic kinds of AN constructions that serve as naming units and are mentioned in Landsbergen (2009: 53–54) as well as Schuster (2016: 6), namely endocentric/classificatory constructions. ­Exocentric/metaphorical or metonymic ones are ignored. Coming to example (37b), one observes that Indian elephant and African elephant refer to specific and distinct kinds, which are subkinds of elephant. (37) a. The potato was first cultivated in South America.

(Krifka et al. 1995: 2) b. The Indian elephant has five toenails on the front foot whereas the African elephant normally has four. (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 206)



92 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

If one speaks of a kind, one usually means “well-established kind” (Krifka et al. 1995: 11). For instance, while Coke bottle in the famous example in (38a) represents a well-established kind, green bottle in (38b) does not (ibid.).75 Note that a kind in one language community is not necessarily a kind in another language community (Chierchia 1998: 348). (38) a. The Coke bottle has a narrow neck.

b. ??The green bottle has a narrow neck.

(Krifka et al. 1995: 11) (ibid.)

As shown in Krifka et al. (1995: 10), items that refer to kinds can occur with kind predicates. That means, a specific item can be compatible with the kind predicates die out, be/become extinct, invent and/or exterminate (cf. also Krifka 2004: 111) (cf. 39a–b). Again, complex constructions are acceptable here if they refer to kinds (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 207) (cf. 39c). (39) a. The lion will become extinct soon.

(Krifka et al. 1995: 10) b. Bronze is a metal / was invented as early as 3000 B.C. (ibid.) c. The Indian elephant will soon die out. (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 207)

Moreover, using naming in the sense of kind reference, one realizes that an item used to refer to a specific kind can be naturally embedded in a so-called environment (Krifka et al. 1995: 65). While The liger and Ligers in (40a) refer to a kind and, thus, are compatible with so called, This fat man in (40b) does not refer to a kind and, thus, is not acceptable in a combination with so called. An example of a complex construction that is acceptable in a so-called environment is given in (40c). Note that, as Gunkel & Zifonun (2009: 208) remark, Big elephants in (40d) is only a description and, therefore, “yields a tautology” (ibid.). (40) a. The liger is / Ligers are so called because it is / they are the offspring of a lion and a tiger. (Krifka et al. 1995: 65) b. *This fat man is so called because he is corpulent. (ibid.)

75 Note that Krifka et al. (1995: 11) found the example in Carlson (1977) who, in turn, cites Partee as its creator.

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 93



c. Indian elephants are so called because their largest population is found in India. (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 208) d. *Big elephants are so-called because they are big. (ibid., * added by MS) The contrast between the examples in (40c–d) leads to a well-known feature of complex constructions that function as names: They are semantically non-­ compositional (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 216; Schlücker & Hüning 2009a: 210; Wandruszka 1976: 100). We come back to the relation between naming and semantic (non-)compositionality below. Also, we discuss the relation between naming and lexicalization. For now, we remember five things: (1) Both compounds and phrases can serve as naming units (Booij 2009b: 220). (2) Both compounds and phrases can refer to kinds (Gunkel & Zifonun 2009: 208–209). (3)  Both compounds and phrases can be semantically non-compositional (­Haspelmath 2011: 36). (4) Both compounds and phrases can be lexicalized (Montermini 2010: 83). (5) Although (1) to (4) are true statements – and reflected in the compound Braunbär (brown_bear, ‘brown bear’) and the phrase ours brun (bear brown, ‘brown bear’) – compounds – and CoLiCos – are more appropriate to function as naming units, to refer to kinds, to be semantically non-compositional and to be lexicalized than phrases – and PhraLiCos. Specific evidence for this assumption is discussed below. Comparing non-lexicalized AN compounds with AN phrases in German has turned out to be a valuable way in order to find evidence for point (5). This is not surprising for two reasons: First, AN compounds and AN phrases are defined by the primary factor and, therefore, can be clearly distinguished from each other (cf. §3.3). Second, comparing non-lexicalized constructions enables researchers to exclude the influence of lexicalization (cf. §2.2.2). Looking at non-lexicalized German AN constructions, Bücking (2009: 195–196, 2010: 271–272) and Härtl (2015a: 401–402) show that compounds are more appropriate to refer to kinds than phrases because they can be more naturally used with kind predicates than phrases. According to Bücking (2009: 196), for example, (41a) is more acceptable than (41b). In other words, a compound seems to be more compatible with a kind predicate than a phrase. (41) is entirely taken from Bücking (2009: 196). (41) a. ?Der Blauhund    the blue_dog

ist ausgestorben. is extinct (period deleted by MS)

94 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

b. ??Der blaue Hund ist ausgestorben.      the blue dog is extinct The examples support the idea that compounds represent more natural kind terms than phrases. As illustrated above, kind reference can be regarded as one type of naming. There is a second piece of evidence in favor of the proposal that compounds differ from phrases with respect to their affinity to function as naming units. According to Bücking (2010: 272–273) and Härtl (2015a: 399–400), non-lexicalized AN compounds are more suited to occur in a so-called context than phrases (cf. 42). (42) is entirely taken from Härtl (2015a: 400). (42) eine sogenannte ??warme Decke/Warmdecke ‘a so-called warm blanket/warm_blanket’ So far, we have reflected upon arguments for the idea that compounds are better naming units/kind-referring units than phrases. The third point to be approached here is the belief that compounds are inherently semantically non-compositional. It is often assumed “that some degree of semantic opacity will be present in virtually all lexically established compound words” (Libben 2010: 328). Almost all non-lexicalized compounds seem to be semantically non-compositional as well. Bücking (2009: 185, 2010: 257–258) and Schlücker (2013: 125–126) point to the fact that only non-lexicalized AN compounds but not non-lexicalized AN phrases permit incompatible attribution (cf. 43a–b) as well as negation as in (43c–d). (43) is entirely taken from Bücking (2009: 185). (43) a. Dies ist ein roter Blautee. this is a red blue_tea b. *Dies ist ein roter blauer Tee.    this is a red blue tea c. Dieser Tee ist kein Blautee, obwohl er blau ist. this tea is not_a blue_tea, although it blue is d. *Dieser Tee ist kein blauer Tee, obwohl er blau ist.    This tea is not_a blue tea, although it blue is The examples in (43) suggest that AN compounds, as opposed to AN phrases, naturally have non-compositional semantics. If Blautee is not just any tea that is blue, we understand why (43a) and (43c) are acceptable: Since the meaning of the whole compound goes beyond the sum of the meanings of the individual constituents, incompatible attribution and negation as in (43c) become possible. Bücking (2009: 187–191, 2010: 253–261) explains the contrast between non-lexicalized AN compounds, which are typically semantically non-compositional, and non-lexicalized AN phrases, which are normally semantically compositional, by referring to the

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 95

variable RINTEGRAL.76 According to Bücking, the phrase blauer Tee refers to things that are blue and a tea, i.e. it calls for an intersective interpretation. In contrast, RINTEGRAL specifies the relation that holds between the noun and the adjective in the compound Blautee: Blautee refers to a tea; blue, however, stands for “some integral constituent v that is blue” (Bücking 2010: 257). Therefore, the compound Blautee takes advantage of the variable, which, in turn, makes it possible that rot and blau as in (43a) work at different levels, i.e. rot modifies the entire compound but blau exclusively refers to one specific piece of the concept expressed in the head, e.g. an ingredient. Having compared compounds with phrases in this respect, Bücking (2009: 191–192, 2010: 266–270) argues that the adaptable and integrative character of RINTEGRAL found in compounds makes them suitable naming units that, independently of the context, refer to specific complex concepts. That means, he proposes to link the structural division between compounds and phrases in German to the potential functional separation of these constructions, which are naming and descriptive units respectively. Before continuing discussing the interplay of kind reference, naming, semantic non-compositionality and lexicalization, one should make a short excursion to the semantics of compounds. Søgaard (2005: 319–320), who concentrates on NN compounding in his contribution, divides theories on the semantics of compounds into four categories and defines them in the following way. First, in transformational theories, compounds originate in longer syntactic constructions. Second, in reductionist theories, the compound interpretation depends on the constituents as well as on the way they are combined. Compound constituents are connected by one of very few and very simple relationships. Third, in ­pragmatic compounding theories, compounds are said to “comprise maximal information in minimal linguistic structure” (ibid.: 320). That means, the specific relationship operating between the two constituents is not overtly given and can be inferred by using world knowledge. Fourth, in slot-filler theories, the function of the ­modifier is to extend and specify the semantics of the head by adding features to the head. I believe that all theories can account for the fact that the semantics of

76 Note that Allen (1978: 93) introduces the Variable R in the following way: I will refer to the variability in primary compound meanings as Variable R. The Variable R Condition establishes a range of possible, and consequently impossible, meanings for a given primary compound. This range of meanings is specified in terms of the semantic feature sets of the constituent elements of the compound. (ibid.) One has to keep in mind, however, that Allen (1978: 98) focuses on NN compounds and believes that the Variable R does not apply to AN compounds. Note also that Weiskopf (2007: 175) assumes “a phonologically unrealized open variable or otherwise indexical expression that picks out the relation among […] [the] constituents” (ibid.) of NN compounds (cf. also Russell 1997: 102).

96 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

compounds are inherently non-compositional.77 If the assumption of transformational theories is correct, i.e. if compounds represent comprised forms of longer syntactic constructions, compounds must be non-compositional because parts of the meaning are not (overtly) mentioned anymore. In the spirit of reductionist or pragmatic compounding theories, compounds must be semantically noncompositional as well because the precise compound-internal relation is hidden and must be known or inferred from world knowledge (cf. also Schlücker 2016: 180). Finally, with respect to slot-filler theories, it is not always clear which features are transferred from the modifier to the head and, therefore, pieces of the compound meaning are not directly expressed. In sum, apart from the meanings of the constituents, the specific semantic relationship as well as other potential meaning aspects play a role when interpreting compounds (ten Hacken 2016: 2). Therefore, I believe that compounds are semantically non-compositional by their nature and agree with Clark (1998: 518) who states that the relation between the constituent nouns in a compound goes unexpressed: the addressee must simply know what it is as part of the conventional meaning, for established compounds, and must compute it in context for novel ones. That is, compounds are in fact not transparent [– or compositional, as I would call it (cf. §3.4.2) –] because the relation between the relevant elements is unexpressed. (Clark 1998: 518)

Compounds differ from syntactic constructions in that the latter can benefit from “the addition of function words [that] make […] the semantic relations more explicit” (Jackendoff 2016: 17) or from “case, prepositions and structural position” (Fabb 2001: 66). Crucially, as opposed to Jackendoff (2016: 18), both nonlexicalized and lexicalized compounds are considered to be non-compositional. In the previous paragraph, the focus is on NN compounds. One observes that the semantic relationship between the constituents represents, apart from the meanings of the constituents, a decisive aspect of a compound’s meaning. The diversity of possible relationships has been discussed at length in the literature.78 Schlücker (2016) claims that NN compounds must be separated from AN compounds with respect to their semantics: While she acknowledges that thematic or semantic relations are essential for the interpretation of the former, she suggests to categorize AN compounds in the following way and believes that the semantic relations that connect the constituents of NN compounds cannot be transferred to AN compounds in most cases. Concentrating on German AN compounds,

77 Note that Søgaard (2005: 320) specifically points to the fact that pragmatic compounding ­theories imply that compounds are non-compositional. 78 Cf., e.g., Arnaud (2016: 79–93); Downing (1977); Jackendoff (2016: 27–31); Levi (1978); Lieber (2016: 48–49).

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 97

the author distinguishes between six groups (ibid.: 185–190, all examples and ­translations are taken from the author and presented in the same way): (1) Compounds with “a direct modification relation between the adjective and the head noun” (ibid.: 185). Example: Rotwein (‘red wine’). (2) Bahuvrihi/possessive compounds. Example: Rothaut (‘redskin’). (3) “[C]ompounds that require the reinterpretation of the adjective as an adverb, such that it modifies a verbal predicate that is contained in the lexical structure of the head constituent” (ibid.: 186). Example: Schnellrestaurant (lit. ‘fast restaurant’, i.e. convenience restaurant) (4) “[C]ompounds where the adjective does not directly modify the head noun but rather an implicit nominal argument which is semantically related to the head noun” (ibid.: 187). Example: Warmmiete (lit. ‘warm rent’, i.e. rent including heating). (5) Compounds where “the adjective also modifies an implicit nominal entity. In addition, these compounds have a causal meaning component: the (explicit) nominal head causes a change of state such [[sic!] that] the (implicit) nominal modifyee has the property denoted by the adjective” (ibid.: 188). Example: Gelbfieber (‘yellow fever’). (6) “[C]ompounds with relational adjectives” (ibid.: 189). “Relational adjectives are always derived from a noun” (ibid.) and “do not denote a property on their own but rather establish a relation between the underlying nominal basis and the entity they modify” (ibid.). Example: Kolonialgebiet (‘colonial region’). If it is assumed that the aforementioned six classes cover a great number of AN compounds, one realizes that AN compounds, similarly to NN compounds, are inherently semantically non-compositional. Although compounds belonging to the first group above are characterized by having “a direct modification relation between the adjective and the head noun” (ibid.: 185, italics added by MS), they are not compositional because they refer to specific kinds. That means, Rotwein does not refer to any wine that is red but only to a specific kind of wine, which has the following characteristics (Bibliographisches Institut GmbH 2016)79: Red or blue grapes are used to produce this kind of wine. Its color ranges from ruby red to deep red. In addition, the wine has violet nuances. While the grapes are fermented with their skin, the dye of the skin of the grapes is released.

79 The German online dictionary Duden defines Rotwein in the following way: “aus [roten oder blauen] Trauben, deren Schalen mit vergoren werden und dabei ihren Farbstoff abgeben, hergestellter Wein von rubin- bis tiefroter, ins Violette spielender Färbung” (Bibliographisches Institut GmbH 2016, square brackets in original). The citation is summarized in English in the main text.

98 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

Hence, if an individual does not know what Rotwein refers to, she/he cannot derive the meaning by simply adding up the semantics of the adjective and the noun. Since the second group of AN compounds mentioned above is exocentric, it is obvious that these compounds cannot be semantically compositional. The grammatical head does not represent the semantic head and, therefore, semantic compositionality is impossible. In the third group discussed in Schlücker (2016: 186–187), the adjective refers to a verbal predicate that is not overtly given. That means, parts of the semantics are hidden and the entire compound cannot be argued to be compositional. The fourth group of AN compounds resembles the third one in that the adjective modifies something that is not directly expressed, namely a nominal argument. Again, semantic compositionality is ruled out here because information that is relevant for the interpretation of the compound is not explicitly stated. The same explanation holds for the fifth group of AN compounds listed above. Finally, the sixth group is semantically non-compositional because, first, the adjective represents a noun and, second, because the semantic relationship between the head and the hidden modifying noun is not overtly mentioned. Overall, AN compounds, similarly to NN compounds, are, by their nature, semantically non-compositional. This observation is certainly connected to the (default) classifying function that both AN and NN compounds have in common (Schlücker 2016: 178). There are only very few AN compounds that are really semantically compositional, such as Heißwasser (hot_water), which simply means, according to Bibliographisches Institut GmbH (2016), “heißes Wasser” (hot water). Note further that I believe that some compounds that are claimed to have compositional semantics are actually non-compositional. For instance, Schlücker & Hüning (2009a: 211) state that the German AN compound Jungvogel (young_bird) is compositional and means “young bird”. However, a Jungvogel does not simply refer to any bird that is young but, according to Bibliographisches Institut GmbH (2016), only to a bird that is “not yet sexually mature”.80 So far, we have discussed evidence for the idea that compounds are more suited than phrases to be semantically non-compositional, to refer to kinds and to function as naming units. There is still one aspect left, namely the proposal that compounds are more appropriate to become lexicalized than phrases. Härtl (2015a), who also compares German AN compounds to AN phrases, discusses the interplay of the four aforementioned phenomena. However, his starting point is still another feature: The markedness of novel AN compounds, which originates from their specific form. Härtl’s (2015a) argument runs as follows. A novel ­German AN ­compound

80 Bibliographisches Institut GmbH (2016) gives the definition in German, which is “noch nicht geschlechtsreifer Vogel” (ibid.).

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 99

structurally differs from the normal corresponding AN phrase because the adjective does not carry an inflectional marker that expresses agreement between the adjective and the noun. Therefore, the compound is perceived as marked, or novel, and initiates a semantic reanalysis.81 This suppresses the compositional semantics and causes the creation, i.e. the naming, of a new kind. Finally, being interpreted as a kind that semantically deviates from the descriptive reading of the corresponding phrase, the compound can become lexicalized. Crucially, “interpretation as kind name and semantic specialization in compounds will be characterized as the cause for potential lexicalization and not as its effect, as is often proposed in the literature” (Härtl 2015a: 396). In this respect, the analysis differs from the argumentation in Schlücker (2014: 46, 2016: 185) as well as Schlücker & Hüning (2009a: 217), who claim that compounds start as compositional constructions and can only acquire a non-compositional meaning if they become lexicalized. I follow Härtl (2015a), whose proposal has further support in the literature (cf. Aboh & Smith 2009: 15; Bücking 2009: 195; Herbermann 1981: 334–335). Klos (2011: 68), for instance, states that the semantics of compounds are inherently non-compositional. Crucially, Klos (2011: 68) does not make a distinction between lexicalized and non-lexicalized compounds in this respect. That means, both lexicalized and non-lexicalized compounds are semantically non-compositional. Barz’ (1996: 143) analysis is similar to that presented in Härtl (2015a). She claims that AN compounds establish a category at the point of their creation because the creation triggers a semantic shift from the usual compositional reading, which an AN phrase with the same constituents expresses. The author emphasizes that AN compounds and phrases differ in their nature. That means, compounds immediately function as a category name without having been lexicalized but phrases depend on lexicalization in order to serve as naming units. Overall, Härtl’s (2015a) contribution can be summarized in the ­following way: [I]t is not intended to imply here that phrases cannot figure as kind names – there are numerous phrasal names, cf. Kleiner Tümmler (‘common porpoise’), rote Karte (‘red card’), grüner Tee (‘green tea’), all clearly referring to kinds of things. Rather, it is intended to imply that the modifier in a phrasal complex is initially and canonically interpreted as ­descriptive, in contrast to novel compounds whose modifier promotes a classifying interpretation from the moment of the compound’s coinage. (ibid.: 401–402, bold added by MS)

I agree with the aforementioned authors. Furthermore, I also agree with S ­ chuster’s (2016: 82) claim that both AN compounds and phrases can be naming units but

81 Unlike phrases or sentences, novel word-formations, e.g. compounds, bring along a novelty effect (Olsen 1986: 50–51; Schlücker 2014: 76).

100 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

I reject her idea that they are “functionally equivalent”82 because I believe that compounds are more appropriate to function as naming units than phrases. While non-lexicalized phrases function as descriptive units and are interpreted in a compositional way by default, non-lexicalized compounds usually serve as naming units right away. Even lexicalized constructions of the two types differ with respect to their function. While lexicalized phrases, which represent naming units, can also be used as descriptive units (Schlücker 2014: 147), lexicalized compounds are not productively used for descriptive purposes. So, for instance, the German AN phrase blauer Fleck (blue spot) can theoretically refer to a bruise (naming function) or to any spot that is blue (descriptive function) (ibid.). Having presented some arguments in favor of the idea that compounds and phrases differ on a functional basis, it has to be asked whether empirical support for this claim exists. Indeed, there are findings both for and against the aforementioned proposals. Results that do not support the idea are examined first. Schlücker & Plag (2011), who compared German AN compounds to AN phrases in a production study, suggest that compounds and phrases fulfil a potential naming need equally well. According to the authors, whether a novel compound or a new phrase is created in order to express a complex lexical concept simply depends on the number of familiar constructions – either compounds or phrases – that share one of the constituents with the new construction. For instance, if one finds more existing compounds than existing phrases that contain a specific adjective, a novel construction that is composed of the same adjective will probably be a compound. However, if one finds more existing phrases, the new construction will most likely be a phrase. Overall, Schlücker & Plag’s (2011) findings do not go well with the idea that compounds are better equipped to function as naming units than phrases (for other analogical effects of AN compounds and phrases, cf. Schuster 2016: 159). However, as I pointed out in §3.4.2, analogical models have a fundamental problem: They only work if constituents, i.e., e.g., adjectives or nouns, already occurred in complex constructions before a novel construction is created. So, if the adjective x appears in seven lexicalized German AN compounds but in no lexicalized AN phrase, a new complex AN construction containing the adjective x will probably be a compound. However, looking at the adjective y that cannot be found in any lexicalized German AN compound or phrase, analogical models do not give us an answer to the question whether the new complex construction is more likely to be a compound or a phrase. In sum, since analogical approaches depend on the existence of specific linguistic knowledge, they are not capable of treating novel structures that do not have “role models”.

82 Schuster (2016: 82) writes in German and says “funktional äquivalent” (ibid.).

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 101

Empirical support in favor of a functional contrast of compounds and phrases comes from Härtl (2015b, 2016). Investigating AN compounds and AN phrases in German, the author argues that compounds are inherently more appropriate to fulfil the naming function than phrases. That does not mean that phrases cannot serve as naming units; however, it means that phrases depend more on additional nameindicating devices than compounds. Two common name-indicating devices are sogenannt (‘so-called’) and quotation marks. In a corpus study, Härtl (2015b, 2016) examined whether German AN compounds and phrases differed with respect to the use of the aforementioned devices. In order to exclude the influence of frequency, a potentially confounding variable, the author only looked at compounds and phrases that belonged to the same frequency class. The analysis revealed two interesting results: First, sogenannt was found more often before phrases than before compounds. Second, if sogenannt preceded compounds and phrases, quotation marks appeared significantly more often around phrases than around compounds. That means, while only around eleven percent of the compounds were highlighted with quotation marks in a sogenannt environment, almost 28 percent of the phrases were surrounded by quotation marks.83 Since German AN phrases are normally not used as naming but rather as descriptive units, Härtl (2015b, 2016) argues that the naming status of these constructions needs to be introduced more explicitly than the naming status of German AN compounds. Whereas compounds are marked anyway because their forms differ from those of the corresponding normal phrases, i.e. the adjectives in compounds do not agree with the nouns, phrases are inherently unmarked. As a consequence, phrases are more likely to occur with additional means that signal their naming status. The results presented above support his argumentation. Since sogenannt and quotation marks can emphasize the naming status of constructions, we understand why phrases occurred more often in a sogenannt environment and more often with quotation marks than compounds: A phrase is by default a ­descriptive construction; its (unusual) naming status has to be pointed at. Hall & Moore (1997: Experiment 2) compared English AN constructions with non-initial/phrasal stress and constructions with initial/compound stress. ­Children and adults were exposed to pictures and to items with either phrasal or compound stress; both the pictures and the items were embedded in a story. An example used by the authors is the following one. The subjects saw a picture of a specific bird that was blue – let us call this picture “Picture A”. The experimenter introduced the picture to the participants of the study by using either phrasal stress (“Look! Do you see this? This is a blue bírd.” (ibid.: 250)) or compound stress (“Look! Do you see this? This is a blúebird.” (ibid.)). Afterwards,

83 For a similar result, cf. also Härtl (2015c).

102 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

the experimenter, firstly, told a story in which the bird “fell into some yucky red stuff” (ibid.: 243) and, secondly, showed a picture with the same bird that was now red – let us call this picture “Picture B”. Next, the researcher told the subjects that the aforementioned bird met a different bird. The experimenter showed a picture of a bird that had a different shape than the first bird and was blue – let us call this picture “Picture C”. Overall, Picture A and Picture B showed the same bird but in a different color (blue in Picture A and red in Picture B). Picture A and Picture C showed different birds but the same color, namely blue. Finally, when the subjects did not see Picture A anymore, they were expected to point at either Picture B or Picture C when being asked to point at the blue bird/bluebird. Hall & Moore’s (1997) statistical analysis revealed the following pattern for adults as well as for children that were four years of age. If the subjects heard phrasal stress, they chose pictures like Picture C significantly more frequently than pictures like Picture B. That means, for instance, having been exposed to phrasal stress, the subjects were more likely to select a picture with the bird that was of a another kind than the bird of Picture A but had the same color as the bird shown on Picture A. In contrast, if the subjects heard compound stress, they chose pictures like Picture B significantly more frequently than pictures like Picture C. That means, for instance, having been exposed to compound stress, the subjects were more likely to select a picture with the bird that was of the same kind as the bird of Picture A but had a different color than the bird presented on Picture A. In sum, the experiment shows that, on the one hand, phrasal stress, or non-initial stress, is more compatible with a descriptive interpretation than compound stress. On the other hand, compound stress, or initial stress, is more compatible with a kind interpretation, i.e. with the naming function, than phrasal stress. The analysis of the data of the four-year-old children is of particular importance: Although the AN constructions associated with Picture A in the four trials in which the children were tested, i.e. bluebird, blackfly, greenbug and redfish respectively, refer, apart from the compositional interpretation (e.g. a bird that is blue), to existing complex lexical concepts, it is unlikely that the children were familiar with them. That means, I do not believe that a four-year-old child knows that a redfish, which is shown on a picture, refers to a specific kind of fish. Children of this age know what a cat or a tiger is but they are probably not familiar with redfishes, bluebirds and so on. Therefore, we can assume that the items were non-memorized and non-lexicalized in the population of four-year-old native speakers of English. Further empirical support for the idea that compounds are more suited to name kinds than phrases comes from Prasada, Hennefield & Otap (2012), who compared lexical nominals, e.g. penguin or palm tree, with phrasal nominals, i.e. AN phrasal nominals like urban tree, with respect to their conceptual representation. In the following, the comparison between compounds (lexical nominals)

4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects 

 103

and phrasal nominals is essential; lexical nominals that are not compounds are ignored. The authors argue in favor of the so-called Distinct Representations Hypothesis, which states that the conceptual representations of kinds and classes differ, and connect the idea to the separation between lexical and phrasal nominals. Prasada et al. (2012) propose that lexical nominals are preferred to express kinds, while phrasal nominals normally refer to classes. Kinds and classes are distinguished as follows. Using the famous minimal pair blackbird/black bird, they note that the first form (blackbird) does not represent any bird that is black but refers to a particular kind. In contrast, the construction black bird is not the name of a kind and can include birds of various kinds as long as they share one characteristic, namely the fact that they are black. Therefore, black birds form a class but do not represent a kind. In the first experiment, subjects were expected to rate the truth of sentences as those in (44) on a scale containing seven points from “definitely not true” (= value “1”) to “definitely true” (= value “7”). (44) a. Palm trees are a single kind of tree. b. Palm trees are not necessarily a single kind of tree. c. Urban trees are a single kind of tree. d. Urban trees are not necessarily a single kind of tree. The phrasal nominals, e.g. urban tree, contained an adjective as well as a noun that was also the head of a compound, namely palm tree. The statistical analyses revealed that the subjects considered compounds but not phrasal nominals to be constructions that refer to kinds. That means, for instance, Prasada et al. (2012) found significantly better judgments for compounds in sentences like (44a) in comparison to sentences like (44b). Note that “better judgments” means in this context that a sentence was regarded as truer than another sentence because it obtained higher ratings. For phrasal nominals, the opposite pattern was observed and sentences like (44d) were regarded as significantly truer than sentences like (44c). Therefore, Prasada et al. (2012) argue that lexical nominals, e.g. lexicalized compounds, are more prone to represent kinds. Phrasal nominals, however, express classes whose individual members do not have to belong to a particular kind.84 In the third experiment, the authors aimed at showing that lexicalization could not explain the findings outlined above. Apart from lexical nominals, e.g. rattlesnake, and phrasal nominals, e.g. omnivorous snake, Prasada et al. (2012)

84 Note that Prasada et al. (2012) show in their second and third experiment that kind reference includes class reference. That means, a construction, e.g. a lexical nominal, that refers to a kind also refers to a class. However, this does not work the other way around: Class reference does not include kind reference.

104 

 4 Compound-phrase distinction II: Semantic-functional aspects

also investigated novel compounds composed of two nouns, e.g. dart snake. That means, both the novel NN compounds and the phrasal nominals were not lexicalized. Therefore, a potential difference between the ratings of the latter two groups could not be explained on the basis of lexicalization anymore. The phrasal nominals and the novel NN compounds were regarded as significantly less compatible with kind readings than with class readings. Crucially, however, the analysis revealed a smaller difference between the ratings of the kind readings and the ratings of the class readings for the novel NN compounds in comparison to the phrasal nominals. Based on these findings, the authors argue that both lexicalized and non-lexicalized (lexical) nominals, e.g. compounds, are constructions that naturally represent kinds. Phrasal nominals, however, are by their nature not kind-referring but only class-referring constructions. In sum, it is assumed that the structural difference between compounds/ CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos triggers a semantic-functional distinction between the two construction types: Compounds/CoLiCos are more appropriate to be interpreted in a non-compositional way, to refer to kinds, to fulfil a naming need and to become lexicalized. In the following chapter, I approach the question whether the structural and functional distinction between compounds/ CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos has implications for their mental representation and processing. Since one usually only memorizes naming units (Booij 2010a: 169), I hypothesize that compounds/CoLiCos are memorized more efficiently than phrases/PhraLiCos.

5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects 5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research on complex constructions in general and its possible implications for the compound-phrase distinction Having presented the structural demarcation between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos in Chapter 3, we saw in Chapter 4 that the contrast was also reflected on the semantic-functional level. In the present chapter, we focus on the question whether compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos also differ in their processing and mental representation. Let us start with a citation by Olsen (2000a: 899–900). In her opinion, [c]omplex words […] are retrieved as wholes during speech production and comprehension from the lexicon and not reconstructed from their basic morphemes on each occasion of their use […]. Syntactic expressions, on the other hand, are not typically stored as wholes, but are repeatedly assembled anew out of an inventory of lexical and grammatical morphemes upon each occurrence of use by means of completely regular and productive rules. (ibid.)

The word “typically” as well as Olsen’s (2000a: 899–900) discussion in general show that she considers the aforementioned scenario to be the default, i.e. exceptions exist. Her point is connected to the idea that morphological constructions, but not syntactic ones, are often memorized and lexicalized (cf. also Wunderlich 1986: 230). In Chapter 2, a lexicalized construction was defined as one that has become part of the shared vocabulary of a speech community. Remember also that a memorized construction was defined as one that has become part of an individual’s mental lexicon. The question is now what “has become part of the mental lexicon” actually means. Berg (2012: 13) claims that “[l]exicalization refers to the likelihood with which a unit such as a compound can be used off-the-shelf rather than being put together by means of morphological rules” (ibid.). Indeed, there is evidence for this claim. Mondini, Jarema, Luzzatti, Burani & Semenza’s (2002) results support the idea that a lexicalized construction, but not a nonlexicalized one, is represented and accessed as an entire construction in the mental lexicon. The idea is further supported by results from Mondini et al. (2005: Study 2). The authors examined the performance of an agrammatic patient who produced Italian NPN/NPDN constructions. They found that constructions of a high degree of lexicalization occurred more often with the correct construction-­ internal preposition (59.91 percent) than constructions of a low degree of­ https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-005

106 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

lexicalization (46.21 percent).85 The finding can be interpreted as evidence for the idea that constructions that are more lexicalized make less use of composition and more use of full-form storage than constructions that are less lexicalized. One must come back to Berg’s (2012: 13) citation and note that the author does probably not distinguish between memorization and lexicalization. Since I maintain the distinction, I would replace the term “lexicalization” in the aforementioned citation by the term “memorization”. Doing so, we can now hypothesize that memorization, i.e. the process of becoming part of the mental lexicon of an individual language user, means that a complex construction develops its own lexical entry so that it does not have to be built from its constituents on each occasion it is used. Combining Olsen’s, Berg’s (and my) proposals, one can assume that both compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos can be memorized and stored as wholes; however, memorization/full-form storage is only a typical characteristic of compounds/CoLiCos but not of phrases/PhraLiCos. In the present chapter, I aim at elaborating on this conclusion and seeing whether compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos differ from each other on cognitive grounds. I hypothesize that compounds/CoLiCos are more often lexicalized than phrases/PhraLiCos because the former are more appropriate to be memorized and stored as single lexical entries. Note that it is assumed that memorization precedes lexicalization (Wunderlich 1986: 231). Up to now, only very few linguists, e.g. Kotowski, Böer & Härtl (2014) (cf. also Böer, Kotowski & Härtl 2012), have compared compounds/ CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos on cognitive grounds. However, the processing of compounds as well as other morphological constructions such as derivatives and inflectional forms has been examined in detail over the last decades. Therefore, the psycholinguistic/neurolinguistic literature on morphology (inflection, derivation, compounding) is reviewed in order to see whether existing models can also be applied to the compound-phrase distinction. This implies that models suggested for, for instance, inflection might also be relevant for other kinds of complex constructions, e.g. for phrases (Snider & Arnon 2012: 129). Occasionally, literature on the processing of phrases is considered as well. Before beginning with the review, I must make some introductory remarks. First, models and contributions from both comprehension and production are discussed. Although the focus is on comprehension in my own experiments to be reported later, as many of the potentially relevant theories as possible should be analyzed. Note also that, even if the directionality of comprehension (from form to concept) and production (from concept to form) clearly differs, the two

85 The percentages were calculated on the basis of the numbers given in the columns “N” and “Correct preposition” of Tab. 8 in Mondini et al. (2005: 184).

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 107

processes might mostly use the same representations of an item, e.g. the same conceptual representation (Zwitserlood 2003; for other similarities between comprehension and production of (spoken) language, cf. Schiller & Meyer 2003: 1). Second, studies with either a psycholinguistic or a neurolinguistic background are taken into account. Third, I refer to authors who investigate either spoken or written language – even if I am primarily interested in the former – in order to include as much of the potentially relevant literature as possible. Fourth, similar to my own experiments, most of the papers to be discussed deal with Germanic or Romance languages (e.g. English, Italian). Non-Indo-European languages (e.g. Chinese, Basque) are only examined if necessary. Concentrating on the process of inflection, Clahsen (2006a: 2) divides models of morphological processing into the three classes of “associative single-mechanism models”, “rule-based single-mechanism accounts” and “dual-mechanism models” (for discussion, cf. also Schlechtweg 2013). According to Clahsen (2006a: 2), associative single-mechanism models treat all inflected forms, i.e. both regular and irregular ones, alike and do not give special attention to morphology in general. That means, these accounts emphasize storage of and access to constructions as whole units, which are connected to other items that are similar in their semantics, phonology (and/or orthography) through complex networks. Since associative single-mechanism models assume that a complex construction is stored as a whole unit, they belong to the group of so-called full-listing models (Clahsen 1999: 995, 2006b: 360; Clahsen, Eisenbeiß & Sonnenstuhl-Henning 1997: 202; for specific arguments for full-listing models, cf. Butterworth 1983; Manelis & Tharp 1977). Authors who argue for an associative single-mechanism model are Sereno & Jongman (1997) as well as Bybee (1985, 1988, 1995a, 1995b, 2013) and Bybee & Slobin (1982). Sereno & Jongman (1997: Experiments 2–3) observed that an item’s surface frequency, i.e. either the frequency of an item’s plural form or the frequency of an item’s singular form, had a decisive influence on the reaction times in a lexical-decision task. First, the reaction times of nouns that had the same total frequency – the frequency including the frequency values of all possible inflected forms of a noun – significantly differed from each other if the surface frequencies differed from each other. That means, nouns of a high singular but low plural frequency (group one) were responded to significantly more quickly than nouns of a low singular but high plural frequency (group two) if the subjects were exposed to the singular forms of the nouns. However, the items of group one were responded to significantly more slowly than the items of group two if the participants were exposed to the plural forms of the nouns. Second, if nouns differed in their total frequencies as well as in the frequencies of their plural forms but not in the frequencies of their singular forms, the response latencies of the nouns did not significantly differ if the singular forms were presented.

108 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

The reaction times of the nouns significantly differed if the subjects were tested on the plural forms of the nouns. In sum, the response latency depended on the frequency of the whole specific form that was presented. The idea of an associative single-mechanism model is also illustrated in Bybee (1985, 1988, 1995a, 1995b, 2013) and Bybee & Slobin (1982). According to the author(s), items are connected to other items that share aspects of semantics and/or phonology in a network. For instance, a link between the regular plural form of a noun and the uninflected noun itself exists because the two forms have a large part of their phonology and semantics in common. In the network model, token frequency represents a decisive factor and is responsible for the fact that items differ in their lexical strength. That means, the more frequent an item is, the less it depends on the links to related items. However, not only token frequency but also type frequency represents a crucial factor in Bybee’s (and Slobin’s) model: Highly frequent types are more likely to spread to novel items. Overall, the author(s) assume(s) storage of complex items and minimize(s) the function of morphological structure. The retrieval of items is influenced by their token and type frequency as well as by their phonological and semantic features. Note that the nature of connectionist models (Joanisse & Seidenberg 1999; Plaut 2011; Rumelhart & McClelland 1986) is similar to the nature of the aforementioned network model: Only one system, which treats both regular and irregular forms, exists.86 Another piece of evidence for associative singlemechanism models comes from Stemberger & MacWhinney (1986: Studies 3–4), who found that the processing of regularly inflected items depended on the ­frequencies of the entire constructions (cf. also Stemberger & MacWhinney 1988). That means, fewer speech errors were found if the complexes were of high ­frequency than if they were of low frequency. Note that the difference was only significant in Study 4. In contrast, composition/decomposition models would only expect frequency effects of the stems of regularly inflected expressions but not of their whole forms (Drews, Zwitserlood, Bolwiender & Heuer 1994: 276; Zwitserlood 1995: 116). Therefore, associative single-mechanism models assume full-form storage for both irregular and regular items.87 The second kind of models that deal with morphological processing and are discussed in Clahsen (2006a: 2) are so-called rule-based single-mechanism

86 For a discussion of connectionism, cf. Booij (2012: 247–249). 87 Note, however, that Stemberger & MacWhinney (1986) claim that the constituents of complex constructions also play a role in the mental lexicon. I come back to their paper when discussing so-called race models below. For now, we keep in mind that frequency effects of entire constructions, as opposed to frequency effects of constituents, represent evidence for full-form storage.

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 109

accounts. As the author illustrates, rule-based single-mechanism accounts put morphophonological rules in the center of interest and reject storage of as well as access to whole units in as many cases as possible. A model of this kind is given in Halle & Mohanan (1985). The authors follow the tradition of Lexical Phonology but propose modifications that extend preceding approaches. English verbal inflection represents a crucial area of research in their work. For instance, the authors elaborate on specific rules that explain how the phonological changes between the present and the past tense of irregular verbs, e.g. see/saw, can be formalized. In opposition to associative single-mechanism models, rule-based single-mechanism accounts rely on rules and try to minimize storage. The two different kinds of single-mechanism models, namely associative single-mechanism models and rule-based single-mechanism accounts, were developed for inflectional morphology. One can now ask whether these theories have any relevance for the topic of the present work, i.e. for the distinction between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. As the name already suggests, single-mechanism models cannot be transferred to the compoundphrase distinction. Assuming a difference between compounds/CoLiCos, i.e. morphological constructions, and phrases/PhraLiCos, i.e. syntactic constructions, one needs two mechanisms rather than a single one that treats both construction types. Therefore, one should now look at the third kind of models, which is mentioned in Clahsen (2006a: 2), namely dual-mechanism models, and see whether some or any of these approaches can be used in order to support the contrast between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. Dual-mechanism models differ in their exact nature from each other. That means, the two mechanisms can operate either on the same or on different constructions. In the following, I reflect upon dual-mechanism models; some of them were developed for and applied to inflectional morphology (cf. also Clahsen 2006a: 2). Some others, however, are based on compounding and are included in the discussion as well. The first kind of dual-mechanism model is The Words-and-Rules theory outlined in Pinker & Ullman (2002) (cf. also Clahsen & Almazan 2001; Pinker 1991; Pinker & Prince 1991). The authors use the simple contrast between the lexicon and the grammar as a point of departure and primarily apply it to the past tense of English regular and irregular verbs: While the past tense of an irregular verb such as hold is part of declarative knowledge and has to be stored as an entry in the lexicon, the past tense of a regular verb such as walk can be created in the grammar through the application of a rule, i.e. through procedural knowledge. Note that, as Pinker & Ullman (2002: 458) state, regularly formed items can also be stored; however, it is not necessary to store them. Note also that,

110 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

as Ullman (2001) claims, material stored in the lexicon is declarative knowledge, i.e. knowledge of single events or facts. Grammatical operations, however, belong to the area of procedural knowledge, i.e. knowledge of how to do something. Overall, The Words-and-Rules theory states that both full-form storage and composition/decomposition are necessary: While irregular forms are used as single units, which are represented in the mental lexicon, regular complex constructions are composed in production or decomposed in comprehension through the use of specific rules. Transferring the theory from inflectional morphology to the compound-phrase distinction, one might argue that compounds/ CoLiCos, if compared to normal or regular phrases/PhraLiCos, are irregular in one or several ways. For instance, as shown in Chapter 3, AN compounds differ from AN phrases because the adjective and the noun of the former are by definition never in agreement. Furthermore, whereas AN phrases are by default semantically compositional and stressed on a non-initial syllable in German, AN compounds tend to be semantically non-compositional and stressed on the initial syllable (cf. also Chapter 4). According to the logic of the aforementioned theory, only irregularly but not regularly constructed items must be stored in the lexicon. Applying the theory to the compound-phrase distinction, one might say that only compounds/CoLiCos but not phrases/PhraLiCos have to be stored. Of course, exceptions exist because some phrases, which are not semantically compositional and/or have initial stress, are irregular as well and, therefore, have to be stored in the lexicon. Nevertheless, as Payne & Huddleston (2002: 450) state, “the existence of borderline cases does not provide a reason for abandoning a distinction that can be recognised in a great range of clear cases” (ibid.). So, for the moment, the idea that compounds/CoLiCos, in opposition to phrases/ PhraLiCos, must be stored as whole units because they are irregular in one or several respects can be kept in mind. As stated above, The Words-and-Rules theory was primarily developed in order to distinguish regular and irregular inflectional morphology. However, looking at several studies that investigated compounds, one realizes that the basic idea fits here as well: While items with a higher degree of irregularity have to be stored as whole units, items with a lower degree of irregularity might be accessed via their individual constituents, i.e. they might be composed in production or decomposed in comprehension. We should now look more closely at the notion of irregularity if applied to compounds. Semantic intransparency, or semantic opacity, which is discussed in several works, can be regarded as one form of irregularity. Sandra (1990), for instance, investigated whether the constituents of different types of compounds were primed. The author did not find priming effects for the first or second (pseudo-)constituent if the complex construction was a pseudo-compound, e.g. boycott, or a semantically opaque

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 111

compound, e.g. buttercup.88 However, the analysis revealed that the two ­constituents of a semantically transparent compound like teaspoon were primed. Based on these findings, Sandra (1990) argues that opaque compounds have to be stored as single units. Semantically transparent compounds, however, might possibly not need a single entry in the mental lexicon because their constituents can be accessed. It is important to add that Sandra (1990) goes a step further and considers the distinction between transparency and compositionality.89 The issue was already discussed earlier but is briefly repeated here. Whereas the former notion [, i.e. semantic transparency,] refers to the relationship between compound and constituent meanings, the latter [, i.e. semantic compositionality,] refers to the possibility of determining the whole-word meaning from the constituent meanings. The example of the word blackbird […] illustrated that transparent words are not necessarily compositional. (Sandra 1990: 550) [S]emantic transparency is not the same as compositionality. Although the semantic relation between transparent compounds and their constituents might be easy to establish, the meaning of the compound as a whole is often more than the meaning of its component words. (Zwitserlood 1994: 366)

Keeping in mind the differentiation between transparency and compositionality, Sandra (1990: 550) suggests that “[p]erhaps only compositional words need no representation in the lexicon” (ibid.). A similar idea comes from Zwitserlood (1994). The author investigated three types of Dutch compounds, namely “fully transparent”, “partially opaque” and “truly opaque” ones. They can be defined as follows: The meaning of a fully transparent compound is synchronically related to the meaning of its composite words (e.g. milkman). Semantic opacity refers to the situation in which the relation between the meaning of the whole compound and (one of) its constituents is not apparent […]. Compounds can be truly opaque when there is no semantic relation with any constituent (e.g. blackguard), or partially opaque when a semantic relationship with one constituent exists (e.g. jailbird). (ibid.: 344)90

88 Note that the study was actually conducted with Dutch items. The English examples given in the text are from the author. 89 For an overview on semantic transparency and semantic compositionality, cf. also Körtvélyessy, Štekauer & Zimmermann (2015: 87–90). 90 Libben (1998: 37–38) as well as Libben, Gibson, Yoon & Sandra (2003: 53) present a similar categorization by suggesting that the two, one of the two or no constituent(s) can contribute to the whole meaning of a compound. Libben et al. (2003: 53) give the following four categories and examples: Transparent + Transparent (e.g. car-wash), Opaque + Transparent (e.g. strawberry), Transparent + Opaque (e.g. jailbird) and Opaque + Opaque (e.g. hogwash).

112 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

In a semantic-priming experiment (Experiment 2), Zwitserlood (1994) found that only fully transparent as well as partially opaque compounds but not truly opaque compounds primed items that were semantically related to their constituents. The effects revealed for truly opaque compounds did not even significantly differ from those of monomorphemic pseudo-compounds like mandrill, which did not prime items that were semantically related to their pseudo-constituents either.91,92 The results indicate that only fully transparent and partially opaque compounds are semantically decomposable. That means, according to Zwitserlood (1994), although all of the three compound types (fully transparent, partially opaque and truly opaque ones) have an autonomous representation of their meaning in the lexicon, only the meanings of fully transparent and partially opaque compounds are connected to the semantics of their constituents. At this point, one notices again that transparency has to be distinguished from compositionality. Zwitserlood (1994: 365–366) argues for the representation of the entire meaning of a transparent compound because the meaning is noncompositional. Ackema & Neeleman (2004: 80–85) as well as Libben (2006: 3) also consider semantic non-compositionality to be a reason for why compounds have to be stored in their full form.93 Syntactic constructions can be treated in a similar way: Whereas an idiomatic phrase, e.g. an idiom, has to have an own, or single, representation of its entire meaning, a non-idiomatic phrase only requires the combination of the semantics of the constituents (Snider & Arnon 2012: 129; Sprenger, Levelt & Kempen 2006: 162; Titone & Connine 1999: 1658). Note that idiomaticity is regarded as non-compositionality and non-idiomaticity as compositionality. From the aforementioned discussion, one can keep in mind the following. First, if a complex construction is semantically non-compositional, it needs its own representation in the mental lexicon, at least at the semantic level.

91 Again, note that English examples from the author are used in order to facilitate the comprehension of the study, which was actually conducted with Dutch items. 92 Libben et al. (2003: Experiment 2) found in a lexical-decision task that Transparent + Transparent, Opaque + Transparent, Transparent + Opaque and Opaque + Opaque compounds showed shorter response latencies if one of their two constituents preceded the compound as a prime in comparison to the condition where a neutral prime preceded the compound. However, one has to keep one aspect in mind. Libben et al. (2003: Experiment 2) used the compound constituents as primes. In contrast, in the second experiment reported in Zwitserlood (1994), not the compound constituents but items that were semantically related to the compound constituents were primed. Therefore, the effect revealed in the analysis by Libben et al. (2003: Experiment 2) might be based on the formal similarity between the prime and the target rather than on the semantics of the compounds and the constituents. 93 Libben (2006: 3) actually uses the term “idiosyncratic meaning” (ibid.).

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 113

Second, the (semantic) entry of the whole complex construction is still connected to the (semantic) entries of the individual constituents, at least in semantically fully or partially transparent constructions. Specific empirical evidence for the second point was just presented and the question arises now how the first one is supported in the literature. One reason why complex constructions are semantically non-compositional is the fact that a specific relation combines the two constituents. That means, apart from knowing the meanings of the individual constituents, one has to be familiar with the construction-internal relation in order to comprehend the semantics of the entire construction. Gagné, Spalding and colleagues found in several experiments that not only the constituents of constructions but also the relation connecting the constituents can be primed (Gagné 2002: Experiment 2; Gagné & Spalding 2009; Spalding, Gagné, Mullaly & Ji 2010; cf. also Gagné & Spalding 2006a, 2006b, 2010; Gagné, Marchak & Spalding 2010). Focusing on English complex constructions, they conducted priming experiments and showed that a construction with a particular relation primed another construction where the same relation held between the two nouns. So, for instance, snowfort primed snowball, a construction in which the same relation operated in order to combine the two nouns (“made-of” relation), more than snowshovel (“for” relation) primed snowball because the latter two constructions did not share a relation. Overall, the authors argue that the relation that combines two constituents of a complex construction plays a crucial role in the processing of these constructions. Therefore, we see that the specific relation that connects the constituents of a semantically non-compositional construction is represented in the mental lexicon. Since a particular constituent (e.g. snow) can be connected to a constituent (e.g. ball) in a complex construction in one specific way (e.g. “made-of” relation in snowball) and to another constituent (e.g. shovel) in another complex construction in a different way (e.g. “for” relation in snowshovel), it seems to be more efficient to store the entire construction, or at least its entire semantic representation, in the mental lexicon in order to avoid confusion. The idea to distinguish transparency from compositionality as described in Sandra (1990) and Zwitserlood (1994) as well as the possible implications for the storage of compounds might also give us insights for the compound-phrase distinction. I believe that it is more promising to examine the notion of semantic (non-)compositionality rather than semantic (in-)transparency. The gradient nature of transparency makes it hard to investigate its potential role in the compound-phrase distinction. Although it is possible to rate the transparency of a construction with a numerical scale, it has been shown that transparency ratings are influenced by the frequency and productivity of the constituents as well as by the semantic relation connecting the two constituents (Bell & Schäfer 2016). In contrast, an item can be argued to be compositional/non-compositional more

114 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

easily. In Chapter 4, compounds/CoLiCos, as opposed to phrases/­PhraLiCos, were treated as constructions that are by their nature non-compositional. In addition to that, the discussion above implies that (the semantics of) non-­compositional compounds/CoLiCos need their own entry. If one interprets the proposal in a more general way, it can be assumed that semantically non-compositional complex constructions must be represented in and accessed via a distinct (semantic) entry in the mental lexicon. Combining the two proposals, one might say that compounds/CoLiCos, in contrast to phrases/PhraLiCos, have an entry of their full form in the mental lexicon because they are inherently semantically non-compositional. Crucially, we rely here as well as in one of the experiments to be reported later on compositionality and push the notion of transparency in the background. The reason for this decision is simple. Imagine that the possible (or novel) German AN compound Grüntisch (green_table) refers to a table made of a specific wood that changes its color and automatically becomes green at some point in time. In contrast, the German AN phrase grüner Tisch (‘green table’) can be used to describe any table that is green for whatever reason. Both constructions are semantically transparent rather than intransparent. In Zwitserlood’s (1994) terms, the two constructions are considered to be fully transparent because their meanings are “synchronically related to the meaning of […] [their] composite words” (ibid.: 344). However, only the phrase grüner Tisch but not the compound Grüntisch is also semantically compositional because “the meaning of the compound as a whole is […] more than the meaning of its component words” (ibid.: 366) (cf. also Chapter 7). To come back to our point of departure, namely dual-mechanism models, one might claim that two mechanisms, or routes, for the representation of and access to complex constructions exist: If a construction is semantically compositional, it does not have an own representation of its meaning and is always accessed via the semantics of its individual constituents. If, however, a construction is semantically non-compositional, it has a semantic representation and is accessed via this distinct entry. One might even go a step further and claim that semantically non-compositional constructions not only have an own entry in the mental lexicon for the semantics but also for the whole form. This means that both compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos can be stored as whole units provided that they are semantically non-compositional. Nevertheless, if compounds/CoLiCos, as opposed to phrases/PhraLiCos, are inherently non-compositional, their full-form entry might develop more easily, efficiently or early. This idea connects well to other kinds of dual-route/mechanism models, which, however, need some explanation first. The dual-mechanism models we have dealt with so far contain two different routes for different items. On the one hand, “irregular” items are stored as whole units. Focusing specifically on semantics, we can assume that a non-compositional

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 115

construction needs its own representation, at least in the semantic domain. On the other hand, “regular” constructions do not have to be stored as entire units because their constituents are already part of the mental lexicon and only have to be combined in order to form the construction. Even if one assumes that irregular, or idiosyncratic, items have to be stored (Aronoff 2000: 348; Baayen, Dijkstra & Schreuder 1997: 111; Plag 2003: 47), it is still unclear why regular items should be stored as well in certain cases. That means, the question remains what decides whether regularly formed constructions are composed (production)/decomposed (comprehension) or stored (Plag 2003: 47). First of all, comparing composition/ decomposition and storage in general, one realizes that the two routes have different objectives. The target of composition/decomposition can be summarized in the following constraint: Economy of storage constraint: The listing in the lexicon of word forms requires storage space and thus introduces a memory load. The total amount of storage varies roughly with the number of items being stored. Furthermore, the efficiency with which a particular lexical item can be retrieved – for example, its look-up time – depends upon the number of stored forms that need to be searched. If one assumes fixed limits to the brain’s capacity for storing lexical knowledge or limits to the allowable search times, then the number of lexical entries becomes a critical factor. This principle of economy of storage suggests that it is desirable to restrict the number of stored lexical entries and to avoid a full-listing approach. (Frauenfelder & Schreuder 1992: 166)

Aronoff (2000: 348) calls proponents of this view “minimalists” and emphasizes that they “tends [sic!] to make the lexicon as small as possible, in the number, variety and content of lexical entries; minimalism avoids redundancy of any sort in the lexicon” (ibid.). Economy of storage, or minimalism, stands in opposition to the following constraint, which mirrors the goal of storage: Economy of processing constraint: According to this principle, it is easier to retrieve a full form directly than to parse it. Parsing requires mental computations, and these computations, in their turn, involve processing costs. This principle claims that processing costs should be minimized, and therefore, direct look-up is preferable to decomposition or parsing. (Frauenfelder & Schreuder 1992: 167)

Aronoff (2000: 348) refers to representatives of this position as “maximalists” who “tend to enlarge the lexicon, permitting a good deal of redundancy and complex internal structure” (ibid.). Comparing the economy of storage constraint and the economy of processing constraint, one recognizes that both routes have their advantages and drawbacks. The advantages of the two options are obvious: Whereas the first constraint keeps the amount of stored pieces in the

116 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

mental lexicon minimal, the second constraint circumvents processing if possible (­Frauenfelder & Schreuder 1992: 166–169; Plag 2003: 48–49). Put differently, the first constraint assumes that storage is more demanding and the second constraint is based on the idea that processing is more demanding (Plag 1999: 10). The problems of the two principles can be summarized as follows: While the economy of storage constraint, i.e. the preference for composition/decomposition, implies a lot of mental processing and has difficulties in dealing with pseudo-morphemes as well as ambiguously structured polymorphemic constructions, the economy of processing constraint, i.e. the preference for full-form storage, leads to much content that has to be stored and is problematic with regard to the treatment of novel compositional multimorphemic constructions as well as illegally combined constituents (Baayen & Schreuder 1999: 27; Chialant & Caramazza 1995: 58–62; Frauenfelder & Schreuder 1992: 166–169; Libben 1998: 30–31; Plag 2003: 48–49; Semenza & Mondini 2010: 338). In sum, both full-form storage and composition/decomposition have strong and weak points. Therefore, it is not surprising that researchers try to “combine the positive features of the whole-word and the decomposed representation accounts” (Chialant & Caramazza 1995: 62). The Augmented Addressed Morphology Model presented in Caramazza, Laudanna & Romani (1988) was developed to describe the representation of and access to inflected forms.94 It incorporates two routes: First, a new, unfamiliar construction is accessed via the lexical entries of its individual constituents. Second, a familiar construction is accessed either via the lexical entries of its individual constituents or via the entry of the entire construction. Although both routes are theoretically at the disposal of a familiar construction, accessing the entry of the whole construction is preferred because it is considered to be quicker. Evidence for the model comes from lexical-decision tasks, in which the reactions to nonwords that differed in their morphological composition were compared. The authors found, for instance, that morphologically unanalyzable nonwords were responded to significantly faster and more accurately than morphologically analyzable nonwords. They argue that this finding mirrors the importance of the morphological buildup of nonwords, which are by definition new, unfamiliar items: Only analyzable nonwords make use of decomposition, which, in turn, takes additional time. The conclusion also goes well with the fact that the participants reacted significantly more slowly and less accurately to analyzable nonwords that consisted of a stem and a compatible affix than to analyzable nonwords with a stem and an incompatible affix. In the latter case, compatibility

94 For a slightly different version of the model, cf. Caramazza, Miceli, Silveri & Laudanna (1985).

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 117

caused delayed/less accurate responses because the non-words were possible, but not actual, words of the language. Race models also assume the existence of two possible routes for the access of a complex construction: On the one hand, the full form of the complex ­construction can be directly accessed and, on the other hand, the complex construction can be accessed via its individual constituents (Baayen 1992; Baayen & Schreuder 1999; Schreuder & Baayen 1995; cf. also Baayen et al. 1997). The aforementioned authors highlight the importance of the frequency of a complex construction: While a construction of high frequency always takes advantage of the fast direct route, a rare construction necessitates composition/decomposition. Baayen (1992) supports the idea by referring to the apparent negative correlation between productivity and frequency, i.e. high productivity often comes with low frequency and low productivity normally harmonizes with high frequency. That means, while frequent constructions that were unproductively created circumvent the composition/decomposition route, constructions that were built in productive processes have the option of composition/decomposition at their disposal. The composition/decomposition mechanism is particularly important for low frequent constructions that were formed in a productive way and for novel constructions. However, the author reminds the reader that constructions that are the result of productive processes can also become part of the lexicon as full forms. Specifically, such constructions are accessed more quickly via full-form entries if they are frequent. Baayen (1992: 126) summarizes the idea in the following way: [T]he relative dominance of high-frequency types in the frequency distributions of unproductive word formation rules can be understood to guarantee the efficient retrieval from memory of formations for which, as is the case for simplex items, no word formation rules are available. The large numbers of rare types in the frequency distributions of productive word formation rules suggest that productive rules operate in parallel with a memorybased access procedure, securing efficient access for those formations for which the representational strength is insufficient for the memory-based access procedure to complete successful retrieval. (ibid., bold added by MS)

Looking at constructions that were created by means of productive rules, or regular constructions, one notices that the aforementioned model implies the parallel existence of both the composition/decomposition and the full-form route. Note that Stemberger & MacWhinney (1986) already suggested a similar model earlier. They propose that regularly inflected items might be accessed via both a full-form and a constituent route, which operate in parallel. While the full-form route wins for constructions of high frequency, the composition/­ decomposition route wins for low-frequency forms.

118 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

Both the Augmented Addressed Morphology Model and the race models presented so far include two routes to access complex constructions. Therefore, they enable us to take advantage of the strong points of both routes: On the one hand, storing existing (frequent) complex constructions in single and directly accessible entries means that the processing costs are kept at a minimal level as often as possible. On the other hand, constituents play a decisive role for low frequent and for novel constructions, which cannot have entries in the mental lexicon yet. Looking specifically at compounding, one realizes that similar proposals exist. Libben (2006: 9) claims that the full form of a very frequent compound is directly accessed in order to minimize processing costs (although the constituents are activated as well). He compares it to a low frequent compound that is accessed via its constituents more quickly and to a novel compound that has to be accessed via its individual constituents anyway. Overall, the author states that there is “no evidence of the maximization of either computational or storage efficiency but, rather, the maximization of the opportunities for both” (ibid.: 6). The conclusion goes well with results obtained by Gagné & Spalding (2009). Using lexical-­ decision tasks, the authors showed that both the lemma frequency of an entire construction and the frequencies of the constituents in a specific position played a crucial role in processing because higher frequencies facilitated the recognition of the whole construction. While the former finding, i.e. facilitation in the recognition through the frequency of the entire construction, can be argued to support the idea of full-form storage, the latter finding, i.e. facilitation in the recognition through the constituent frequencies, proves that compounds are also subject to decomposition. Note that it is rather unsurprising that existing compounds have an own entry in the mental lexicon – at least if they have reached a certain frequency level (Bronk et al. 2013: 10) – as they are inherently non-compositional (cf. Chapter 4 and §5.1). Despite this fact, constituent access, i.e. composition/ decomposition, can play a crucial role in the processing of existing compounds. Psycholinguistic studies showed that the characteristics of constituents definitely had an influence on the processing of compounds of low frequency. Fiorentino & Poeppel (2007a) found in a visual lexical-decision task that existing English NN compounds of low frequency were reacted to significantly more rapidly and accurately than monomorphemic items. Note that the frequency, length and number of syllables of the two item types did not significantly differ. The frequency/length/ number of syllables of the compound constituents, however, was (significantly) higher/shorter/smaller than the frequency/length/number of syllables of the monomorphemic items as well as of the whole compounds. The authors interpret the finding as evidence for decomposition (cf. also Fiorentino & Poeppel 2007b). Ji, Gagné & Spalding (2011: Experiments 1–3) found that English complex constructions of low frequency were responded to significantly faster and with

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 119

(significantly) higher accuracy than simplex items in a lexical-decision task. Again, both item types had the same frequency, length and number of syllables. The authors explain the finding by referring to the frequencies of the constituents, which were higher than the frequencies of the complex and simplex items. Note that both semantically transparent and opaque constructions were processed more easily than simplex items in Experiment 3. Therefore, according to the authors, decomposition is relevant for both types of complex constructions. Note also, however, that the researchers showed that the processing benefit of opaque compounds over simplex items vanished if the decomposition process was encouraged (Experiments 4–6). That means, for instance, spaces occurred between the two constituents of complex constructions (Experiment 4). Spaces, in turn, were assumed to encourage the decomposition of complex constructions into their constituents. In this condition, only semantically transparent but not opaque constructions were responded to significantly more rapidly and with significantly higher accuracy than simplex items. The former kind of complex constructions were also reacted to significantly faster and more accurately than the latter kind. Ji et al. (2011) interpret the findings as evidence for semantic (de)composition, which is advantageous for transparent but problematic for opaque constructions. The authors believe that the conflict between the literal/ (de)composed and figurative/stored meaning of opaque constructions causes processing difficulties. I do not consider the results of Experiments 4 to 6 in any more detail for the following reason. Ji et al. (2011: 414) report that they examined “36 opaque compounds, 17 were fully opaque, and 19 were partially opaque (10 items were TO [Transparent-Opaque] and 9 were OT)” (ibid.). That means, 27 of 36 opaque compounds (17 fully opaque ones + 10 TO ones), i.e. 75 percent, were exocentric constructions. My work looks at endocentric constructions and, therefore, I prefer ignoring the results obtained for, primarily, exocentric ones. Bronk et al. (2013) also compared complex constructions, specifically German NN compounds, with simplex items of the same language in a visual lexical-­ decision task. In Experiment 1a, they created triplets of a simplex noun (e.g. Margerite, ‘marguerite’) and two semantically transparent compounds (e.g. Papierhut, paper_hat, ‘paper hat’; Zauberhut, magic_hat, ‘magic hat’). The compounds and the simplex items did not differ in terms of surface frequency and length; however, the compound constituents had a higher frequency than the simplex items and the compounds. Moreover, the two compounds had one constituent in common (e.g. Hut). The other constituent of one compound (e.g. Papier) was more frequent than the other constituent of the other compound (e.g. Zauber). The authors found that compounds having a constituent of high frequency were reacted to significantly more quickly than simplex items and compounds having a constituent of low frequency. The response latencies of the

120 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

latter two item types did not significantly differ. Similar results were obtained for semantically transparent compounds in Experiment 1b, which differed in a specific respect. In Experiment 1a, apart from simplex pseudo-items (e.g. Instrumunt), pseudo-compounds with non-existing constituents (e.g. Blamentepf) required a “No”-response in the lexical-decision task. In Experiment 1b, however, pseudo-compounds with existing constituents required a “No”-response (e.g. Pianotasse, piano_cup). Bronk et al. (2013) conducted two similar experiments, namely Experiments 2a and 2b, in order to investigate semantically opaque compounds. An opaque compound (e.g. Seifenoper, soap_n_opera, ‘soap opera’) and a simplex noun (e.g. Frikadelle, ‘rissole’) had the same length and surface frequency; however, the two compound constituents were more frequent than the simplex item and the entire compound. Opaque compounds were reacted to significantly more rapidly than simplex items in Experiment 2a, which included, as Experiment 1a, pseudo-compounds with non-existing constituents (e.g. Leubfrasch). In Experiment 2b, however, where pseudo-compounds with existing constituents (e.g. Schneemusik, snow_music) were used, the significant difference disappeared. Overall, the authors interpret their findings in the following way. Decomposition plays a crucial role during the recognition of German compounds. Since this applies to both compounds with transparent and compounds with opaque semantics, the decomposition process must occur prior to the interpretation of the complex constructions. Furthermore, the researchers explain their results by referring to a model outlined by Taft (2004) and Taft & Ardasinski (2006), who emphasize the importance of a so-called recombination stage in the recognition of visually presented stimuli. In Experiments 1b and 2b in Bronk et al. (2013), the decomposition process was encouraged through pseudo-compounds that were composed of two existing constituents (e.g. Pianotasse, Schneemusik). In a semantically transparent compound, the meanings of the individual constituents play a crucial role for the interpretation of the entire compound. Therefore, the recombination of the two constituents follows the decomposition without any problems. In an opaque compound, however, the semantics of the constituents are not relevant for the meaning of the full compound. Therefore, after the decomposition process, the planned recombination cannot be implemented as in the case of transparent compounds because the combination of the meanings of the compound constituents differs from the actual meaning of the compound. Again, since the majority of opaque compounds were exocentric, I do not want to interpret the findings of Experiments 2a-b in any more detail. In sum, one clearly sees that decomposition plays a central role in the processing of low-frequent endocentric complex constructions. The studies mentioned above found that compounds were responded to (­significantly) faster (and more accurately) than simplex items. Remember that

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 121

the authors investigated German (Bronk et al. 2013) and English NN compounds (Ji et al. 2011; Poeppel & Fiorentino 2007a).95 Yagoubi, Chiarelli, Mondini, Perrone, Danieli & Semenza (2008) compared Italian NN compounds/constructions (50 percent right- and 50 percent left-headed ones) with non-compounds that contained an existing word. They found the opposite pattern: Compounds were reacted to significantly more slowly and less accurately than non-compounds. The authors believe that compound processing is more demanding because both the constituents and the full form have to be accessed. Unfortunately, they do not report the frequencies of the constituents. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate their results. Moreover, one reason for the disadvantage of compounds found in this study might be the fact that non-compounds were shorter than compounds (right-headed compounds: 10.21 letters, left-headed compounds: 10.82 letters, non-compounds that contained an existing word on the left: 9.32 letters, noncompounds that contained an existing word on the right: 9.04 letters). Comparing the study by Yagoubi et al. (2008) with the studies by Poeppel & Fiorentino (2007a) as well as Bronk et al. (2013), we see that all argue for decomposition but rely on different evidence. Whereas the authors of the former study interpret slower and less accurate responses as an indication of decomposition, the authors of the latter two studies consider faster and more accurate responses to prove decomposition. Crucially, the studies share the idea that decomposition has to take place in compound processing. The concrete effects of decomposition, i.e. facilitation or inhibition, (probably) depend on characteristics of the compound constituents, e.g. their frequency. The results obtained by Yagoubi et al. (2008) must be treated with caution because we do not know the frequencies of the constituents. Poeppel & Fiorentino (2007a), Ji et al. (2011) as well as Bronk et al. (2013) investigated only rare complex constructions and argue that morphological decomposition takes place early, i.e. before full-form access. This view goes well with the assumptions of race models and the Augmented Addressed Morphology Model. A new or rare complex construction is accessed more rapidly via its constituents than via its full form – if there is a full-form entry at all. If the full form already has an entry in the mental lexicon, it is accessed more slowly as long as the complex construction has a relatively low frequency. With increasing frequency, however, full-form access becomes faster than constituent access. The results obtained in the aforementioned studies also show that decomposition precedes full-form access. If full-form access had preceded decomposition,

95 Note that not all complex constructions that were under investigation in Ji et al. (2011) were NN compounds. However, the majority of items were of the type NN.

122 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

no significant differences between the reactions to the compounds and the reactions to the simplex items would have been found because they were matched for potentially confounding variables. Since the compounds were responded to (significantly) more quickly (and accurately) than the simplex items and since the compound constituents were more frequent than the compounds and the simplex items, decomposition can be argued to occur prior to full-form access – if full-form access is possible at all. In contrast, Giraudo & Grainger (2000) defend a supralexical position and argue that full-form access precedes constituent access. The authors conducted lexical-decision tasks with visually presented stimuli in French and masked the primes in the experiments. In the first experiment, a root (e.g. ami, ‘friend’) was primed by a derivative of high frequency that contained the root (e.g. amitié, ‘friendship’), a derivative of low frequency that contained the root (e.g. amiable, ‘amicable’) or a simplex/control item that contained the letters of the root by coincidence (e.g. amidon, ‘starch’). The statistical analysis of the results revealed that reactions were significantly faster if a prime of high frequency occurred than if a control item served as a prime. No significant difference between the response times of the control condition and the condition in which constructions of low frequency represented the primes was found. The comparison between the response latencies of the high-frequency and the low-frequency prime conditions showed marginally significant results. Looking at response accuracy, the researchers found that primes of either frequency type (low and high), whose accuracy did not significantlty differ from each other, caused significantly more correct responses than the control primes. In the second experiment, Giraudo & Grainger (2000) showed that primes of high frequency (e.g. amiral, ‘admiral’) that had letters but no morpheme with the target/root (e.g. ami) in common caused (significantly) more incorrect responses than primes that shared letters (but no morpheme) with the target/root and were of low frequency (e.g. amidon) and than unrelated items used in the prime position (e.g. chaume, ‘stubble’). The primes of low frequency and the unrelated items did not have significantly different error rates. The third experiment showed that primes of high frequency that contained the root/target as a morpheme caused significantly quicker reaction times than primes of high frequency that were either unrelated or only orthographically, but not morphologically, related to the target. Unrelated and orthographically related primes of high frequency did not significantly differ in terms of response latencies. Overall, the authors use their findings as evidence for the idea that full-form access precedes decomposition. The finding that the frequency of a complex construction has an influence on the processing of its root indicates that the whole form is accessed early. Furthermore, since the authors succeeded in separating morphological from orthographic effects (cf. also §2.1.1), the

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 123

paper also shows that decomposition must play a role at some point later in time. van Jaarsveld & Rattink (1988) go in a similar direction. The authors argue for a so-called decomposition second model. According to this model, accessing the full form has priority and should always be the first step. Decomposition, i.e. constituent access, becomes important if the full-form access has failed. Using lexical-decision experiments, van Jaarsveld & Rattink (1988) compared lexicalized with non-lexicalized Dutch NN compounds. Their analysis revealed that the constituent frequency did not have a significant influence on the processing of lexicalized compounds (Experiment 1). In contrast, the processing of nonlexicalized compounds depended on the constituent frequency (Experiments 2–5). Taken together, we can say the following. There is evidence for both constituent access (e.g. Bronk et al. 2013; Fiorentino & Poeppel 2007a; Ji et al. 2011) and full-form access (e.g. Gagné & Spalding 2009; Giraudo & Grainger 2000; van Jaarsveld & Rattink 1988). Having evidence for both types of access suggests that models that incorporate two routes for the processing of complex constructions are more promising than those that rely on a single route. The question is what factors determine which route is preferred – if only one route is used to access a specific construction – or which route is faster – if both routes are used, either in parallel or one after the other, to access a complex construction. Lexicalization status, frequency and semantic transparency have an influence on the processing of complex constructions. That means, giving priority to fullform access seems to become more likely if the degree of lexicalization as well as the frequency of a construction increases (cf. van Jaarsveld & Rattink 1988). Moreover, full-form access plays a more important role if the semantic transparency of a construction is low (cf. Bronk et al. 2013; Ji et al. 2011). Therefore, since frequency does not seem to represent the only factor that influences the processing of complex constructions, modifications of the aforementioned race model have been suggested. Frauenfelder & Schreuder (1992: 171–175) discuss and criticize Baayen’s (1992) model presented above for several reasons. First, the model implies that the selected route of two items that differ in productivity but not in frequency is identical. Hence, they believe that decomposition is theoretically, though not practically, a possible option for rare items that were created in an unproductive way. Second, and crucially, they accuse Baayen (1992) of overlooking semantic and phonological criteria that are also decisive in order to describe the representation of and the access to complex constructions. Therefore, Frauenfelder & Schreuder (1992: 175–181) present their own Morphological Race Model. As do the other authors mentioned earlier, they argue for the parallel existence of a full-form route and a decomposition route. Another similarity is that they assume that “the faster route wins the race” (ibid.: 175) or,

124 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

in other words, the faster route is preferred over the other route. The speed of a route depends on several factors. A construction’s frequency represents the most crucial one. That means, a c­ onstruction of high ­frequency is usually accessed via the full-form route. However, the authors emphasize the importance of the semantic as well as the phonological transparency and the cumulative frequencies of a construction’s parts (= “the combined frequency of all the words containing a shared [part, e.g. a stem]” (ibid.: 178)), which play a crucial role for the representation of and the access to a complex construction that is not highly frequent. The more transparent a construction is in terms of semantics or phonology, the faster is the decomposition route; that means, it is more likely that the decomposition route wins and is used as the access route. Furthermore, the greater the cumulative frequencies of the parts of a construction are, the faster is the decomposition route. So far, we have examined several studies as well as models and now intend to connect the analysis above to the compound-phrase distinction. Remember that we said earlier that phrases/PhraLiCos were regular in several respects and compounds/CoLiCos were irregular to a certain extent. Further, contributions that assumed full-form storage for all irregular constructions were discussed. As a consequence, the question arose when regularly formed constructions were stored as whole units. In the Augmented Addressed Morphology Model as well as in the first version of the Race Model, frequency and lexicalization status are implemented as factors that guide full-form storage. In combination, that means that full-form storage of complex constructions becomes more likely with increasing frequency, which, in turn, is used as an indication of increasing lexicalization (cf. Plag 2006: 158). The revised version of the race model, namely the Morphological Race Model presented by Frauenfelder & Schreuder (1992: 175–181), goes beyond the first version and regards other factors such as semantic and phonological transparency as decisive aspects that have, apart from frequency, an influence on the mental representation of and access to complex constructions. Considering different forms of intransparency, the authors expand the race model from regularly formed constructions to constructions that show one or several forms of irregularity. This is a crucial improvement because it is impossible to clearly distinguish between regular and irregular items. Apart from constructions that are regular or irregular in all respects, we find many cases that only show one form of irregularity. Moreover, being regular or irregular does not represent an abrupt phenomenon. Complex constructions can be, for example, more or less transparent (Bell & Schäfer 2016: 158). Therefore, we go beyond the oversimplified distinction that we introduced in the discussion of the Words-and-Rules Theory. That means, we try to apply ideas of the race model to both compounds/CoLiCos, which were considered to be ­irregular

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 125

c­onstructions earlier, and phrases/PhraLiCos, which I regarded as typical regular constructions. Now, imagine one wants to compare the possible, i.e. non-lexicalized, German AN compound Pinkmoos (pink_moss) and the non-lexicalized German AN phrase pinkes Moos (‘pink moss’). We assume that both constructions can be, in principle, used to name a new complex lexical concept. Further, it is assumed that both constructions have a frequency of zero occurrences and that the cumulative frequencies of the constituents pink and Moos are also identical in the two constructions. Now, looking at Frauenfelder & Schreuder’s (1992: 175–181) model, one is left with phonological and semantic transparency. The compound might be claimed to be less phonologically transparent than the phrase because its adjective lacks the inflectional suffix that expresses agreement between the adjective and the noun in the normal phrase (cf. §3.3.1). Moreover, the compound is stressed on the initial constituent and, therefore, also differs from the phrase in this respect (cf. §3.4.2). As already stated earlier, I would like to use the notion of semantic compositionality rather than the notion of semantic transparency. Following the argumentation in Barz (1996: 143) as well as in Härtl (2015a), we assume that the compound is semantically non-compositional from the very beginning because it formally differs from the default construction, i.e. from the AN phrase, which is semantically compositional, at least if it is used for the first time (cf. Chapter 4). In sum, although neither the compound nor the phrase can have an entry of their full form in the mental lexicon if they have never been used before, it can be argued that the representation of the full compound is created earlier or faster than the representation of the entire phrase. Since the compound is normally non-compositional from the very beginning, it needs an entry where its non-compositional aspects are stored as soon as possible. In contrast, the phrase, which is by default semantically compositional at the moment of its creation, can become non-compositional only later in time. Therefore, the creation of the lexical entry for the phrase can take more time. The question arises what it means that the compound (e.g. Pinkmoos) has its own representation in the mental lexicon earlier/faster than the corresponding and comparable phrase (e.g. pinkes Moos). In order to answer this question, one has to refer to the frequencies of the compound and the phrase. As stated above, it is assumed that they start with a frequency of zero occurrences. Further, it is assumed that their frequencies increase in a parallel fashion so that they remain at the same frequency level throughout their “lives”. If they have reached a specific frequency level, complex constructions can be argued to have an entry for their full form in the mental lexicon. At this moment, it must be asked what it actually means that a construction has “reached a specific

126 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

frequency level”. In his discussion on storage and computation, Don (2014: 169) observes the following: Not only simplex forms but also complex forms may be stored as wholes in memory, ­provided that the complex form is frequent enough in language use to warrant such storage. The idea is that in learning and use there is a certain threshold for complex forms to be stored in memory. If the frequency of the complex form is above this threshold, the form will be stored; if not, it needs to be computed online. The reasoning behind this idea is that computation of a form takes some effort every time it has to be produced or recognised. This effort is smaller if the form can be retrieved from memory in toto. However, if a specific form is used very little, the price for its storage does not outweigh the summed costs of online production. So in theory there is a break-even point where the frequency of usage is just enough to make long-term storage profitable. Below that point, forms are produced online; above that point, forms are stored. (ibid., bold added by MS)

Although it is difficult to specify the terms “threshold” and “break-even point” with precise frequency values, I claim that the concept of the threshold is of great value. Schmid (2008: 10) raises the question whether there is “a point or stage at which language users gain immediate and direct access to the (lexicalized) meaning of the compound and stop activating the meanings of the constituents” (ibid.). I aim at transferring this concept to the compound-phrase distinction and suggest the following principle: The Full-Form-Storage Principle for Compounds and Phrases: If F is the frequency threshold at which a complex construction, i.e. a compound/CoLiCo or a phrase/PhraLiCo, is stored as a full form and accessed fastest via the full form, then Fcompound/CoLiCo < Fphrase/PhraLiCo

The principle assumes that both compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos can, in principle, be accessed via either their individual constituents or their full forms. I argue, however, that the crucial difference between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos is the point when the full forms become available in the mental lexicon of a language user. That means, a novel compound/CoLiCo, which has a frequency of zero occurrences, needs to be learned less, or repeated less often, than a novel phrase/PhraLiCo, which has a frequency of zero occurrences, in order to have its own full-form representation in the mental lexicon that is used to access the complex construction in the fastest possible way. Caldwell-Harris, Berant & Edelman (2012: 168) mention the idea “that phrases of sufficient frequency have independent representation as a way of making processing more efficient” (ibid.). I believe that the aforementioned “sufficient frequency” is higher for phrases/ PhraLiCos than for compounds/CoLiCos. My principle is connected to the model suggested in Frauenfelder & Schreuder (1992: 175–181). As noted earlier, their model

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 127

implies the existence of a full-form, or direct, route and a decomposition, or parsing, route. According to the authors, “gradually there will be a shift so that the direct route becomes faster than the parsing route. The number of exposures at which this shift takes place depends upon the properties (e.g. transparency, productivity) of the word” (ibid.: 177). We substitute the term “transparency” by “compositionality”, specifically semantic compositionality. Now, assuming that compounds/CoLiCos are less compositional than phrases/PhraLiCos, one has a potential explanation for why the full-form route is developed earlier in the former kind of constructions. It might be stated that “[n]ew words [, i.e. new compounds/CoLiCos in our case,] are normally immediately lexicalized [, i.e. memorized in my interpretation], which implies that they are stored after one exposure, because their meaning cannot be reconstructed entirely” (ten Hacken 2010: 250). Although this seems to be possible, the crucial point of the principle suggested above is not whether compounds/ CoLiCos are stored as whole units after one, two or several exposures but that compounds/CoLiCos have an entry of their full form in the mental lexicon earlier than phrases/PhraLiCos. We will come back to the aforementioned principle when ­discussing my two psycholinguistic studies later in this work. So far, we have discussed a variety of studies, models and factors that tell us something about the mental representation and processing of complex constructions. There is still another factor whose influence on the compound-phrase distinction was analyzed in Chapter 3, namely headedness. In the final part of the current section, studies that investigated this factor are considered. As mentioned in §3.4.1, endocentric compounds/CoLiCos that are composed of an adjective and a noun or of two nouns are right-headed in German, French and English. In contrast, phrases/PhraLiCos with these kinds of constituents can be either right- or left-headed. If head position has an influence on the mental representation and processing of complex constructions, it might be one reason why compounds/ CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos cognitively differ. Marelli & Luzzatti (2012) ­investigated the influence of semantic transparency and headedness on the processing of Italian endocentric nominal compounds (NN, AN, NA) in a lexicaldecision task as well as in an eye-tracking study with visually presented stimuli. The authors report a significant three-way interaction of constituent frequency x semantic transparency x headedness in both experiments. They found that the facilitation of recognition caused by constituents of higher frequencies grew with increasing semantic transparency in head-final constructions. In contrast, the recognition of head-initial constructions became more difficult if the constituent frequencies as well as the semantic transparency increased. Marelli & Luzzatti (2012) argue, against some authors, that right-headedness represents the default pattern in Italian compounds. According to the authors, the recognition of endocentric right-headed semantically transparent constructions is easier than the recognition of endocentric left-headed semantically transparent

128 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

constructions because the final constituent is normally interpreted as the head. If the default interpretation turns out to be wrong, re-interpretation is necessary and takes additional time. Although I consider several constructions that were under investigation in the aforementioned study to be phrases rather than compounds, the contribution might give us more insights on the cognitive status of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. It might be tempting to assume that left-headedness causes a general processing disadvantage in Romance languages such as Italian and French, which is examined here. However, I do not think that this is the case for the following reasons. First, Marelli & Luzzatti (2012) claim that right-headedness represents the standard pattern of Italian nominal compounds – or phrases, as I would call many of them. Without considering the Italian language in any more detail here, I believe that left-headedness is the dominant pattern in French constructions that are composed of an adjective and a noun (cf. Lübke 2007: 105; for the idea that left-headedness is also more frequent in Italian compounds96, cf. Chiarelli, Yagoubi, Mondini, Danieli, Perrone & Semenza 2007: 21). Therefore, I reject to transfer the results obtained for Italian to French. Only a handful of AN compounds exist in French. Although they carry their head on the right side, their number is so small that we can ignore it here. Since left-headedness represents the default pattern of phrases, i.e. NA phrases are more typical than AN phrases, I do not see how we can use the results reported in Marelli & Luzzatti (2012) for my own research question. Note that NPN phrases are left-headed anyway (in French). Furthermore, Jarema et al. (1999: Experiment 1) showed in a visual lexical-decision task that the head constituents in French, which were either on the left or on the right side, had a bigger influence on the processing of compounds97 than the non-head constituents because the head constituents primed the compounds (significantly) more than the non-head constituents. Moreover, priming the head of left-headed constructions caused larger priming effects than priming the head of right-headed constructions. Based on the results of the studies, one can say that the facilitation in the recognition of a complex construction is greater if the head of the construction is located on the standard side, i.e. on the left in French (and maybe on the right in Italian). The authors also investigated Bulgarian compounds, where the head is always on the right side, in a second experiment. Here, they did not find that the head, if used as a prime, caused more facilitation than the non-head. Jarema et al. (1999) argue that left-headed constructions in

96 The authors to be mentioned consider them to be compounds. 97 The authors consider them to be compounds but I regard them as phrases.

5.1 Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research 

 129

French take advantage of the fact that the first constituent represents the head. Jarema, Perlak & Semenza’s (2007) findings go well with the aforementioned contribution. They analyzed the speech of two French-English bilinguals who suffered from aphasia with a repetition, a reading and a ­translation task. The authors examined the patients’ performance on left-headed French and right-headed English compounds98 and found that the left constituents, i.e. the heads, were associated with significantly fewer errors than the right constituents in French. In English, however, the two constituents did not significantly differ in the amount of errors. Jarema et al. (2007) point to the importance of the initial constituent as well as of the head in the processing of complex constructions. That means, the head in French left-headed constructions caused a greater effect than the head in English right-headed constructions because it was not only the head but also the first constituent. Put the other way around, the first constituent of French left-headed constructions caused a greater effect than the first constituent of English rightheaded constructions because it was not only the first constituent but also the head. Since the initial constituent was not the head in English, the positive effects of the head and the initial constituent did not add up, as in French, but eliminated one another. Overall, one cannot say that left-headedness creates processing deficits in French in comparison to Germanic languages like German and English. One could even assume an advantage of French because the positive effects of the head and the initial constituent combine in a left-headed construction. However, other studies found different effects. Duñabeitia, Perea & Carreiras (2007) investigated the recognition of Spanish and Basque complex constructions in lexical-decision tasks. They found that, if the frequency of complex constructions was identical across conditions, right constituents of high frequency facilitated the recognition of constructions significantly more than right constituents of low frequency in the two languages. Left constituents did not cause similar results. Crucially, right constituents caused facilitation both if they were heads and if they were non-heads. Overall, the findings of the study are not compatible with the idea that the head position has an influence on the processing of complex constructions. Instead, they suggest that the second constituent plays a more crucial role than the first one. Note another interesting result reported in the paper. While approximately 80 percent of the Basque constructions examined in the study were left-headed, around 75 percent of the Spanish ones were right-headed. Both the response-time and the error data showed that right constituents led to more facilitation in Basque than in Spanish. So, for instance,

98 Again, the authors treat the French constructions as compounds but I regard them as phrases.

130 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

constructions were responded to 83 milliseconds (henceforth: ms) more quickly in Basque if the right constituent was a highly frequent one in comparison to constructions with a right constituent of low frequency (in this example, the left constituent was of low frequency in both cases). In Spanish, the equivalent facilitation was only 24 ms. That means, the authors found more facilitation if the right constituent was (normally) not the head (Basque) than if it was (normally) the head (Spanish). Therefore, whereas Marelli & Luzzatti (2012) found facilitation for heads in the right position, Duñabeitia et al.’s (2007) results indicate facilitation for right constituents that do not represent the heads of complex constructions. It is important to observe that Duñabeitia et al.’s (2007) study has an important advantage: It separates effects of headedness (left- versus rightheaded constructions) from effects of constituent position (left versus right position). This is not possible in a language like English. Juhasz, Starr, Inhoff & Placke (2003) found that the frequencies of right constituents played a more central role in the production and recognition of English compounds than the frequencies of left constituents (if constructions did not differ in their overall frequency). So, for instance, increasing the frequency of the right constituent facilitated processing. The authors explain the finding on the basis of head position and state “that the role of the beginning lexeme is limited compared with that of the ending lexeme, presumably because compound and ending lexeme meanings tend to converge” (ibid.: 240). However, it is unclear whether the constituent position (right) or whether the head caused the effect. To complete the picture, one should mention the fact that van Jaarsveld & Rattink (1988: Experiments 2–5) investigated novel Dutch (right-headed) NN compounds and found that the frequencies of left constituents had a greater influence on the processing of constructions than the frequencies of right constituents. Kehayia, Jarema, Tsapkini, Perlak, Ralli & Kadzielawa (1999) examined NN compounds in Greek and Polish as well as AN compounds in Polish with a lexical-decision experiment. Despite the fact that the constructions were right-headed, the authors found that the first constituents primed the entire compounds more than the second constituents. Taken together, there is evidence for and against the idea that head position plays a crucial role in the processing of complex constructions (for: e.g. Marelli & Luzzatti 2012; against: e.g. Duñabeitia et al. 2007). Also, while some findings indicate that the processing of complex constructions depends more on the first constituent than on the second one (e.g. van Jaarsveld & Rattink 1988), other results go in the opposite direction (e.g. Duñabeitia et al. 2007). Therefore, the fact that endocentric compounds/CoLiCos composed of an adjective and a noun or two nouns are right-headed in German, French and English does probably not imply a processing advantage/disadvantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos, which can be either right- or left-headed.

5.2 Psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic and language-acquisition research 

 131

5.2 Psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic and language-acquisition research (specifically) on the compound-phrase distinction So far, we have done two things: First, we looked at psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic studies that investigated morphologically complex items, e.g. inflected forms or compounds, and, second, we tried to transfer the findings to the compoundphrase distinction. Our next step is to examine contributions that either directly compared the processing of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos or focused on one construction type but allow a comparison. First of all, let us look at a study on first language acquisition of French-English bilingual children. Nicoladis (2002a) found in a production task that four-year-old children created more NPN phrases with the preposition that was also chosen by adults than threeyear olds. Since phrases but not compounds sometimes contain a preposition, we can assume that this kind of phrases is harder to acquire than compounds. Children need time in order to figure out which preposition best fits in a specific NPN phrase – a process that is not necessary in NN compounds, where no preposition occurs. However, this point is only useful if one compares NN compounds with NPN phrases but not if one compares AN/NA compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/ PhraLiCos. Therefore, we now turn to AN/NA combinations. Although the compound constituents might be accessed as well, Mondini et al. (2002) argue that a compound is represented as and preferably accessed via a single unit in the mental lexicon, i.e. its constituents do not have to be combined every time the compound is used. Therefore, a compound differs from a phrase, which is a construction whose constituents have to be combined for each use. Mondini et al. (2002) investigated in several tasks how well aphasic persons used Italian AN/NA compounds and phrases. The authors note that the two constituents must agree in terms of number as well as grammatical gender both in compounds and phrases. A central finding of the study was that the subjects wrongly realized inflectional agreement more often in phrases than in compounds. However, since Mondini et al.’s (2002) approach is problematic in several respects, the results of the study cannot be considered evidence for a cognitive separation between compounds and phrases. Instead of examining compounds and phrases, the authors actually focused on the comparison between lexicalized and non-lexicalized phrases. They clearly state that they are interested in “the difference between processing morphologically complex words, namely compounds, and analogous, but not lexicalized, syntactic combinations of words” (ibid.: 622, italics added by MS). We saw in §2.2.2 that lexicalization and grammatical provenance must be kept apart. As Bauer (1998: 67–68), Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 3) and Sadock (1998: 164–166) state, not only compounds/words

132 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

but also phrases can be an integral part of the lexicon. Therefore, lexicalization alone cannot separate between compounds, i.e. morphological constructions, and phrases, i.e. syntactic constructions. Although I argue that compounds are more appropriate to become lexicalized than phrases, lexicalization itself does not define compounds. Put differently, compounds are often lexicalized but lexicalization does not tell us what a compound is. The examples given in Mondini et al. (2002) also show that my primary factor, inflectional agreement, does not play any role in their decision whether a construction is a compound or a phrase. For instance, they consider acqua santa (water holy, ‘holy water’) to be a compound (ibid.: 623). Since the two constituents of the construction grammatically agree, I regard the example as a phrase rather than a compound (cf. §3.3.1 and Gaeta & Ricca 2009: 51–52). Generally speaking, I reject the idea that the adjective and the noun of a compound can be in agreement. The confusion between grammatical status, i.e. the question whether we deal with a morphological or syntactic construction, and lexicalization status, i.e. the question whether a construction is lexicalized or not, represents a general problem in linguistic research. Cappelle, Shtyrov & Pulvermüller (2010) investigated existing phrasal verbs (e.g. heat up) from a neurolinguistic perspective and aimed at finding support for either their lexical or syntactic origin (cf. also Pulvermüller, Cappelle & Shtyrov 2013: 413–414). The authors make a distinction between “the lexical-morphological and syntactic levels” (Cappelle et al. 2010: 192) and consider “storage as one word” (ibid.) to be an indication of the former but “generation on the basis of a phrase-structure rule” (ibid.) to reflect the latter. However, the distinction is problematic because syntactic constructions can also be lexical, or lexicalized, and can, in principle, be represented as a single unit as well. Therefore, their results support the view that lexicalized and non-lexicalized constructions are treated differently in the brain but they do not shed light on the morphology-syntax divide. The following investigations are problematic for the same reason. In a study by McCauley et al. (2012), subjects saw pictures and heard English AN constructions either with initial or with non-initial stress. While the picture and the construction matched in some conditions, they did not do so in others. That means, for example, if a house of green color was shown on a picture and the subjects heard green house with stress on house, the picture and the construction were considered to be compatible (= congruent phrasal condition). If the picture showed a house in which plants grew, i.e. a greenhouse, and the subjects heard greenhouse with stress on green, the picture-construction pair was compatible as well (= congruent compound condition). If, however, greenhouse with stress on green was presented with a house of green color, the pair was regarded as incompatible (= incongruent compound condition). In the final condition, i.e. in the incongruent phrasal one, a construction such as green house with stress

5.2 Psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic and language-acquisition research 

 133

on house was combined with the picture of a greenhouse. The subjects had to decide whether the item they heard represented the correct name of the picture (lexical-decision design). McCauley et al. (2012) found, for instance, that the subjects’ response accuracy was significantly higher for congruent compounds (89 percent) than for congruent phrases (72 percent) and for incongruent compounds (32 percent) than for incongruent phrases (13 percent).99 Vogel, Hestvik & Pincus (2013) also found significantly fewer correct responses and longer reaction times for constructions with non-initial stress than for constructions with initial stress. As the authors state, these effects might be based on the higher frequency and the availability of a single entry of the compounds – or CoLiCos in my view. Vogel & Raimy’s (2002) analysis also fits at this point (although the authors did not use a psycholinguistic experiment). Instead, the subjects in their study heard (mostly) AN constructions like high chair – either with initial or with non-initial stress – and had to choose one of two pictures – one showing the compound interpretation and one showing the phrasal interpretation of the AN construction – in order to express to which one they were exposed. The authors found, for instance, that adults had a response accuracy of 92 percent if they heard known items with initial/compound stress. In contrast, they responded correctly in only 77 percent of the cases in which they heard known items with non-initial/phrasal stress. Overall, however, all of the results mentioned in this paragraph are problematic for our purpose because they concern lexicalized/memorized CoLiCos. Again, if one wants to compare compounds/CoLiCos to phrases/PhraLiCos, non-­ lexicalized/non-memorized constructions of either type have to be used. Su (1999) investigated the mental representation of and the access to Chinese compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. Specifically, she looked at constructions composed of an adjective and a noun, two nouns (only in Experiment 2) or a verb and a noun. While she defined a construction as phrase-like if it had compositional semantics and if a constituent could be possibly replaced by another element, she regarded a construction as compound-like if it was semantically non-compositional and if no constituent could be exchanged (Experiment 1).100 In the second experiment, the author added a third criterion for AN and NN constructions: If the marker de could appear between the two constituents of a complex construction without changing the meaning of the

99 Note that I call the compounds CoLiCos and the phrases PhraLiCos. 100 Note that the author prefers the terms “idiomatic” and “transparent” where I use the terms “non-compositional” and “compositional” respectively. I believe that the definition of semantic idiomaticity/transparency the author relies on is actually the definition of semantic (non-) compositionality given earlier in my contribution (cf. §5.1).

134 

 5 Compound-phrase distinction III: Cognitive aspects

entire construction, she considered that to be a phrasal feature. In contrast, a semantic deviation triggered by de or the impossibility to use de were regarded as signs of compoundhood. Having matched the frequencies of the constituents as well as of the whole constructions, Su (1999) found in lexical-decision tasks that the response latencies were significantly shorter and the accuracy significantly higher for compounds/CoLiCos in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos. The trend was confirmed in a separate analysis that included only (low-frequent) AN constructions (even though significance was only reached in the accuracy analysis). Moreover, the author showed in Experiment 2 that the difference between the response times/accuracy of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos was greater if the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos had a low frequency than if they had a high frequency. While CoLiCos of low frequency were responded to 79 ms faster and 5.2 percent more accurately than PhraLiCos of low frequency, CoLiCos of high frequency were reacted to only 30 ms more quickly and 2.2 percent more correctly than PhraLiCos of high frequency. First of all, although the author not only uses the terms “compound” and “phrase” but also “compound-like” and “phrase-like” construction, I do not think that she makes a difference between compound and compound-like construction as well as between phrase and phrase-like construction. Due to the isolating morphology of Chinese (Pereltsvaig 2012: 44), I favor the terms “compound-like” and “phrase-like” construction. Coming to the two results mentioned above, I believe, on the one hand, that they support the idea that compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos cognitively differ. On the other hand, however, they are problematic for the reason given below. First, if frequency was controlled for, semantic non-compositionality caused significantly shorter reaction times and significantly higher response accuracy in comparison to semantic compositionality. Since I consider, as does Su (1999), semantic non-compositionality to be a typical feature of compounds, we can say that CoLiCos showed a processing advantage compared to PhraLiCos. Second, Su (1999) observed that the difference between the response times/accuracy of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos was bigger if the two construction types were of low frequency than if they were of high frequency. This goes well with the Full-Form-Storage Principle for Compounds and Phrases (cf. §5.1), which was introduced above and states that the full form of a compound/CoLiCo has its own entry in the mental lexicon at a lower frequency level than a phrase/PhraLiCo. Using the principle, we can explain why compound-like constructions have a greater processing advantage at an early stage, i.e. at a low frequency level. Apparently, in opposition to PhraLiCos, individual entries for CoLiCos have already developed. That means, although the constituents can play a role for the processing of both PhraLiCos and CoLiCos, only the latter have lexical entries of the full forms. The access to the entries of CoLiCos

5.2 Psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic and language-acquisition research 

 135

turns out to be quicker than the decomposition process applying to PhraLiCos. If PhraLiCos and CoLiCos increase in frequency, the difference between the response times/accuracy of the two construction types shrinks because PhraLiCos develop own lexical entries as well. Finally, despite the fact that the aforementioned two points go well with my argumentation in the present work, one has to admit that a problematic aspect exists in Su’s (1999) contribution as well. The author gives bai-bu (‘white cloth’) as an example of the PhraLiCos and bai-cai (white vegetable, ‘cabbage’) as an example of the CoLiCos. Although the frequencies of the complex constructions were controlled for, we can say on the basis of the examples that only the second group represented lexicalized constructions. That means, as opposed to the PhraLiCos, the CoLiCos were established naming units within the speech community (cf. also §2.3). If it is assumed that lexicalized naming units have their own entry in the lexicon (Booij 2010a: 169), the results might be explained on the basis of lexicalization: Since a non-lexicalized item does not have an entry in the lexicon, the constituents have to be combined for every usage; the construction cannot be quickly accessed using a single entry. In sum, after Chapters 3 and 4 showed how compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos differ on structural and semantic-functional grounds, the present chapter started investigating the question whether the distinction is also reflected in the processing and mental representation. Assuming a separation between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos, or in Spencer’s (2005: 94) terms, adopting “the splitting strategy” (ibid.), I examined several dual-route proposals and suggested The Full-Form-Storage Principle for Compounds and Phrases. Since compounds/CoLiCos differ from the default structures, i.e. from phrases/PhraLiCos, right from their creation onwards, I claim that compounds/ CoLiCos need a full-form representation as soon as possible and, crucially, earlier than phrases/PhraLiCos, which do not, at least if they come into existence, show idiosyncratic properties such as non-compositional semantics. In the following two chapters, I continue investigating the cognitive nature of compounds/ CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos in the three languages under investigation in the present work.

6 Experimental study I: The memorization of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos: An investigation on German, French and English101 6.1 Constructions under investigation, background and objectives In the previous chapters, it was argued that compounds/CoLiCos adopt a noncompositional interpretation as well as the naming function more easily than phrases/PhraLiCos because of their structural peculiarities. Further, it was reflected upon the idea that the former are better candidates for lexicalization and suggested that the interplay of formal and semantic-functional aspects might also be reflected in the processing and in the mental representation. The present chapter aims at finding further evidence for the cognitive separation of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. Specifically, it investigates whether compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos differ in terms of memorization. The focus is on complex constructions composed of an adjective and a noun in German, French and English. Three reasons why I concentrate only on AN/ NA constructions and not on NN/NPN/NPDN ones exist. First, the m ­ inimal-pair status of AN/NA constructions enables one to control better for potentially confounding variables. In a psycholinguistic study, the results must not be influenced by factors that are not investigated in the experiment; in other words, potentially confounding variables have to be controlled for (Meindl 2011: 38). The number of syllables is an example of a potentially confounding variable (cf., e.g., Baddeley, Thomson & Buchanan 1975: Experiment 1; Chetail 2014). In my study, the number of syllables of a specific construction in one language must be identical to the number of syllables of the comparable constructions in the other languages. If one now remembers that NN compounds in German and English often correspond to NPN phrases in French (cf. Chapter 1), it becomes clear that it is not possible to control for the number of syllables. Since the preposition in French counts as an additional syllable, the French constructions contain more syllables than the German and English ones. Therefore, NN/NPN/NPDN constructions are not examined. That means, it can only be assumed that the conclusions drawn from the experimental data (Chapters 6 and 7) are also valid for NN/NPN/NPDN

101 Cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl (2016a). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-006

138 

 6 Experimental study I

c­ onstructions. In any case, the three languages seem to show similarities in their use of AN/NA and NN/NPN/NPDN constructions: While German and English prefer using compounds/CoLiCos (of the type AN and NN) as naming units that have to be memorized, French favors phrases (of the type AN/NA and NPN/NPDN) (cf. Chapter 1). These similarities allow us to interpret the experimental data in a more general way. The second and third reasons to concentrate on AN/NA constructions in the study come from English. The second reason to focus on AN/NA constructions is the proposal that initial stress could be more important in these constructions than in NN combinations in English (Bauer et al. 2013: 448). Last but not least, the third reason is that English AN constructions have not yet been investigated as extensively as NN constructions (ibid.). Now, the question arises how the process of memorization is discussed in the context of the compound-phrase distinction. Di Sciullo & Williams (1987: 3) use the term listedness to refer to the “property of being memorized” (ibid.). They claim “that listedness is no more intrinsically characteristic of words than it is of phrases” (ibid.). The authors suggest the following hierarchy of listedness: All the morphemes are listed. “Most” of the words are listed. Many of the compounds are listed. Some of the phrases are listed. Four or five of the sentences are listed. (ibid.: 14)

That means, they admit that individuals memorize more words than compounds and, in turn, more compounds than phrases but argue that listedness/ memorization cannot establish a categorical distinction between these different types of entities (ibid.: 14–15). The quantitative difference between stored morphological and syntactic constructions is described in other contributions as well: ­Montermini (2010: 83), Schwarze & Wunderlich (1985: 16) and Wunderlich (1986: 230) also claim that complex words, e.g. compounds, are more frequently memorized than phrases. It is not easy to assess the latter point if you compare different languages such as German, which prefers compounds to realize new complex lexical concepts, and French, which favors phrases for this purpose (cf. Chapters 1 and 4). The aforementioned claims, i.e. whether or not compounds are more often memorized than phrases, are not verified here. Instead, the chapter investigates whether compounds/CoLiCos are more appropriate to be memorized than phrases/PhraLiCos. In the literature, it is a familiar intuition that morphological and syntactic constructions differ in terms of memorization. So, for example, Wunderlich (1986: 209) believes that lexical – in my terms, morphological – and syntactic constructions mainly differ in terms of memorization. He also claims that the ­processing of

6.1 Constructions under investigation, background and objectives 

 139

­ orphological constructions is faster than that of s­ yntactic ones (Wunderlich m 2006b). It is, however, not clear whether the author ­distinguishes between memorization and grammatical status in the latter contribution because he uses the term “memorized morphological complex” (ibid.) but only “syntactic combination” (ibid.). In a later paper, Wunderlich (2008: 252) states that “memorized morphological objects”102 only benefit from faster processing in comparison to transparent constructions of morphological or syntactic origin if they have reached a certain frequency level. It seems to be the case that Wunderlich does not neatly separate memorization from grammatical status. I pay attention to this d ­ istinction in the following experiments and aim at finding out whether “[m]orphological­units are linguistic expressions with properties that make them optimal for memorization and storage in the mental lexicon” (Olsen 2000a: 899). As outlined in Chapters 3 and 4, both structural and semantic-functional aspects can support the idea. Nonetheless, the question remains whether one also finds psycholinguistic evidence for the aforementioned proposal. A recent memorization study aimed at comparing German AN compounds to German AN phrases and was presented in Böer et al. (2012: Experiment 1) as well as Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1).103 In the first phase of their experiment, i.e. in the memorization or learning phase, the participants memorized images of objects together with a new, unestablished AN compound or an unestablished AN phrase. Right after that, in the second/recall phase, the same participants had to decide in a kind of lexical-decision task whether a shown picture occurred with the correct name, i.e. with the compound or phrase that had been learned with the respective image in the memorization phase. The subjects participated in the two aforementioned phases on three days (day one, four and eight) in order to create an appropriate memorization scenario. The authors observed a highly significant difference between the reaction times of non-memorized compounds and non-memorized phrases: Phrases that had not been memorized in the first phase were responded to faster than compounds that had not been memorized in the first phase. However, the response latencies of memorized compounds, i.e. compounds that had been memorized in the first phase, did not significantly differ from those of memorized phrases, i.e. phrases that had been memorized in the first phase. The authors regard the finding as “a stronger memorization effect for novel compounds” (Böer et al. 2012: 69; Kotowski et al. 2014: 196). Note that they report further results that

102 Wunderlich (2008: 252) writes in German and uses the expression “memorierte morpho­ logische Objekte” (ibid.). 103 For a similar contribution, cf. also Schöpperle & Härtl (2011).

140 

 6 Experimental study I

are used to support the point as well. First, the d ­ ifference in the response latencies between non-memorized and memorized compounds was bigger than the difference in the response latencies between non-memorized and memorized phrases. Put differently, compounds improved more than phrases through memorization. Second, the error rates showed a significant difference between non-memorized and memorized compounds but not between non-memorized and memorized phrases. Third, while the subjects responded to non-memorized compounds significantly less accurately than to non-memorized phrases, the number of errors in the responses to memorized compounds did not significantly differ from the number of errors in the responses to memorized phrases. The authors interpret the findings as evidence for a cognitive distinction between the items under investigation. They believe that the markedness of novel AN compounds explains why they are harder to process if a language user is exposed to them for the first time and propose that memorization is prone to weaken these difficulties, resulting in similar processing of compounds and phrases that have been memorized. The experiment outlined in the previous paragraph provides empirical evidence for the idea that compounds and phrases differ in terms of memorization and functions as a starting point of the first study presented in the current chapter. While the aforementioned authors focus on the comparison between AN compounds and AN phrases in one language, namely in German, my study aims at investigating constructions in three different languages, i.e. the memorization of complex AN/NA constructions in German, French and English is compared. More specifically, German AN compounds, French AN/NA phrases, English AN constructions with initial stress and English AN constructions with non-initial stress are examined. As I have argued in §3.3.1.3, the primary factor does not distinguish between compounds and phrases in English. Therefore, the terms “CoLiCos” (initial stress) and “PhraLiCos” (non-initial stress) are preferred here. That means, semantic (non-) compositionality is ignored in the present study and English CoLiCos and PhraLiCos are defined only on the basis of stress. In contrast, in the study reported in Chapter 7, semantic (non-) compositionality is added. Since language users normally only memorize naming units (Booij 2010a: 169), only typical naming units were contrasted in German and French. As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 4, while German prefers using AN compounds to name complex lexical concepts, French favors AN/NA phrases for this purpose. Although, as is discussed in Chapter 4, German phrases sometimes function as naming units as well, compounds fulfil the naming function more frequently. In French, as we know from §3.3.1.2, endocentric AN compounds are so rare that they cannot be considered a productive means to name novel concepts. Therefore, German AN compounds are directly compared to French AN/NA phrases and German AN phrases as well as French AN compounds are ignored in this

6.1 Constructions under investigation, background and objectives 

 141

experiment. One might now ask why both AN constructions with initial stress and AN constructions with non-initial stress are examined in English. As stated in Chapter 1, only the former are considered typical naming units in this language. The reason for this decision is the fact that research on stress in English AN constructions is still quite sparse and, therefore, the phenomenon should be investigated in more detail. Moreover, examining both constructions with initial stress and constructions with non-initial stress, one completes the whole picture: It is possible to compare not only the memorization of compounds (German) and phrases (French) but also the memorization of CoLiCos (initial stress, English) and PhraLiCos (non-initial stress, English).104 Although my experimental study reported here shares several aspects with the study by Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1) and Böer et al. (2012: ­Experiment 1) (e.g. parts of the procedure), it also clearly differs from it in some respects. Two main differences are the following: I did not use pictures and I  investigated spoken rather than written language. Not using pictures implies that no meaning was given for any of the items presented in my study (for another learning study that did not present meanings, cf. Gaskell & Dumay 2003; cf. also Lindsay & Gaskell 2013: 608). Moreover, the subjects in my study heard all items via headphones and did not see them on the screen. Spoken rather than written stimuli were favored for two reasons. First, orthographic peculiarities could have had an influence on the results. It is well known that German AN compounds are normally written as single units (cf. §3.5.1). The constituents of French AN/NA phrases as well as English AN constructions, however, are often separated by a space (cf. ibid.). Inhoff et al.’s (2000: Experiment 1) analysis revealed that complex constructions were recognized and named significantly more quickly if a space appeared between their constituents than if no space was available (on effects of orthography, cf. also Juhasz, Inhoff & Rayner 2005: Experiments 1 and 2). Note that Libben et al. (2003) found the opposite pattern: Complex constructions with a space between the constituents were responded to significantly more slowly than constructions without a space. In any case, orthography may represent a confounding variable. I circumvented the problem by using spoken stimuli. Second, I was interested in examining two different stress patterns in English, namely initial and non-initial stress.

104 Note also that the comparison between German compounds (e.g. Jungtourist, young_tourist) and phrases (e.g. junger Tourist, young tourist, ‘young tourist’) as well as between French compounds and phrases is (often) problematic from a psycholinguistic point of view. Compounds and phrases in German, for example, differ in the number of syllables. Therefore, reaction times are not directly comparable. In English, this problem does not occur.

142 

 6 Experimental study I

In sum, the chapter investigates whether compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/ PhraLiCos differ in terms of memorization. Specifically, it aims at finding further evidence for the idea that compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos.

6.2 Method 6.2.1 Participants A total of 35 subjects participated in the study. The participants were assigned to four different groups according to their native language: A German, a French and two English groups. Nine persons were in the German group, eight subjects belonged to the French group and each of the two English groups had nine participants. In English, while one group was only tested on AN constructions with initial stress (this group is referred to as “EnglishA” in the following), the other group was only tested on AN constructions with non-initial stress (this group is referred to as “EnglishB” in the following). The subjects of the two English groups were speakers of North American English. Specifically, in group EnglishA, four participants were from the USA and five came from Canada. In group EnglishB, all of the nine subjects were from Canada. At this point, the question arises whether the same complex constructions are stressed differently in different varieties of English and whether this might have an influence on the results of the current study. Generally speaking, we can say that initial stress in complex constructions seems to be more common in North American English than in British English (Fabb 2001: 80; Trudgill & Hannah 2008: 57). Therefore, the present study tested speakers of North American English only. All of the 35 participants were recruited at or around the university campus in Kassel (Germany). Teaching assistants, university students of various fields of study and in different semesters as well as participants of The Canadian Summer School in Germany in Kassel in 2014 took part in the study. They received 20 Euros for participation. Tab. 1 provides more information on the participants of the study.

6.2.2 Material 6.2.2.1 Critical and filler items Although the procedure of the study will be presented in detail later, a short comment is already needed at this point in order to comprehend why the

6.2 Method 

 143

Tab. 1: More information on the participants.

Age Min–Max Mean SD Median Sex

German

French

EnglishA

EnglishB

19–26 24.11 2.09 25

19–22 20.63 0.92 21

19–23 21.22 1.30 21

19–23 21.33 1.32 21

8 × female 1 × male

8 × female

6 × female 3 × male

4 × female 5 × male

Min = Minimum, Max = Maximum, SD = Standard deviation

­ aterial included several types of items. The study reported here was conm ducted on three days. On each day, in turn, there were two phases. During the first phase, the memorization phase, the subjects memorized items that they heard. During the second phase, the recall phase, the participants responded both to items that they had memorized in the first phase and to items that they had not memorized. In the following, the items that the subjects memorized in the first phase and responded to in the second phase are referred to as “memorized items”. In contrast, “non-memorized items” are those items that the subjects did not memorize in the first phase and only responded to in the second phase. In the second phase, all subjects were asked to press a button labeled “Yes” if they heard a memorized item and a button labeled “No” if they heard a non-memorized item. Time and accuracy of the reactions were measured and ­analyzed. Keeping this procedure in mind, one can now turn to the different types of items used in the study, i.e. critical and filler items (Jiang 2012: 50–52). According to the aforementioned author, critical items are the central part of the ­material, i.e. their analysis serves to answer the question raised in the study. Furthermore, the author states that we can distinguish between two types of critical items, namely experimental and control items: While experimental items are those items that the whole study aims at investigating, control items function as a baseline. It is now possible to transfer the concept of critical items as well as the distinction between experimental and control items to the current study. Since the study focused on the process of memorization, the memorized items represented the critical items. The memorized AN/NA constructions were the experimental items. These were non-lexicalized constructions that were translated constituent by constituent from one language to the others. Experimental items are, however, not enough. If, for instance, the response times of

144 

 6 Experimental study I

the experimental items of one language differ from the response times of the experimental items of another language, it might be argued that response times generally differ across the languages under investigation. That means, the experimental items alone cannot tell us whether the difference in the response latencies/accuracy is specifically based on the fact that the grammatical nature of the items differs across languages. If one wants to attribute potential effects to the distinction between compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos rather than to general differences between languages, one has to ensure that differences do not occur between other types of units of these languages. Therefore, control items are needed. The linguistic demarcation between the experimental and control items is discussed in more detail below. The items are presented in Tab. 2. All experimental and all control items were memorized in the first phase and responded to in the second phase on all three days. Note that the final column of Tab. 2 represents the items of both EnglishA and EnglishB. The control items were exactly the same in the two groups. The experimental items only differed in their stress pattern. That means, the AN constructions of group EnglishA were stressed on the adjective and those of group EnglishB were stressed on the first syllable of the noun. Note also the four items that are presented in different spellings. Controlling for the potentially confounding variables to be mentioned later, I verified all of these orthographic variants. For instance, the frequency of the English control item theater/theatre was the frequency of theater plus the frequency of theatre. The control items were lexicalized, i.e. they were names of existing and established concepts and belonged to the vocabulary inventory of the three languages under investigation. They had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences per million words in the corpus interface IntelliText (Hartley, Sharoff, Stephenson, Wilson, Babych & Thomas 2011). Note that researchers can use the unit per million words (henceforth: pmw) to contrast the frequencies of items found in corpora whose sizes are not identical (Gries & Newman 2013: 275). As opposed to the control items, none of the experimental items was lexicalized. That means, they did not express specific complex lexical concepts that were established in the languages under investigation. Six adjectives and six nouns served to create the experimental items.105 Since all adjectives and nouns were able to occur on their own, all AN/NA constructions contained more than one free morpheme. The six control items,

105 Note that different types of adjectives (two dimensional, two color and two age adjectives) and both animate and inanimate nouns were used. This is not problematic, however, because the same items were used in the three languages under investigation.

6.2 Method 

 145

Tab. 2: Experimental and control items (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a).

Experimental items

Control items

German

French

English

Altkaffee/Altcafé/Altcafe Langroman Jungtourist Blaumotor Graumuskel Dünnpilot Katalog Kamera Theater Architekt Professor Festival

vieux café long roman jeune touriste moteur bleu muscle gris pilote mince catalogue caméra théâtre architecte professeur festival

old coffee long novel young tourist blue motor gray/grey muscle thin pilot catalogue/catalog camera theater/theatre architect professor festival

however, were not composed of more than one free morpheme or were monomorphemic. Apart from the critical items, filler items were used in the study. As Jiang (2012:  51) states, filler items can be necessary to realize a lexical-decision paradigm. That means, apart from the items that are supposed to trigger “Yes”responses, i.e. the memorized items in my study, one also needs items as a counterpart, i.e. ­non-memorized items, which call for “No”-responses. In the current study, all non-memorized items were filler items. As with the critical items, the group of filler items consisted of two kinds of items. On the one hand, there were lexicalized nouns that were established in the three languages, had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw and were not composed of more than one free morpheme or were monomorphemic in my opinion. On the other hand, all AN/NA constructions that were filler items were not lexicalized and were created with the six adjectives and the six nouns that were also used as the constituents of the experimental items. In this context, the question arises why I did not choose different adjectives and nouns for the memorized and non-memorized AN/NA constructions. The same adjectives and nouns were used in order to build an additional burden that forced the participants to pay attention to the whole ­constructions. If one uses different adjectives and nouns in the memorized and non-memorized AN/NA constructions, subjects could respond once they have recognized only the first constituent and without taking the entire constructions into consideration on the second and third day. If they had known that each adjective and noun only occurred once, they would have probably reacted when they heard the first constituent of the AN/NA construction instead of paying attention

146 

 6 Experimental study I

to the whole construction. The phenomenon is connected to the cohort model. ­According to the model, an item can be recognized as soon as sufficient phonological i­ nformation has been provided, i.e. as soon as no other item matches the respective sound sequence (Marslen-Wilson 1987: 80; Marslen-Wilson & Zwitserlood 1989: 576). New filler items were used on each of the three days. All filler items are listed in Appendix 1. In sum, the subjects responded to the following four item types (cf. Tab. 3): Tab. 3: Item types. Memorized items

Non-memorized items

Experimental items (e.g. young tourist) Control items (e.g. architect)

Non-memorized items I (e.g. young motor) Non-memorized items II (e.g. magazine)

6.2.2.2 Controlling for potentially confounding variables Having divided up the material into critical and filler items, i.e. into memorized and non-memorized items, I controlled for potentially confounding variables across the languages/groups under investigation. 6.2.2.2.1 Number of syllables Since studies showed that the number of syllables of constructions had an influence on the processing of these constructions (cf., e.g., Baddeley et al. 1975: Experiment 1; Chetail 2014), the material was controlled for this factor across the three languages. All adjectives were monosyllabic and all nouns of the AN/NA constructions were disyllabic in the three languages under investigation. Furthermore, all control items as well as all non-memorized items II were trisyllabic.106 Overall, all experimental, control and filler items were trisyllabic in the three ­languages under investigation.

106 There were two borderline cases in German, namely Emotion (‘emotion’) and Korruption (‘corruption’). The part tion was considered a single syllable ([tsjo:n]) (pronunciation according to Kleiner, Knöbl & Dudenredaktion 2015: 341, 526: [emoˈtsi̯o:n] and [kɔrʊpˈtsi̯o:n]). Note also that these two items were only filler items and were not included in the statistical analyses presented later.

6.2 Method 

 147

Tab. 4: The Zipf scale of word frequency (van Heuven et al. 2014: 1180). Zipf value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

fpmw 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000

6.2.2.2.2 Frequency (constituents, control items, non-memorized items II) Since frequency effects were found in several studies (cf., e.g., Forster & Davis 1984; Scarborough, Cortese & Scarborough 1977), the frequencies of the adjectives and nouns contained in the AN/NA constructions, the frequencies of the control items as well as the frequencies of the non-memorized items II were compared across languages. The online corpus interface IntelliText (Hartley et  al. 2011) was used. The IntelliText interface, created at the University of Leeds (Wilson, Hartley, Sharoff & Stephenson 2010: 769), turned out to be very valuable for my purpose. Using the interface enabled me to find out the frequencies of the items in corpora of the three languages (ibid.). Corpora that were based on Internet texts and contained more than 100 million words were used. Specifically, the INTERNET-DE corpus was selected for German, the I-FR corpus for French and the INTERNET-EN corpus for English. Lemma frequencies, which were measured in pmw because corpora of varying sizes of the ­IntelliText interface (INTERNET-DE, I-FR, INTERNET-EN) were consulted (cf. Gries & Newman 2013: 275), were used. Next, it was determined when the lemma frequency of a specific item type could be considered to be comparable to the lemma frequency of the equivalent item type in the other languages. Two steps were necessary. First, Tab. 1 in van Heuven, Mandera, Keuleers & Brysbaert (2014: 1180) was used as a starting point (cf. Tab. 4 in my work).107 The authors note right below the table that words of low frequency receive a Zipf value less than or equal to three and that words of high frequency have a Zipf value greater than or equal to four. Also, van Heuven et al. (2014: 1180) illustrate

107 Note that the third column of the table is not given here, in which examples of the individual groups were listed.

148 

 6 Experimental study I

Tab. 5: Lemma frequencies of the adjectives of the AN/NA constructions (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

German

French

English

18.1–490.6 218.3 218.5 173.5

18.6–441.7 171.5 157.9 153.1

28.0–556.0 219.6 213.1 161.3

Tab. 6: Lemma frequencies of the nouns of the AN/NA constructions (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

German

French

English

11.0–67.8 28.8 21.3 21.3

16.7–97.9 45.4 31.2 41.7

21.1–60.7 42.3 13.1 43.1

Tab. 7: Lemma frequencies of the control items (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

German

French

English

15.1–66.7 32.9 20.7 26.8

13.1–73.8 36.9 28.7 21.7

20.3–96.4 50.1 27.0 45.8

Tab. 8: Lemma frequencies of the non-memorized items II (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

German

French

English

0.6–62.0 13.4 16.9 5.4

0.3–68.0 16.0 21.0 4.7

0.5–90.5 20.2 24.2 7.4

through the table how one can connect the Zipf value to the frequency measure pmw (“fpmw” in the table means “frequency in per million words”). The frequency of an item, i.e. the frequency of an adjective of an AN/NA construction, a noun of an AN/NA construction, a control item or a non-memorized item II, in one language was located between two Zipf values. It was verified

6.2 Method 

 149

that the frequency of the same item in the other languages was located between the same two Zipf values. For instance, the German non-memorized item II Bungalow (‘bungalow’) had a lemma frequency of 1.827 occurrences pmw in the corpus INTERNET-DE of the IntelliText interface. Therefore, it was situated between the Zipf values 3 and 4 because 1.827 occurrences pmw is greater than 1 occurrence pwm and smaller than 10 occurrences pwm. The French equivalent bungalow and the English bungalow had to be located between the same two Zipf values. This was true: The French bungalow appeared 1.194 times pmw in the corpus I-FR and the English bungalow occurred 1.566 times pwm in the corpus INTERNET-EN. Thus, Bungalow, bungalow and bungalow were found between the Zipf values 3 and 4. The second step to compare the lemma frequencies across languages was a detailled statistical analysis. The descriptive statistics of the lemma frequencies are given in Tab. 5 (adjectives of the AN/NA constructions), ­ Tab. 6 (nouns of the AN/NA constructions), Tab. 7 (control items) and Tab. 8 (non-memorized items II). A one-way ANOVA conducted with the software Minitab (Minitab Inc. 2013) showed that the mean lemma frequencies of the adjectives did not significantly differ across languages. That means, no main effect of language was found (F(2, 15) = 0.11, p = .893). Tukey multiple comparisons did not reveal a significant difference between any two groups, i.e. between German and French (t = 0.41, p = .913), German and English (t = −0.01, p = 1.000) or French and English (t = −0.42, p = .908).108 The mean lemma frequencies of the nouns of the AN/NA constructions did not significantly differ across languages either (no main effect of l­ anguage: F(2, 15) = 0.88, p = .436). Tukey multiple comparisons did not reveal a significant difference between any two groups, i.e. between German and French (t = −1.25, p = .446), German and English (t = −1.01, p = .581) or French and English (t = 0.23, p = .971). The mean lemma frequencies of the control items did not significantly differ across languages (no main effect of language: F(2, 15) = 0.73, p = .496). Again, Tukey multiple comparisons did not reveal a significant difference between any two groups, i.e. between German and French (t = −0.26, p = .962), German and English (t = −1.16, p = .496) or French and English (t = −0.89, p = .654). The lemma frequencies of the non-memorized items II did not significantly differ across languages (no main effect of language: F(2, 51) = 0.48, p = .621). Tukey m ­ ultiple comparisons did not reveal a significant ­difference between any two groups, i.e. between French and German (t = 0.37,

108 Note that all p-values reported for Tukey multiple comparisons in the present work are ­corrected p-values.

150 

 6 Experimental study I

p = .926), English and German (t = 0.97, p = .598) or English and French (t = 0.60, p = .822).109 Although the one-way ANOVAs did not indicate significant differences between the control items of any two languages or between the constituents of the complex AN/NA constructions of any two languages, Tab. 5, Tab. 6 and Tab. 7 show the following three points. First, the mean frequencies of the German and French control items were similar but the mean frequency of the English control items was higher than the mean frequencies of the German and French control items (cf. Tab. 7). Second, while the mean frequencies of the German and English adjectives were similar, the mean frequency of the French adjectives was

109 A final statistical comment is in order here. One-way ANOVAs and Tukey multiple comparisons were used in order to examine whether the lemma frequencies significantly differed across languages. Using one-way ANOVAs implies that one considers the groups that are compared to be independent (Larson-Hall 2010: 272; Rumsey 2013: 183). It exists, however, an alternative way of testing whether the lemma frequencies significantly differ across languages. One might regard the groups to be dependent because one looks at the lemma frequencies of the same items in several languages (e.g. the lemma frequencies of the same six adjectives are compared between German and French). Therefore, one might use repeated-measures ANOVAs in combination with Tukey multiple comparisons. The results of repeated-measures ANOVAs are the following. Note that item is treated as a random factor here. Adjectives: No main effect of language: F(2, 10) = 0.41, p = .676; Tukey multiple comparisons: German versus French (t = 0.77, p = .729), German versus English (t = −0.02, p = 1.000), French versus English (t = −0.79, p = .716). Nouns of the AN/NA constructions: No main effect of language: F(2, 10) = 2.91, p = .101; Tukey multiple comparisons: German versus French (t = −2.27, p = .107), German versus English (t = −1.84, p = .205), French versus English (t = 0.42, p = .906). Control items: Significant main effect of language: F(2, 10) = 4.52, p = .040; Tukey multiple comparisons: German versus French (t = −0.66, p = .793), German versus English (t = −2.87, p = .041), French versus English (t = −2.21, p = .117). Non-memorized items II: No main effect of language: F(2, 34) = 1.42, p = .255; Tukey multiple comparisons: German versus French (t = −0.64, p = .797), German versus English (t = −1.67, p = .231), French versus English (t = −1.03, p = .565). Overall, one observes that the results of repeated-measures ANOVAs are similar to the results of one-way ANOVAs (except that the p-values are often lower). That means, no main effect of language was found in three of four cases. Moreover, eleven of the twelve Tukey multiple ­comparisons yielded non-significant results. Only the main effect of language – when the control items were examined – as well as the Tukey multiple comparison contrasting the German with the English control items were problematic: The English control items were significantly more frequent than the German ones according to this test. I come back to this issue.

6.2 Method 

 151

lower than the mean frequencies of the adjectives of the two other languages (cf. Tab. 5). Third, while the mean frequencies of the French and English nouns were similar, the mean frequency of the German nouns was lower than the mean frequencies of the nouns of the two other languages (cf. Tab.  6). In sum, the three aforementioned points showed that the mean frequencies of the English items were either higher than the mean frequencies of both the German and the French items, namely when focusing on the control items only, or at least higher than the mean frequency of one language (German or French), namely when concentrating on the adjectives and nouns. In contrast, the mean frequencies of the German and French control items were similar. Moreover, while the mean frequency of the German adjectives was higher than the mean frequency of the French adjectives, the mean frequency of the German nouns was lower than the mean frequency of the French nouns. Therefore, the mean frequencies of the German and French constituents of the complex AN/NA constructions (adjectives and nouns) were overall similar. In other words, the possible frequency advantages and disadvantages could be nearly balanced out between the German and French adjectives and nouns. Nevertheless, the French constituents (adjectives and nouns together) had a small frequency advantage over the German constituents. This is reflected in the fact that the p-value of the Tukey multiple comparison between the German and French adjectives (p = .913 (oneway ANOVA), p = .729 (repeated-measures ANOVA)) was greater than the p-value of the Tukey multiple comparison between the German and French nouns (p = .446 (one-way ANOVA), p = .107 (repeated-measures ANOVA)). Remember that the German adjectives had a higher mean frequency (218.3 occurrences pmw) than the French adjectives (171.5 occurrences pmw) and that the German nouns had a lower mean frequency (28.8 occurrences pmw) than the French nouns (45.4 occurrences pmw). As a consequence, the frequency advantage of the German adjectives over the French adjectives was smaller than the frequency advantage of the French nouns over the German nouns. In sum, one had to be cautious when analyzing the data: It could be necessary to treat English separately because its frequency advantage could distort a cross-linguistic comparison. Although the results obtained through the one-way ANOVAs were not significant, the non-significant differences could affect the ­processing of the items. Unfortunately, other items, which were better matched for frequency across languages, could not be used because it was difficult to find enough items that were comparable across languages with respect to several potentially confounding variables. I come back to the small frequency a ­ dvantage of the French constituents (adjectives and nouns together) over the German ­constituents (cf. §6.4 and §8.1).

152 

 6 Experimental study I

6.2.2.2.3 Lexicalization and frequency of the AN/NA constructions The goal was to use only AN/NA constructions that were not lexicalized in the three languages. Therefore, the frequencies of all AN/NA constructions – of both the experimental items and the non-memorized items I – were checked in the corpora INTERNET-DE, I-FR and INTERNET-EN of the IntelliText interface. That means, for each AN/NA construction, the lemma frequencies, measured in pmw, of several orthographic variants were searched. Specifically, two options were checked in German (e.g. Jung-Tourist, Jungtourist), three in French (e.g.  jeune touriste, jeune-touriste, jeunetouriste) and three in English (e.g. young tourist, young-tourist, youngtourist). Note that only two spellings were verified in German because AN compounds are usually not separated by a space in this language (cf.  §3.5.1). All German AN constructions had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw with either of the two spellings. All French and all English AN/NA constructions had a f­requency of 0.000 occurrences pmw as well if they were either hyphenated (e.g. jeune-touriste, young-tourist) or written as single units (e.g. jeunetouriste, youngtourist). Since these AN/NA constructions did not appear at all in the ­respective corpus, they were regarded as non-lexicalized constructions (for the connection between frequency and lexicalization, cf. Plag 2006: 158). Examining the French and English AN/NA constructions with a space between the constituents (e.g. jeune touriste, young tourist) resulted in the following picture. In French, 15 of the 24 AN/NA constructions did not appear in the corpus I-FR, i.e. they had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw. The ­remaining nine AN/NA constructions had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw; three of them were experimental items, six were items of the group non-­ memorized items I. Tab. 9 gives an overview of the lemma frequencies of the French AN/NA phrases if their constituents were separated by a space. The values refer to the frequencies that were 0.000 occurrences pmw and those that were greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw together. Despite the fact that the mean frequencies of the constructions were greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw if written with a space, they were considered to be non-lexicalized because they did not represent established naming units in French. For instance, the lexicalized French NA phrase carte grise (card gray, ‘car registration papers’), which was not part of my experiment, names the specific complex lexical concept of ‘car registration papers’ (apart from its descriptive sense ‘gray card’). The French NA phrase muscle gris (muscle gray, ‘gray muscle’), for example, which was part of my experiment, only had a descriptive meaning but did not represent an established naming unit. In other words, it might refer to any muscle that is gray. Since I am not a native speaker of French, I ensured my personal judgment by using the KWIC (= keyword in context) c­ oncordance

6.2 Method 

 153

Tab. 9: Lemma frequencies of the French AN/NA phrases if written with a space (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

Experimental items

Non-memorized items I

0.000–0.057 0.022 0.026 0.014

0.000–0.030 0.003 0.007 0.000

function of the IntelliText interface (Wilson et al. 2010: 772). As Gries & Newman (2013: 277) explain, such a tool enables the researcher to analyze an item within its context. The analysis confirmed that the AN/NA constructions did not serve as lexicalized naming units. That means, the AN/NA constructions were categorized in the following way. First, many of the AN/NA constructions were used as descriptive units. Jeunes touristes (‘young tourists’) in example (45) clearly represented a descriptive construction and was not a naming unit.110 (45) N. était très attiré par les bateleurs et les groupes de jeunes touristes avec guitare […].111 ‘N. was very attracted by the bateleurs and the groups of young tourists with guitar’ Second, some AN/NA constructions were part of larger constructions, e.g. vieux café (‘old coffee/cafe’) in example (46). (46) vieux café d’ écuries112 old café of’ stables ‘old [stable café]’ Third, the adjective of one AN construction, namely long roman (‘long novel’), was used in its superlative form (cf. 47).

110 Note that all relevant AN/NA constructions – both in French and in English, both in the present study and in the study presented in Chapter 7 – were analyzed only on the IntelliText website (corpus.leeds.ac.uk/itweb/htdocs/Query.html# = Hartley et al. 2011), i.e. without accessing the websites they were taken from. Moreover, (the glosses and) the translations of the French examples presented in the current section were added. 111 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://lesitedefrancis.blogspot.com/ archives/2005_01_01_lesitedefrancis_archive.html 112 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.prestwick-guesthouse.co.uk/ french/visit.htm

154 

 6 Experimental study I

(47) le plus long roman113 the most long novel ‘the longest novel’ Fourth, one NA construction, namely roman gris (novel gray, ‘gray novel’), was used metaphorically (cf. 48). (48) Un “roman gris” qui refuse de tourner au roman noir […].114 A “novel gray” that refuses to turn into novel black ‘A “gray novel” that refuses to turn into a “black novel”’ In English, 13 of the 24 AN constructions had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw if they were written with a space between the constituents (e.g. gray muscle). The remaining eleven AN constructions had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw if they were written with a space; four of them were experimental items and seven of them were part of the group non-memorized items I. Tab. 10 gives an overview of the lemma frequencies of the English AN constructions if the constituents were separated by a space. The values refer to the frequencies that were 0.000 occurrences pmw and those that were greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw together. A KWIC analysis was also conducted using the concordance function of ­IntelliText. Some AN constructions were descriptive units (cf. 45), others were part of larger constructions (cf. 46). In one construction, the adjective was used in its superlative form (cf. 47). In another example, the adjective (older) and the noun (coffee) occurred next to each other but actually belonged to different ­sentences (cf. 49a). Similarly, the adjective long and the noun tourists in (49b) were not part of an AN construction (although they occurred right next to each other). That means, the adjectives and nouns in (49a-b) did not form AN constructions. Note that the example in (49a) contains an adjective in its comparative form; this was also found in two other examples. (49) a. Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older [.] Coffee in one hand, cell phone in the other115 b. We are in Paris, a city that we love, but we are no longer tourists.116

113 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.amiel.org/atelier/oeuvre/ etudes%20et%20travaux/egerie.htm 114 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.lalettrealulu.com/Lulu-47decembre-2004,Sur-l-etagere-a-Lulu-Arriere-saison-litteraire_a1304.html 115 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.epinions.com/content_ 150332542596 116 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.billandnancy.com/bnblog/bnblog. html

6.2 Method 

 155

Tab. 10: Lemma frequencies of the English AN constructions if written with a space (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

Experimental items

Non-memorized items I

0.000–0.044 0.016 0.017 0.014

0.000–0.028 0.004 0.007 0.000

In another example, the AN construction, namely Blue motor, was part of a proper name (cf. 50) that belonged to the domain of expert knowledge rather than to the shared vocabulary inventory of the English language community/communities. Therefore, it was not considered to be lexicalized. (50) Box Stock Blue motor with 5 races or Box Stock purple plate motor with 10 races.117 Overall, no AN/NA construction was considered to be a lexicalized item that belonged to the knowledge of the average native speaker of the respective language. If the AN/NA constructions occurred on the IntelliText interface, ­ i.e. if they had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw, they did not name an established concept but had one of the functions described above. If no entry was found at all, i.e. if the lemma frequency was 0.000 occurrences pmw, a c­ onstruction was regarded as non-lexicalized because frequency represents a common tool to reckon an item’s degree of lexicalization (Plag 2006: 158). Note, however, despite the fact that the AN/NA constructions were not lexicalized, the French and English AN/NA constructions had overall a frequency advantage over the German AN constructions. I come back to this issue in §6.3, §6.4 and §8.1. 6.2.2.2.4 Acoustic realization and technology In order to ensure that the voice of the speaker did not represent a potentially confounding variable, a 19-year-old female person spoke all items in the three languages/four groups. She was a native speaker of German and French and clearly sounded like a native speaker of English because she had lived in an English-speaking country for four years when she was a child. The items were recorded in a quiet environment by using Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2012), a program to record, edit and examine spoken language (Boersma 2001: 341, 2013:  375). The speaker was instructed to speak as clearly and naturally as

117 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.oxfordplains.com/a_classifieds_ 072604.htm

156 

 6 Experimental study I

Tab. 11: Duration of the sound files (in ms).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

Experimental items

Control items

Non-memorized items I

702.0–810.0 751.5 41.1 744.5

490.0–676.0 591.2 74.0 612.0

693.0–800.0 745.8 30.5 740.0

Non-memorized items II 550.0–682.0 616.6 42.0 613.5

­ ossible and to pay attention to the stress pattern of the English AN construcp tions (cf. §6.2.2.3 for further details on the verification of the stress pattern). 6.2.2.2.5 Duration Since studies revealed the influence of the duration of items on language processing (cf., e.g., Baddeley et al. 1975: Experiment 3; Neath & Nairne 1995), the duration of the sound files was controlled for across languages/groups. Remember that there were the following four groups: German, French, ­EnglishA and EnglishB.118 The duration of the final sound files was the same across languages/groups and the quality of the sound files was satisfactory. “Same duration” meant that the sound files had the same duration rounded to three decimal places. For instance, if the sound file of the German item Architekt had a duration of 0.676 seconds, the sound file of the French item architecte as well as the sound file of the English item architect had a duration of 0.676 seconds as well. “Satisfactory quality” meant that the items were clearly recognizable. Table 11 gives more information on the duration of the sound files. 6.2.2.2.6 Summary of the potentially confounding variables The following potentially confounding variables were successfully controlled for across languages/groups: Number of syllables, lexicalization status, ­acoustic realization/technology and duration. Therefore, it was assumed that these factors would not have a different influence on the response times/accuracy in the ­different languages/groups. Frequency, however, could not be controlled for as easily as the aforementioned variables. That means, first, the English control items showed a frequency advantage in comparison to the German and French

118 Note that I used the same sound files of the control items and the non-memorized items II for the groups EnglishA and EnglishB.

6.2 Method 

 157

control items, which, in turn, had similar mean frequencies. Second, while the English constituents (adjectives and nouns) had overall a frequency advantage in comparison to the German and French constituents, the constituents of the latter two languages had similar mean frequencies (although French had a slight advantage over German). Third, the French and English AN/NA constructions had overall a frequency advantage over the German AN constructions. I consider these three points in the result section (cf. §6.4).

6.2.2.3 Stress pattern of the English adjective-noun constructions As already mentioned, the study aimed at investigating English AN constructions with initial and with non-initial stress. It is well known that several acoustic correlates of stress, e.g. fundamental frequency (F0)/pitch, intensity/loudness, duration, spectral balance, vowel quality or pitch slope, are examined in the English language (Farnetani, Torsello & Cosi 1988; Kunter 2011; Morrill 2012; Plag, Kunter & Schramm 2011; cf. also Giegerich 1992: 179). In the current study, however, I was not interested in determining the exact physical nature of stress. Instead, I followed Cruttenden (1997: 13) who considers “the term stress to mean ‘prominence’, however such prominence is achieved” (ibid.). Further, I followed Giegerich (1992: 193) who favors a relative interpretation of stress; that means, “a syllable is stressed if it is more prominent than another syllable” (ibid.). Specifically, it was assumed that a syllable of a polysyllabic word/construction was stressed compared to the other syllables of that word/construction (Cutler 1984: 77; Pompino-Marschall 2009: 245). Combining these assumptions meant that a syllable of an AN construction in the study was stressed in comparison to the two other syllables of the construction. Note, however, that a more subtle differentiation is also possible. Giegerich (1992: 179), Kingdon (1958: 1) and Plag et al. (2011: 362) describe the distinction between primary stress, secondary stress and no stress. Secondary stress “is weaker than the main (or ‘primary’) stress but stronger than that of an unstressed syllable” (Giegerich 1992: 179). In the present study, I focused on the “syllable that is clearly most prominent and is said to carry primary stress” (Plag et al. 2011: 362). A further distinction between syllables with secondary stress and unstressed ones was avoided. All items of the study were recorded in isolation; that means, the so-called lexical pronunciation, “the basic pronunciation of the word” (Kingdon 1958: 3), was investigated. The following three steps were conducted in order to ensure that an item was stressed either on its first (e.g. YOUNG tourist) or on its second syllable (e.g. young TOURist). First, the speaker was instructed to stress the respective syllable, i.e. either the first or the second syllable of an AN construction. Second, the author listened to the recorded item in Praat and decided whether the stress pattern was

158 

 6 Experimental study I

acceptable. If it was not acceptable, the item was recorded again (until it was acceptable). If it was acceptable, the author proceeded to the next step. Third, the oscillogram was viewed in Praat – a crucial step in order to get an objective judgment. The oscillogram represents the temporal course of the speech signal and shows the variation of air pressure of the sound waves created while producing language (Ebert & Ebert 2010: 176−177, 197−198; ­Hoffmann 2010: 358; Reetz 2003: 203). If the pressure strength reaches positive or negative values (≠ zero), we speak of the amplitude of air pressure (Ebert & Ebert 2010: 197). The square of the amplitude, in turn, equals the intensity of the signal (ibid.: 198). Therefore, the oscillogram provides us with information about the intensity of the signal (Moroni 2010: 82). So, for instance, an intense sound, i.e. a loud sound, is represented by a great amplitude in the oscillogram (Gabriel & Meisenburg 2007: 102−104). Since intensity has been shown to be a potential acoustic correlate of stress (cf., e.g., Farnetani et al. 1988; Plag et al. 2011), the visualization in the oscillogram was used as a reliable mirror of the stress pattern of the English AN constructions. The amplitude reached its positive and/or negative peak within the syllable carrying primary stress, i.e. within the initial syllable (e.g. GRAY muscle) or within the second syllable (e.g. gray MUscle). Overall, the procedure is similar to that of Lindner (2014: 81−82) who also contrasts a stress minimal pair in an oscillogram and states that the greatest amplitude, thus the greatest loudness, is located at the place where we find the vowel of the syllable that has primary stress. In sum, using the second and third steps described above in order to examine the stress patterns of the English AN constructions, I followed Moroni (2010: 81) who argued for the combination of an individual’s judgment and a technical ­examination of speech. An item was accepted only if the author’s personal ­acoustic judgment was in accordance with the visualization.

6.2.3 Procedure Following Böer et al. (2012: Experiment 1) and Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1), I tested all participants on three days, namely on day one (e.g. Monday), day four (e.g. Thursday) and day eight (e.g. Monday). The experiment was conducted on several days because repetitions serve “to provide a suitable test bed for hypothesized processing and memorization differences” (Kotowski et al. 2014: 195–196). Furthermore, the distance between the individual days in the course of the study was extended, i.e. there were only two days between the first day (day one) and the second day (day four) but three days between the second day (day four) and the third day (day eight). The idea was based on the common recommendation to progressively lengthen the pauses between different learning phases (Nakata 2008: 6).

6.2 Method 

 159

On each day, the subjects took part in the memorization and in the recall phase. In the memorization phase, they heard items and were asked to memorize them. In the recall phase, they heard items and were asked to decide whether or not they had memorized the items in the memorization phase. Böer et al. (2012: Experiment 1) and Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1) used a similar procedure; however, instead of favoring auditory stimuli, they combined written language with pictures. All in all, the experiment resembled what Hasson & Giora (2007: 306) call “[t]he basic format of memory tasks” (ibid.) – even though my study did not include the usual break between the two phases mentioned in their contribution. Instead, the recall phase immediately followed the memorization phase. The study was conducted in the language laboratory at the University of Kassel. The instructions were translated to a subject’s native language, i.e. German, French or English. Prior to the start of the experiment on the first day, the participants took part in a short trial run. All subjects sat on the same place while participating in the study. That means, only one subject was tested at a time. They sat approximately 26 inches/66 centimeters in front of a monitor with a diagonal of about 24 inches/61 centimeters. The participants used the following buttons of a keyboard: The space-button was labeled “Next”, the alt-button, i.e. the third button from the left in the lowest row, was labeled “No” and the strg-button, i.e. the eighth button from the left in the lowest row, was labeled “Yes”. All subjects heard the items through headphones and did not see them on the screen (only the instructions were presented on the screen). The software E-Prime (Psychology Software Tools, Inc. 2010) was used to build and conduct the experiment and to prepare the data for analysis. Specifically, the parts E-Studio, E-Run, E-Merge and E-DataAid of the software were used (cf. also Schneider, Eschman & Zuccolotto 2002a, 2002b, 2007). With E-Studio, twelve single sub-experiments were created to investigate each of the four groups (German, French, EnglishA, EnglishB) on three days. The general structure and design of the twelve sub-experiments was identical. Further, the order of the items in the memorization and recall phase was identical across the four groups. That means, for instance, if the third German item in the memorization phase of the second day was Architekt, the third French and the third English item in the memorization phase of the second day was architecte/architect. The order of the items in the memorization and recall phase differed from one day to another. Also, the order of the items in the memorization phase differed from the order of the items in the recall phase. In the memorization phase, a “+” appeared for 1.5 seconds on the screen before the subjects heard an item and tried to memorize it within 3.5 seconds.119

119 The 3.5 seconds started at the onset of the item.

160 

 6 Experimental study I

The subjects heard twelve items in the memorization phase: The six e­ xperimental items and the six control items. In the recall phase, a “+” appeared for 1.5 seconds on the screen before the participants heard an item and responded to it by pressing either “Yes” or “No”. There was no time limit. Having responded, the subjects saw no feedback slide. Response time was measured from the onset of an item. The subjects heard 24 items: The six experimental items, which they had ­memorized in the memorization phase, the six control items, which they had memorized in the memorization phase, six non-memorized items I (fillers) and six non-­memorized items II (fillers). The task in the recall phase, i.e. pressing either “Yes” or “No”, was similar to a lexical-decision task (cf. Kaiser 2013: 138). Nonetheless, there was an important difference between a typical lexical-decision procedure and the task used in the study described here: While subjects tested during a lexical-decision task decide whether the item they perceive is an existing word or not (ibid.), the type of response (“Yes” or “No”) in my study depended on whether the item had been memorized in the memorization phase or not.

6.3 Hypotheses The present study was based on the following two important hypotheses: (a) The memorization of the control items was not expected to (significantly) differ across languages/groups. (b) The memorization of the experimental items was expected to (significantly) differ across languages/groups. Specifically, a memorization advantage of compounds (German AN compounds) and CoLiCos (English AN constructions with initial stress) in comparison to phrases (French AN/NA phrases) and PhraLiCos (English AN constructions with non-initial stress), respectively, was hypothesized. At this point, it is important to define the term “memorization advantage”. Five different approaches seem to be possible. (1) One might find a memorization advantage of a specific construction type over another construction type if one compares responses to memorized and non-memorized constructions of either type. That means, non-memorized compounds/CoLiCos are compared to non-memorized phrases/PhraLiCos on the one hand and memorized compounds/CoLiCos to memorized phrases/ PhraLiCos on the other hand. Böer et al. (2012: Experiment 1) and Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1) used this approach: While the responses to the nonmemorized compounds were highly significantly slower and significantly less accurate than the responses to the non-memorized phrases, the response

6.3 Hypotheses 

 161

latencies/accuracy of the memorized compounds and the memorized phrases did not significantly differ. Implementing this approach, compounds/CoLiCos can be argued to show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/ PhraLiCos because the difference between the response latencies/accuracy of memorized compounds/CoLiCos and memorized phrases/PhraLiCos is smaller than the difference between the response latencies/accuracy of nonmemorized compounds/CoLiCos and non-memorized phrases/PhraLiCos. (2) The first approach is closely connected to the second approach: One can speak of a memorization advantage of compounds/CoLiCos if the difference between the response latencies/accuracy of non-memorized and memorized phrases/PhraLiCos is smaller than the difference between the response latencies/accuracy of non-memorized and memorized compounds/CoLiCos. That means, compounds/CoLiCos improve more than phrases/PhraLiCos if they are memorized. Such a result is also reported in Böer et al. (2012: ­Experiment 1) and Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1). Initially, the two above-named approaches were considered. However, it was finally decided to reject them for two reasons. First, memorized items have an influence on the responses to non-memorized items. That means, since subjects should become better at reacting to memorized items over time, it should also be easier to reject non-memorized items over time. Having been exposed to a memorized item on day one and two, subjects should have less difficulty in recognizing that the item requires a “Yes”response on the third day. As a consequence, it should also be easier to reject a non-memorized item on the final day. With “less difficulty” and “easier” it is meant that responses should be faster and more accurate. 120 Second, as will be discussed later, many of the non-memorized AN/NA constructions showed high error rates and were, therefore, not appropriate for further statistical analyses. Instead of relying on the two definitions of the term “­memorization advantage” given above, I preferred using the three definitions given in (3), (4) and (5) below. (3) Compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos if they are responded to faster and more accurately than phrases/PhraLiCos on all three days taken together. This approach is valuable because it focuses on the entire memorization process, i.e. it includes all of the three days. However, there is a limitation: The approach works in one direction only. If phrases/PhraLiCos are reacted to faster and more accurately

120 Faster and more accurate responses are considered to be a sign of lower processing costs (Menn & Duffield 2014: 283−284).

162 

 6 Experimental study I

than compounds/CoLiCos, one cannot consider this phenomenon to represent a memorization advantage. Since phrases/PhraLiCos are “less marked” (ten Hacken 2013: 97) than compounds/CoLiCos, it can be expected that they cause faster and more accurate responses. The idea goes well with Heltai’s (2013: 25−26) proposal “that unmarked categories are felt to be more systematic, explicit and logical, basic (frequent), central, regular, productive and simpler than marked ones” (ibid.). Schane (1970: 286) regards an unmarked form as “less complex or normal” (ibid.). To illustrate the potential difference in the responses to compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/­PhraLiCos, consider the English language. Giegerich (1992: 252) argues that “[t]he normal, ‘unmarked’ stress pattern” (ibid.) of English AN combinations “is one of final stress” (ibid.). Bybee (1995a: 237) cites Greenberg (1966) who connects the absence of markedness to higher frequency. Schiller et al. (2004: 237−238), in turn, suggest that naming latencies of items with a stress pattern of a lower frequency might be slower than naming latencies of items with a stress pattern of a higher frequency. Therefore, everything else being equal, we can expect English AN constructions with non-initial stress to be ­recognized faster – and more accurately – than those with initial stress on the three days together because non-initial stress is the more frequent and less marked stress pattern of English AN constructions. As a consequence, we cannot interpret faster and more accurate responses to phrases/PhraLiCos as a sign of a memorization advantage but, instead, as a simple ­frequency effect. Note, however, that a second explanation why non-initial stress should cause shorter response latencies and higher accuracy exists. If phrasal stress [, i.e. non-initial stress,] is heard, each word is accessed separately, and there is a direct path to the literal phrasal interpretation, which is the intended interpretation in this case. If compound stress [, i.e. initial stress,] is heard, a lexical search is made for a match with the stimulus item. If such a match is found, the compound is identified and the intended compound interpretation is given. If no match is found, as occurs with the novel items with compound stress, we observed two strategies […]. Either the novel item is accepted as a compound, with the novel compound interpretation depicted in the stimulus drawings, or it is rejected as a compound and it is assigned a default phrasal interpretation, despite its compound stress pattern. (Vogel & Raimy 2002: 246)

Based on the aforementioned citation, it can be assumed that non-initial, or phrasal, stress directly triggers a decomposition process. That means, instead of searching for an entry of the entire complex construction in the mental lexicon, the adjective and the noun are immediately accessed. Initial stress, however, encourages subjects “to look for” a distinct representation of the whole construction. Since it cannot be found in the case of ­non-lexicalized/ non-memorized items, two possible options emerge, according to the

6.3 Hypotheses 

 163

­ bove-named authors. For the present study, only the second suggestion a is plausible because pictures were not used. As a consequence, it can be expected that the subjects hear initial stress, do not find a lexical entry and, finally, opt for the decomposition process. Overall, while non-initial stress signals the access to the individual constituents right away, initial stress does so only if no entry was found in the lexicon (for further evidence, cf. also Gamache 2013: Experiment 1). The distinction between lexicalized and nonlexicalized, or better between memorized and non-memorized constructions, is crucial. McCauley et al. (2012) as well as Vogel et al. (2013) showed that lexicalized/memorized English constructions with initial stress were responded to significantly more accurately (and faster) than English constructions with non-initial stress (cf.  §5.2). Note that almost all of the constructions were composed of an adjective and a noun. In my study, however, all items were non-lexicalized/non-­ memorized. Therefore, items with non-initial stress were expected to be responded to faster and more accurately. Moreover, one has to consider the fact that, as opposed to the German AN compounds, the French and English AN/NA constructions used in the current study did not have an average frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw (cf. §6.2.2.2.3). Investigations revealed that the frequencies of entire constructions had an influence on processing (Snider & Arnon 2012: 133−136; for an overview of other studies, cf. ibid.: 132−133). Therefore, an advantage of, for example, the French phrases in comparison to the German compounds on all three days together might simply be related to the higher average frequency of the French phrases. The higher frequency of the French phrases is connected to the function(s) of the categories phrase and compound in French and German respectively. Even if both the French phrases and the German compounds were not lexicalized, they differed in their frequency due to their functional difference. Whereas French phrases can often be used as either naming or descriptive units, German compounds almost always represent naming units (cf. Chapter 4). That means, the phrases do not only have two functions; crucially, they have the default function, namely the descriptive one. Default function means here that AN/NA constructions occur more often as descriptive rather than as naming units. (4) Hence, another definition of the term “memorization advantage” is needed for all cases where phrases/PhraLiCos cause better responses on all three days together or where no significant difference between the responses to phrases/PhraLiCos and the responses to compounds/CoLiCos on all three days together exists. The second approach that was taken into account was the contrast of the AN/NA constructions on different days. In other words, compounds/CoLiCos are responded to significantly more slowly/less ­accurately

164 

 6 Experimental study I

than phrases/PhraLiCos at an early stage of the memorization process, i.e. on the first day, but not at a later stage of the memorization process, i.e. on the second and/or third day. The greater improvement of compounds/CoLiCos in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos represents the memorization advantage. This approach to the term “memorization advantage” is based on the aforementioned idea that phrases/PhraLiCos are less marked and more frequent than compounds/CoLiCos and, consequently, should be initially, i.e. on the first day, recognized more easily. Following Kotowski et al. (2014: 196), I hypothesized that memorization would be able to make vanish the difference. Therefore, the response times/accuracy of compounds/CoLiCos should not significantly differ from the response latencies/accuracy of phrases/ PhraLiCos on the second and/or third day anymore. (5) The final approach is closely connected to the fourth one and, again, is only implemented if the third approach mentioned above does not ­indicate a memorization advantage of compounds/CoLiCos. According to the fifth approach, compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos if the difference of their response times/ accuracy of day one and day two/three is larger than the difference of the response latencies/accuracy of day one and day two/three of the phrases/ PhraLiCos. In this approach, again, compounds/CoLiCos improve more than phrases/PhraLiCos over the days and are, therefore, regarded as more prone to memorization. Approach (4) and approach (5) are simultaneously implemented if approach (3) fails to uncover a memorization advantage of compounds/CoLiCos in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos. Approach (3) is regarded as the most valuable approach to the notion of memorization advantage because it is the only approach that takes the whole memorization process, i.e. all three days together, into account.

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion The result section focuses on response time and response accuracy, the two dependent variables. I follow Jiang (2012: 34) by regarding response time as “the main dependent variable” (ibid.) and response accuracy as “the second dependent variable” (ibid.). response time is discussed in the first subsection and response accuracy in the second one. Prior to the subsections, some general remarks on the analysis of the two dependent variables are in order. After the collection of a total of 2520 responses (35 subjects × 24 responses per subject per day × 3 days), the data was prepared for further statistical analyses

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 165

using E-Merge and E-DataAid in E-Prime. The statistical analyses themselves, which are presented below, were conducted with the software Minitab. First of all, the data was examined to see whether certain subjects and/or items showed high error rates. Jiang (2012: 69) states that researchers often ignore the data of subjects who give 80 percent or less correct responses. However, the author emphasizes that the error limit can vary and has to be based on the peculiarities of the individual experiment – both for subjects and for items. Since all adjectives and nouns of the study occurred in both a memorized and a non-memorized AN/NA construction on each day, the task was more difficult than a usual lexical-decision task and it was decided that the subjects had to show a response accuracy of at least 70 percent. The items had to meet the same criterion. No subject failed to fulfil the requirement. Further, all experimental and all control items reached the accuracy threshold of 70 percent. All non-­ memorized items II reached the accuracy level of 70 percent as well but only seven of the 18 non-memorized items I did so. Therefore, all non-memorized items were excluded from further statistical analyses. The non-memorized items II only represented a control group in the non-memorized condition. Since the non-memorized AN/NA constructions (non-memorized items I) were associated with too high error rates in the great majority of cases, non-memorized items were discarded altogether. The following analyses focused on the memorized items only, i.e. on the experimental and control items. Note that, when examining the error rates, language was considered a within-item factor. That means, for instance, that the responses to Jungtourist, jeune touriste, YOUNG tourist and young TOURist were relevant for the item young tourist. In sum, the data of all subjects and all memorized items were kept for further a ­ nalyses. Since the ­following examination did not consider the non-memorized items, i.e. the filler items, 1260 responses were left for the analysis.

6.4.1 response time As Jiang (2012: 68−69) proposes, all incorrect responses were excluded. That means, 8.1 percent, i.e. 102 values, of the 1260 responses were discarded. Then, statistical outliers were removed from the remaining data by investigating the response times (on outliers, cf. also ibid.: 70−71). Larson-Hall (2010: 245) states that boxplots can help find “outliers in your data – points which distort group means, especially in groups with small sizes” (ibid.). However, the author casts doubt on the usefulness of simply eliminating outliers because, for instance, “when one outlier is removed, other points that previously did not seem like outliers then become so” (ibid.: 60). Therefore, once outliers had been detected in a

166 

 6 Experimental study I

boxplot and discarded, the data was checked again to see whether new ­outliers occurred. After a boxplot was used to find outliers in the dataset containing the 1158 response times that were still left, the outliers from the dataset were excluded, the new dataset was checked in another boxplot and the new outliers were erased. The fourth boxplot was the first one that did not show any outlier. Fig. 1 illustrates the first boxplot containing outliers and Fig. 2 shows the fourth boxplot that did not show outliers anymore. The two boxplots were created in Minitab. Note that outliers are visualized with asterisks in Minitab. Before looking at the graphs, note how Larson-Hall (2010: 245) describes a boxplot. The horizontal line within the box represents the median. All values from the 25th up to the 75th percentile are located in the box, which is the interquartile range. The author adds that the vertical line, the whisker, connects the minimum to the maximum value “unless those lie beyond a point that is one and a half times the length of

Response time (in ms)

4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Response time (in ms)

Fig. 1: A boxplot ­with outliers.

1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500

Fig. 2: A boxplot without outliers.

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 167

the box” (ibid.). “Points that lie outside one and a half times the length of the box are identified as outliers” (ibid.).121 6.2 percent, i.e. 72 values, of the 1158 response times represented statistical outliers and were deleted from the data. The minimum of the remaining 1086 response latencies was 488 ms and the maximum was 1416 ms. In sum, the following analyses refer to the correct responses given to the memorized items from 488 ms to 1416 ms. The 1086 responses represent 86.19 percent of all responses collected for the memorized items. Next, the data was prepared for the ANOVAs to be conducted. Two ANOVAs were planned, namely one analysis by subject and one analysis by item (cf. Clark 1973: 349; Jiang 2012: 71). 210 means were calculated for the subject analysis and 144 means were calculated for the item analysis.122 Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to examine the mean values in more detail.123 4 × 2 × 3 repeated-measures ANOVAs by subject (F1) and by item (F2) were conducted for response time. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used because each subject and each item were tested more than once or, as Gries (2013: 328) states, dependent groups exist, for instance, if “you obtain more than one response per subject (i.e., you do repeated measurements on each subject)” (ibid.) or if “you obtain more than one response per, say, a lexical item” (ibid.). subject

121 For a similar description of boxplots, cf. also Dormann (2013: 9). 122 In the subject analysis, there were 210 means because the following six means were calculated for each of the 35 subjects: Meanexperimental items day 1, meanexperimental items day 2, ­ ­meanexperimental items day 3, meancontrol items day 1, meancontrol items day 2, meancontrol items day 3. ­Remember that each subject was tested on only one language/in only one of the four groups (German, French, EnglishA, EnglishB). In the item analysis, there were 144 means because the following 12 means were calculated for each of the six experimental items and for each of the six control items: MeanGerman day 1, MeanGerman day 2, MeanGerman day 3, MeanFrench day 1, MeanFrench day 2, MeanFrench day 3, ­MeanEnglishA day 1, MeanEnglishA day 2, MeanEnglishA day 3, MeanEnglishB day 1, MeanEnglishB day 2, MeanEnglishB day 3. ­Remember that each item was tested in all languages, i.e. in four groups. 123 Note that one can distinguish between data means and fitted means (http://support. minitab.com/en-us/minitab/17/topic-library/modeling-statistics/anova/anova-statistics/ data-means-vs-fitted-means/ (Accessed on September 4, 2014)): “Data means are the raw response variable means for each factor level combination whereas fitted means use least squares to predict the mean response values of a balanced design” (ibid.). In the following, tables and graphs will be presented with descriptive statistics of response time and response accuracy for both the first (cf. Chapter 6) and the second experimental study (cf. Chapter 7). These tables and graphs always present data means. In most cases, data means do not differ from fitted means. If they differ, the difference is very small, i.e., e.g., not more than some milliseconds.

168 

 6 Experimental study I

was included as a random factor in the subject analysis and item r­ epresented a random factor in the item analysis (Baayen 2013: 349; Jiang 2012: 71−72). In both the subject and the item analysis, the independent factors language (factor levels: German, French, EnglishA, EnglishB), item type (factor levels: experimental items, control items) and day (factor levels: day 1, day 2, day 3) were treated as fixed factors. Note that EnglishA and EnglishB were treated as different languages in the statistical analysis. Note also that random and fixed factors differ in the following way. Although one tests only some subjects and some items, i.e. only some levels of random factors, one intends to interpret the results with respect to all possible subjects and items (Baayen 2013: 349). In contrast, one tests all levels of fixed factors (ibid.). The three fixed factors were further distinguished in within-subject/within-item and between-subject/between-item factors. A within-subject factor is used if subjects are tested on all levels of the factor and a between-subject factor if subjects are only tested on one particular level (Abbuhl, Gass & Mackey 2013: 117; Jiang 2012: 36). In the subject analysis, language was a between-subject factor, item type and day were within-subject factors. Transferring the distinction between “within” and “between” factors to the item analysis, I treated language as a within-item factor, item type as a between-item factor and day as a within-item factor. The results are reported in the following way.124 First, p ≤ .05 was chosen as a significance level prior to the ANOVA (Bortz 1993: 110−111). Second, in line with Bühl & Zöfel (2002: 111), p ≤ .05 was called significant, p ≤ .01 very significant and p ≤ .001 highly significant. Third, I follow LarsonHall (2010: 103) by providing “exact p-values, instead of reporting only that they are above or below critical levels” (ibid.). Fourth, the two degrees of freedom, the F-value and the p-value are reported (Albert & Marx 2010: 150−151). These values are given in the main text for both significant and non-significant results of single independent variables or the interaction of two or three independent variables. Fifth, if Tukey multiple comparisons are reported, the difference between the two means under investigation (difference of means, henceforth: DM), the t-value and the p-value are reported in the main text, in a footnote or in the appendix.125 The results that were examined first were those of the interaction of ­language × item type. As stated in §6.3, compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos if they are responded to faster than phrases/PhraLiCos on all three days together. The idea is based

124 The results of the ANOVAs for response accuracy as well as the results of all ANOVAs of the second experimental study (cf. Chapter 7) will be reported in the same way. 125 Throughout my entire work, all p-values reported for Tukey multiple comparisons are ­corrected p-values.

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 169

Tab. 12: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interaction of language × item type (Subscript “1” = Subject analysis; subscript “2” = item analysis). Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Germancontrol Frenchcontrol EnglishAcontrol EnglishBcontrol Germanexperimental Frenchexperimental EnglishAexperimental EnglishBexperimental

27 (18) 24 (18) 27 (18) 27 (18) 27 (18) 24 (18) 27 (18) 27 (18)

951.5 (944.3) 910.6 (908.7) 830.9 (826.9) 833.0 (830.5) 1014.0 (997.2) 1056.5 (1062.2) 981.4 (994.4) 931.0 (929.2)

147.2 (66.8) 102.8 (74.1) 80.6 (58.3) 98.5 (56.1) 135.7 (58.7) 103.4 (100.8) 112.5 (94.4) 128.7 (77.5)

on the fact that compounds/CoLiCos are more marked and less frequent than phrases/PhraLiCos and should therefore be responded to more slowly. If it is the other way around, it can be claimed that compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage. The numbers of observations, means and standard deviations of the subject and the item analysis are given in Tab. 12. The means of the item analysis are also presented in Fig. 3. The interaction of language × item type was very significant in the subject analysis and highly significant in the item analysis (F1(3, 155) = 4.98, p = .003; F2(3, 110) = 6.39, p = .000). The control items were compared across languages with Tukey multiple comparisons. The reaction times of the French control items did not significantly differ from the response latencies of the German control items (DM1 = −40.8, t1 = −2.14, p1 = .397; DM2 = −35.6, t2 = −1.71, p2 = .682).126 ­Moreover, the response latencies of the control items of the group EnglishB did not significantly differ from the reaction times of the control items of the group EnglishA (DM1 = 2.1, t1 = 0.12, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 3.6, t2 = 0.17, p2 = 1.000). However, all other comparisons of the control items of two languages revealed a highly/ very significant difference.127 This means that the baseline only worked for two comparisons. In other words, the response times of the French control items

126 Again, here and in the rest of my contribution, the subscript “1” refers to the subject a ­ nalysis and the subscript “2” refers to the item analysis. 127 EnglishA versus German: DM1 = −120.6, t1 = −6.50, p1 = .000; DM2 = −117.5, t2 = −5.64, p2 = .000; EnglishB versus German: DM1 = −118.5, t1 = −6.39, p1 = .000; DM2 = −113.8, t2 = −5.46, p2 = .000; French versus EnglishA: DM1 = 79.7, t1 = 4.17, p1 = .001; DM2 = 81.8, t2 = 3.93, p2 = .004; French versus EnglishB: DM1 = 77.6, t1 = 4.06, p1 = .002; DM2 = 78.2, t2 = 3.75, p2 = .007.

170 

 6 Experimental study I

1100

Response time (in ms)

1050 1000 German French

950

EnglishA EnglishB

900 850 800

Experimental items

Item type

Control items

Fig. 3: Interaction of language × item type (F2) (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a, 2016b).

did not significantly differ from the response latencies of the German control items and the reaction times of the control items of the two English groups did not significantly differ. Therefore, only two comparisons were considered when examining the AN/NA constructions across languages, namely the comparison of the French phrases and the German compounds as well as the comparison of the English CoLiCos (EnglishA) and the English PhraLiCos (EnglishB). All other comparisons were ignored because potential differences could be related to other factors that were not investigated in the current study. The faster response latencies of the English control items are probably related to the fact that their mean frequency was higher than the mean frequencies of the German and French control items, which, in turn, were similar (cf. Tab. 7). Although no difference reached significance in the Tukey multiple comparisons of the one-way ANOVA, the non-significant difference between the mean frequencies of the German/French control items and the English control items probably caused an advantage for the English items. Hence, the analysis was limited to the comparison of the German and the French AN/NA constructions on the one hand and to the comparison of the AN constructions of the two English groups on the other hand. The response latencies of the French AN/NA phrases were ­significantly longer than the reaction times of the German AN compounds, at least in the item analysis (DM1 = 42.5, t1 = 2.22, p1 = .345; DM2 = 65.0, t2 = 3.12, p2 = .046). Moreover, the reaction times of the AN PhraLiCos (EnglishB) were significantly

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 171

shorter than the response latencies of the AN CoLiCos (EnglishA) in the item analysis (DM1 = −50.4, t1 = −2.72, p1 = .126; DM2 = −65.2, t2 = −3.13, p2 = .045). Overall, the comparisons between the experimental items of all languages were not realized because the response latencies of some of the control items significantly differed from each other. Specifically, the English control items were responded to highly/very significantly faster than the German and French control items. The difference seems to result from the frequency advantage of the English control items. Crucially, however, the response latencies of the French and the German control items did not significantly differ. The analysis revealed the same trend for the comparison of the control items of the two English groups. With respect to the experimental items of German and French, it was found that the German compounds were responded to significantly faster than the French phrases. The effect is surprising for several reasons. First, as discussed in Chapter 4, although both French and German use AN/NA phrases as descriptive constructions, French has, compared to German, a much higher tendency to rely on such phrases for naming purposes. Even if German has some AN phrases that serve as naming units, it normally prefers AN compounds for this function. In the current study, German AN compounds, which almost always represent naming units, were compared with French AN/NA phrases, which can be used as naming and/or descriptive units. Since French phrases fulfil two functions but German compounds (usually) only one, the French constructions might be expected to be responded to faster because the category of the (French) phrase is more frequent than the category of the (German) compound. Second, in general, the category of the phrase is less marked than the category of the compound (cf. Chapter 4). Third, the French AN/NA phrases had a higher frequency than the German AN compounds. While all memorized compounds had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw, 50 percent of the memorized phrases had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw (cf. §6.2.2.2.3). Fourth, the French constituents (adjectives and nouns together) also had a very slight frequency advantage over the German constituents (cf. §6.2.2.2.2). Despite the four aforementioned facts, the German AN compounds were responded to faster than the French AN/ NA phrases. The effect is interpreted as a memorization advantage of the compounds in the spirit of the most valuable approach to the term “memorization advantage”, namely approach (3) (cf. §6.3). Note that the interpretation is further supported by the comparisons of the experimental and the control items in the different languages. Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the reaction times of the control items were highly significantly shorter than the latencies of the experimental items in French (DM1 = −145.9, t1 = −7.41, p1 = .000; DM2 = −153.5, t2 = −7.37, p2 = .000), EnglishA (DM1 = −150.5, t1 = −8.11, p1 = .000; DM2 = −167.5,

172 

 6 Experimental study I

t2 = −8.04, p2 = .000) and EnglishB (DM1 = −98.0, t1 = −5.28, p1 = .000; DM2 = −98.7, t2 = −4.74, p2 = .000). The results were not surprising because the ­experimental items were longer in duration than the control items. Moreover, the mean ­frequency of the experimental items was smaller than that of the control items in all languages. Interestingly, the comparison of the response times of the German control and experimental items revealed a much smaller difference. Also, a ­significant result was found only in the subject but not in the item ­analysis (DM1 = −62.5, t1 = −3.37, p1 = .021; DM2 = −52.9, t2 = −2.54, p2 = .191). The result is interpreted as an indication that the German compounds are the most word-like constructions of all AN/NA constructions under investigation. With regard to the response times of the English AN constructions, it was found that those with non-initial stress, i.e. the PhraLiCos (EnglishB), were responded to faster than those with initial stress, i.e. the CoLiCos (EnglishA), on all three days together. The effect derives from the fact that non-initial stress is much more frequent than initial stress in English AN constructions (cf. §3.4.2 and  §6.3). Since approach (3) did not show a memorization advantage of the CoLiCos in comparison to the PhraLiCos, the data was examined in order to see whether the approaches (4) and (5) to the term “memorization advantage” (cf.  §6.3) revealed a memorization advantage of the CoLiCos. That means, the individual days were investigated. Tab. 13 shows the numbers of observations, means and standard deviations of the experimental and control items in the subject and item analysis. Fig. 4 visualizes the means of the experimental items (F2). The interaction of language × item type × day was not significant (F1(6, 155) = 0.08, p = .998; F2(6, 110) = 0.40, p = .877). Tukey multiple comparisons did not reveal a significant difference between the response latencies of the control items of EnglishB and EnglishA on any of the three days (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.1).128 Moreover, the latencies of the PhraLiCos (EnglishB) and those of the CoLiCos (EnglishA) did not significantly differ on any of the three days (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.2). Since no significant difference

128 A general note on the statistical procedure is in order here. The reader will realize that posthoc comparisons were sometimes conducted although no significant interaction had been found. The procedure is based on the preference for a theory-driven, rather than a data-driven, analysis (Martin Schweinberger p.c.; cf. also Johnson 2010). That means, the respective comparisons are theoretically motivated. For instance, comparing the response latencies of a specific construction type in one language on a particular day to the reaction times of the same construction type in a different language on the same day represents an essential step of the analysis in order to answer the question whether the hypotheses introduced earlier are valid.

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 173

Tab. 13: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the English items on the three days (con = control items, exp = experimental items). Condition EnglishAcon day 1 EnglishAcon day 2 EnglishAcon day 3 EnglishBcon day 1 EnglishBcon day 2 EnglishBcon day 3 EnglishAexp day 1 EnglishAexp day 2 EnglishAexp day 3 EnglishBexp day 1 EnglishBexp day 2 EnglishBexp day 3

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6)

842.8 (832.1) 816.9 (814.9) 832.9 (833.7) 854.7 (848.6) 847.5 (844.2) 796.9 (798.8) 1016.1 (1050.1) 972.1 (989.0) 956.0 (944.1) 960.6 (968.9) 951.9 (946.1) 880.5 (872.7)

84.8 (78.8) 63.0 (62.4) 97.7 (34.8) 84.3 (64.5) 85.3 (55.9) 122.1 (39.7) 110.3 (128.7) 111.2 (63.0) 120.2 (54.6) 99.9 (84.2) 123.7 (48.2) 155.5 (70.4)

1060

Response time (in ms)

1020

980

Compound-like constructions Phrase-like constructions

940

900

860

1

2 Day

3

Fig. 4: English AN CoLiCos (= EnglishAexp) versus English AN PhraLiCos (= EnglishBexp) on the three days (F2).

was found on any of the three days, approach (4) to the term “memorization advantage” was ruled out for the English data as well. Therefore, approach (5) was finally checked and the response times of the CoLiCos on day one were compared with the response times of the same constructions on day two and three. The reaction times of the CoLiCos on day two were also compared with those on

174 

 6 Experimental study I

day three. The same analysis was conducted for the PhraLiCos. No ­significant difference was found for the CoLiCos and for the PhraLiCos (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.3). Hence, approach (5) could not be applied to English either. Note that, with respect to the control items, no significant difference was found either (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.4). Overall, the results can be summarized as follows: The German AN compounds showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the French AN/NA phrases. In English, however, no memorization advantage of the CoLiCos, i.e. the AN constructions with initial stress, was found in comparison to the PhraLiCos, i.e. the AN constructions with non-initial stress. Attentive readers are probably also interested in other comparisons on the individual days. Tab. 14 presents the remaining descriptive values that are ­relevant for the three-way interaction of language × item type × day. The response latencies of the control items did not significantly differ on any of the three days between French and German, French and EnglishA as well as between French and EnglishB (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.5). The reaction times of the control items of EnglishA very significantly differed from those of the German control items only on day two in the subject analysis.129 Finally, the response latencies of the control items of EnglishB (highly) significantly differed from those of the German control items only on day three.130 Based on these results, it was theoretically allowed to compare the results of the experimental items on the individual days across languages if the respective comparison of the control items did not indicate a significant result. However, it was finally decided to maintain the distinction between German/French on the one hand and the two English groups on the other hand. We saw earlier that the English control items, adjectives and nouns had a frequency advantage in comparison to the German and/ or French control items, adjectives and nouns (cf. §6.2.2.2.2). Therefore, I only focused on the comparisons between the two English groups (already ­presented above) on the one hand and between German and French on the other hand. The response latencies of the French and German AN/NA

129 EnglishA versus German: Day two: DM1 = −142.0, t1 = −4.42, p1 = .004. For the other statistical values of the comparisons between the control items of EnglishA and German, cf. Appendix 2.6). 130 EnglishB versus German: Day three: DM1 = −152.0, t1 = −4.73, p1 = .001; DM2 = −140.7, t2 = −3.90, p2 = .030. For the other statistical values of the comparisons between the control items of ­EnglishB and German, cf. Appendix 2.7).

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 175

Tab. 14: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the remaining experimental and control items on the three days. Condition Germancon day 1 Germancon day 2 Germancon day 3 Frenchcon day 1 Frenchcon day 2 Frenchcon day 3 Germanexp day 1 Germanexp day 2 Germanexp day 3 Frenchexp day 1 Frenchexp day 2 Frenchexp day 3

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6)

946.7 (958.0) 958.9 (935.5) 948.9 (939.5) 955.4 (948.9) 923.6 (924.5) 853.0 (852.8) 1036.6 (1017.3) 1014.0 (993.6) 991.6 (980.8) 1126.5 (1147.4) 1062.2 (1053.1) 980.9 (986.2)

162.6 (89.2) 143.4 (50.8) 152.7 (65.4) 79.0 (68.9) 58.6 (60.5) 137.0 (65.3) 127.4 (64.6) 136.1 (52.6) 154.9 (62.9) 116.0 (87.3) 84.0 (74.9) 49.6 (74.5)

constructions did not significantly differ on any of the three days (for statistical values, cf. ­Appendix 2.8).131 In the examination of the differences between the reaction times of the German compounds and the French phrases on the individual days, no significant difference was found on any of the three days. Although the difference was not significant on any of the three days, Tab. 14 shows that the difference was much larger on the first day than on the second and third one. In other words, the advantage of the German compounds decreased. However, the effect is not considered a memorization advantage of the French phrases. The French phrases should have been responded to more quickly than the German compounds, especially at the beginning, because the category phrase as well as the individual phrases were more frequent than the category compound as well as the individual compounds (cf. Chapter 4, §6.2.2.2.3 and §6.4.1). Also, French had a slight constituent frequency advantage over German (cf. §6.2.2.2.2 and §6.4.1). In reality, the opposite pattern was observed. I argue that the results are based on the structural-functional distinction between compounds and phrases in German and French (cf. Chapter 4). In German, compounds almost always function as naming units and phrases are usually descriptive units. In French, however, compounds are very rare and, as a consequence, phrases often

131 Note, by the way, that only the comparison of the French and EnglishB experimental items on day one revealed a highly significant difference (DM1 = 165.8, t1 = 5.01, p1 = .000; DM2 = 178.5, t2  =  4.95, p2 = .001); all other comparisons did not show a significant difference anyway (for ­statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.9).

176 

 6 Experimental study I

fulfil not only the descriptive but also the naming function. The effects reported above might be rooted in the fact that non-lexicalized compounds clearly signal their naming status and immediately push language users towards a non-default, i.e. a non-compositional, interpretation. If no meaning is provided, as in my experiment, a German speaker probably imagines a new complex lexical concept that differs from the simple compositional meaning when she/he is exposed to a novel compound. If the construction had been supposed to be interpreted in a compositional way, a phrase would have been used rather than a compound. In French, the situation is different. Hearing a non-lexicalized phrase and being asked to memorize it, French speakers are confronted with a conflict. On the one hand, phrases can be interpreted in a compositional way. This default interpretation is, however, in conflict with the task of memorization. Since one usually memorizes only naming units (Booij 2010a: 169), which are non-compositional, it seems to be unlikely that the non-lexicalized phrases simply represent what they describe. So, for instance, jeune touriste (young tourist) might refer to, apart from the compositional meaning “a tourist who is young”, a person who has been on a specific trip only for a short period of time. Overall, the function and the meaning of the German constructions are more restricted and might cause less processing difficulties in comparison to the French constructions that can potentially serve as either descriptive or naming units. Once the conflict is resolved, i.e. once a French speaker has selected one meaning/function and memorized the phrase with this particular meaning/function, the phrase is responded to faster. Next, it was examined whether any of the languages under investigation significantly improved from day one to day two and/or three and/or from day two to day three. No significant difference in the reaction times of the experimental items of German, EnglishA and EnglishB was found (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.3 (English) and Appendix 2.10 (German)). With regard to the French experimental items, a very significant difference was only found between the response latencies of day three and day one (DM1 = −145.6, t1 = −4.27, p1 = .007; DM2 = −161.2, t2 = −4.47, p2 = .004) (for the other statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.11). The result goes well with the explanation above. The potential dual ­function of French AN/NA phrases represents an additional processing burden, especially at the beginning. Once speakers have “chosen” a possible meaning/function, the disadvantage disappears. In the examination of the control items, no significant difference was found between the response latencies of different days in any language (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.4 (English) and Appendix 2.12 (German and French)). Finally, we look at the comparisons of the control and experimental items on each day in each language. In German and EnglishB, no significant difference was found on any of the three days (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 2.13).

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 177

In French, the difference was highly significant on day one and significant on day two and three, at least in the subject analysis.132 In EnglishA, the difference was highly significant on day one and two and significant on day three in the subject analysis.133 At first sight, the results seem to be contradictory because the results of the compounds (German) resemble more the results of the PhraLiCos (EnglishB) than those of the CoLiCos. Also, the results of the phrases (French) are more similar to the results of the CoLiCos (EnglishA) than to those of the PhraLiCos. However, at closer inspection, the results make sense. The German AN compounds share with the German control items the naming function. That means, they almost always have one specific function. If subjects hear novel AN compounds (e.g. Jungtourist, young_tourist) without a meaning, they can creatively come up with their own interpretation, which is likely to be non-compositional. The compositional reading is ruled out here because it is expressed by means of a phrase (e.g. junger Tourist, ‘young tourist’) (cf. also Chapter 7). In EnglishB, the situation is both similar and different at the same time. It is different because subjects who hear an English AN construction with non-initial stress (e.g. young TOURist) tend to think of any tourist who is young. That means, only the compositional interpretation comes to their mind. However, the German compounds are also similar to the English PhraLiCos because the two construction types have only one function or meaning by default (although the function itself is different in German (naming function) and EnglishB (descriptive function)) (cf. Chapter 4). Overall, this explains why the experimental items in German and EnglishB showed response times that did not significantly differ from the latencies of the control items of the same languages on the individual days. In French, the reaction times of the control and experimental items (highly) significantly differed. The processing of the experimental items was probably more difficult than the processing of the control items because the former have two potential functions, namely the naming and the descriptive function (cf. ibid.), but the latter have only one, namely the naming function. Note that the difference decreased after day one. A reason might be that the subjects decided for one function/meaning after the initial exposure (on day one) and ignored the other function/meaning on the following days. Coming to the results of the group EnglishA, one knows

132 Day one: DM1 = −171.1, t1 = −5.02, p1 = .000; DM2 = −198.5, t2 = −5.50, p2 = .000; day two: DM1 = −138.6, t1 = −4.07, p1 = .015; DM2 = −128.6, t2 = −3.56, p2 = .082; day three: DM1 = −127.9, t1 = −3.75, p1 = .043; DM2 = −133.4, t2 = −3.70, p2 = .055. 133 Day one: DM1 = −173.3, t1 = −5.39, p1 = .000; DM2 = −218.1, t2 = −6.04, p2 = .000; day two: DM1 = −155.1, t1 = −4.83, p1 = .001; DM2 = −174.1, t2 = −4.82, p2 = .001; day three: DM1 = −123.1, t1 = −3.83, p1 = .034; DM2 = −110.4, t2 = −3.06, p2 = .278.

178 

 6 Experimental study I

that AN constructions with initial stress serve as naming units and, therefore, have one specific function (cf. ibid.). The question now remains why they behaved more like the French phrases and not like the German compounds or the English PhraLiCos. I argue that the distinction between primary and secondary factors (cf. Chapter 3) explains the effect of the group ­EnglishA. Apparently, the primary factor inflectional agreement, which defines the German compounds, is stronger than the secondary factor stress, which characterizes the English CoLiCos. That means, German AN compounds are immediately recognized as naming units because they lack the adjectival inflectional suffix that is present in German AN phrases. In English, neither CoLiCos nor PhraLiCos take suffixes and only differ in their stress pattern. Since the CoLiCos and PhraLiCos cannot be differentiated on the segmental basis but only on the suprasegmental/ prosodic one, it takes longer to recognize their naming function. Put differently, while the segmental phonology of the CoLiCos calls for compositional semantics, i.e. for the default interpretation, the suprasegmental phonology triggers a non-­ compositional meaning (cf. also Vogel & Raimy 2002: 246). As a consequence, group EnglishA is similar to the French group because the two construction types have, at least at the beginning, a dual function. After the investigation of the two important interactions, we can now briefly look at the other interactions and main effects. The interaction of language × day was only significant in the subject analysis (F1(6, 155) = 2.32, p = .036; F2(6, 110) = 1.70, p = .128) and the interaction of item type × day was not significant (F1(2, 155) = 1.56, p = .213; F2(2, 110) = 2.71, p = .071). No Tukey multiple comparison of the two aforementioned interactions was necessary because no comparison was relevant for my objectives. A table with the numbers of observations, means and standard deviations can be found in Appendix 3. Descriptive statistics for the three ­independent variables are given in Tab.  15. The main effect of language was highly significant only in the item analysis (F1(3, 155) = 2.51, p = .077; F2(3, 110) = 22.87, p = .000). Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the response latencies of French and German as well as of EnglishB and EnglishA did not significantly differ (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 4). All other comparisons showed highly significant differences.134 The main effect of item type was highly significant (F1(1, 155) = 147.06, p = .000; F2(1, 110) = 34.38, p = .000) and the main effect of day was highly significant

134 EnglishA versus German: DM1 = −76.6, t1 = −5.84, p1 = .000; DM2 = −60.1, t2 = −4.08, p2 = .000; EnglishB versus German: DM1 = −100.8, t1 = −7.68, p1 = .000; DM2 = −90.9, t2 = −6.17, p2 = .000; French versus EnglishA: DM1 = 77.4, t1 = 5.73, p1 = .000; DM2 = 74.8, t2 = 5.08, p2 = .000; French versus EnglishB: DM1 = 101.6, t1 = 7.51, p1 = .000; DM2 = 105.6, t2 = 7.17, p2 = .000.

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 179

Tab. 15: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables. Condition German French EnglishA EnglishB Control Experimental Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

54 (36) 48 (36) 54 (36) 54 (36) 105 (72) 105 (72) 70 (48) 70 (48) 70 (48)

982.8 (970.8) 983.6 (985.5) 906.1 (910.7) 882.0 (879.9) 880.7 (877.6) 994.0 (995.8) 965.3 (971.4) 942.0 (937.6) 904.7 (901.1)

143.8 (67.5) 125.8 (116.9) 123.2 (114.9) 123.8 (83.4) 120.6 (80.9) 127.9 (95.3) 137.1 (125.4) 126.0 (92.1) 140.6 (86.8)

(F1(2, 155) = 14.86, p = .000; F2(2, 110) = 15.20, p = .000). Tukey multiple comparisons revealed a significant difference between the response latencies of day two and day one, at least in the item analysis (DM1 = −24.0, t1 = −2.08, p1 = .096; DM2 = −33.8, t2 = −2.65, p2 = .025), a highly significant difference between the reaction times of day three and day one (DM1 = −62.3, t1 = −5.40, p1 = .000; DM2 = −70.3, t2 = −5.51, p2 = .000) and a (very) significant difference between the latencies of day three and day two (DM1 = −38.3, t1 = −3.32, p1 = .003; DM2 = −36.5, t2 = −2.86, p2 = .014). To sum up the results of response time, approach (3) to the term “memorization advantage” was applicable to the comparison between German and French. Put differently, the German compounds were responded to significantly faster than the French phrases on all three days together. The finding is argued to mirror a memorization advantage of compounds in comparison to phrases. In English, however, approach (4) and approach (5) to the term “memorization advantage” were necessary because the PhraLiCos were responded to significantly faster than the CoLiCos on all three days together. Nevertheless, the response latencies of the CoLiCos and PhraLiCos did not significantly differ on any of the three days. Moreover, neither the reaction times of the CoLiCos nor those of the PhraLiCos of one day (day 1, day 2 or day 3) significantly differed from the latencies of the same item type, i.e. the CoLiCos or the PhraLiCos respectively, on another day (day 1, day 2 or day 3). Hence, no memorization advantage of the CoLiCos (EnglishA) in comparison to the PhraLiCos (EnglishB) was found. The following can be said about the hypotheses introduced in §6.3: (a) The response latencies of the French and German control items did not significantly differ. The reaction times of the control items of the two

180 

 6 Experimental study I

English groups did not do so either. Overall, the first hypothesis was only partly confirmed because the response times of the German and French control items highly/very significantly differed from those of the English control items. (b) The German AN compounds showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the French AN/NA phrases. The English AN CoLiCos, however, did not show a memorization advantage in comparison to the English AN PhraLiCos. Hence, the second hypothesis was only partly confirmed.

6.4.2 response accuracy After the analysis of response time, a similar procedure was used to examine response accuracy. In the analysis of response accuracy, both the correct and the incorrect responses to the memorized items were investigated. That means, the investigation started with a total of 1260 responses. Although the focus lied on accuracy, responses associated with reaction times that were too long or too short were discarded. In the analysis of response time, the dataset containing values smaller than or equal to 1416 ms did not include statistical outliers. This value was the starting point of the current investigation. It was verified by means of a boxplot analysis (cf. §6.4.1) whether the dataset with all responses to memorized items that were associated with latencies smaller than or equal to 1416 ms contained new outliers. New outliers were theoretically possible because the dataset contained additional values in comparison to the dataset used for the analysis of response time, namely all values associated with incorrect responses. No new outliers occurred and the exact range remained the same: All values from 488 ms to 1416 ms were maintained. Therefore, 7.46 percent, i.e. 94 values, of the 1260 responses were excluded from further analyses because they did not fall within the range. In sum, the following examinations refer to 92.54 percent of all responses collected for the memorized items. Two ANOVAs were conducted, i.e. one analysis by subject (F1) and one analysis by item (F2). 210 means were calculated for the subject analysis and 144 means were calculated for the item analysis (cf. §6.4.1). The question might come up what these means represented as only two answers, namely “Yes” and “No”, were possible. When a variable is binary (also called dichotomous), we can report a kind of mean. For example, if the variable is “yes” or “no” votes, we would count each “yes” as 1, each “no” as 0, and calculate an ordinary mean using these numbers. So 30 “yes” votes and 20 “no” votes would be reported as 30/50 = 0.60 = 60 percent yes. (Johnson 2013: 309−310)

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 181

This procedure was implemented in a slightly modified version. That means, all correct responses, i.e. all “Yes”-responses, were counted with the value 100 and all incorrect responses, i.e. all “No”-responses, with the value 0. So, for instance, if a subject gives nine correct responses and one incorrect one, the person has a response accuracy of 90 percent. 4 × 2 × 3 repeated-measures ANOVAs by subject (F1) and by item (F2) were conducted for response accuracy. The independent factors language (factor levels: German, French, EnglishA, EnglishB), item type (factor levels: experimental items, control items) and day (factor levels: day 1, day 2, day 3) were treated as fixed factors in both the subject and the item analysis. Again, EnglishA and EnglishB were treated as different languages. language was a between-subject and within-item factor, item type was a within-subject and between-item factor and day was a within-subject and within-item factor. subject was treated as a random factor in the subject analysis and item functioned as a random factor in the item analysis. First of all, the focus lied on the interaction of language × item type. As stated in §6.3, compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos if they are responded to more accurately on all three days together. The idea is based on the fact that compounds/CoLiCos are more marked and less frequent than phrases/PhraLiCos and, therefore, should be responded to less accurately. If it is the other way around, it can be claimed that compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage. The numbers of observations, means and standard deviations of the subject and item analysis are given in Tab. 16. The means of the subject analysis are also presented in Fig. 5. The interaction of language × item type did not reach significance (F1(3, 155) = 1.44, p = .233; F2(3, 110) = 1.48, p = .225). Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the accuracy of the control items did not significantly differ across ­languages.135 Therefore, it was allowed to contrast the experimental items across languages. However, note again that one should focus on the comparison between German and French on the one hand as well as on the comparison between the two English groups on the other hand because the English control items, adjectives and nouns had a frequency advantage in comparison to the German and/or French control

135 French versus German: DM1 = 1.56, t1 = 0.50, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 2.11, t2 = 0.60, p2 = .999; ­EnglishA versus German: DM1 = −2.59, t1 = −0.86, p1 = .989; DM2 = −1.83, t2 = −0.52, p2 = 1.000; EnglishB versus German: DM1 = −1.30, t1 = −0.43, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −0.77, t2 = −0.22, p2 = 1.000; French versus EnglishA: DM1 = 4.15, t1 = 1.34, p1 = .884; DM2 = 3.94, t2 = 1.13, p2 = .950; French versus EnglishB: DM1 = 2.85, t1 = 0.92, p1 = .984; DM2 = 2.88, t2 = 0.82, p2 = .991; EnglishB versus EnglishA: DM1 = 1.30, t1 = 0.43, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.06, t2 = 0.30, p2 = 1.000.

182 

 6 Experimental study I

Tab. 16: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the ­interaction of language × item type. Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Germancontrol Frenchcontrol EnglishAcontrol EnglishBcontrol Germanexperimental Frenchexperimental EnglishAexperimental EnglishBexperimental

27 (18) 24 (18) 27 (18) 27 (18) 27 (18) 24 (18) 27 (18) 27 (18)

93.58 (93.03) 95.14 (95.14) 90.99 (91.20) 92.28 (92.26) 98.15 (97.89) 92.36 (91.94) 88.64 (87.56) 95.06 (94.91)

12.12 (14.02) 10.40 (10.62) 13.64 (9.04) 11.99 (7.84) 5.34 (4.87) 12.06 (15.28) 14.74 (14.66) 10.14 (9.05)

Response accuracy (in %)

100

95 German French

EnglishA EnglishB

90

85

Experimental items

Item type

Control items

Fig. 5: Interaction of language × item type (F1).

items, adjectives and nouns. In any case, only the comparison between ­EnglishA and German revealed a significant result in the subject ­analysis (DM1  =  −9.51, t1 = −3.15, p1 = .040; DM2 = −10.34, t2 = −2.96, p2 = .071). The other comparisons of the experimental items across languages did not show a significant result (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 5). That means, the comparisons between German and French as well as between EnglishA and EnglishB did not indicate significant accuracy differences. Note, by the way, that the significant difference between the response accuracy of the German AN compounds and the English AN CoLiCos is very interesting because the English constructions could have been expected to benefit from

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 183

their frequency advantage as well as from the frequency advantage of the English nouns over the German nouns (cf. §6.2.2.2.2 and §6.2.2.2.3). The effect seems to be rooted in functional aspects as well as in the distinction between the primary and a secondary factor. In German, the primary factor clearly signals the naming status of compounds. That means, compounds, which are defined as constructions without inflectional agreement between the adjective and the noun, almost always have one specific function. In contrast, while the segmental phonology of English CoLiCos signals a compositional reading/the descriptive function, i.e. the default meaning/function, the suprasegmental phonology calls for a non-compositional interpretation/the naming function. The functional conflict seems to increase the difficulty in memorizing these constructions. We come back to the comparison between German and French. Although the comparisons of both the control and the experimental items did not show significant differences, one notices that the accuracy differences between German and other languages were always larger for the experimental items than for the control items. For instance, while the accuracy difference between the French and German control items was only 1.56 percent in F1, the accuracy difference between the experimental items of these languages was −5.79 percent in F1. Therefore, one can cautiously try to interpret the results of the experimental items. The accuracy difference between the German compounds and the French phrases might be based on the fact that the phrases are likely to fulfil, in opposition to the compounds, either the naming or the descriptive function (cf. Chapter 4). As a consequence, while the French subjects were confronted with the conflict between the compositional and a possible non-compositional meaning, the German subjects probably “chose” one specific non-compositional meaning very early. The question now remains whether one can speak of a memorization advantage in the sense of approach (3) from §6.3. Remember that this approach states that compounds/CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos if the former are responded to more accurately than the latter on all three days together. The English CoLiCos did not show a memorization advantage if we used approach (3). Looking at inferential statistics, we saw that the German compounds did not do so either. However, if one focuses on descriptive statistics (cf. Tab. 16 and Fig. 5), the German compounds showed a memorization advantage in comparison to both the French phrases and the English PhraLiCos because they were responded to more accurately on all three days together. Note that I primarily concentrate on the comparison between German and French. However, since the English PhraLiCos should have been responded to more accurately than the German compounds due to their frequency advantage as well as the frequency advantage of their constituents (cf. §6.2.2.2.2 and §6.2.2.2.3), the following result should be emphasized as well:

184 

 6 Experimental study I

Despite the frequency disadvantage, compounds were responded to more accurately than PhraLiCos. Although the phrases/PhraLiCos were less marked and more frequent, the accuracy rates were highest for the compounds. Crucially, the response accuracy difference of the control items was much smaller between German and French as well as between German and EnglishB. The memorization advantage of the German compounds was also expressed in another observation. The compounds were not only responded to more accurately than the experimental items of the other languages, they were also responded to more accurately than the control items of all languages. Note that the control items were shorter and had higher frequencies than the experimental items. Next, the three-way interaction of language × item type × day was investigated in order to see whether the approaches (4) and (5) to the term “memorization advantage” could be implemented. The numbers of observations, means and standard deviations of the subject and item analysis are given in Tab. 17. The interaction of language × item type × day did not reach significance (F1(6, 155) = 0.63, p = .710; F2(6, 110) = 0.54, p = .778). Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the response accuracy of the control items did not significantly differ on any day across languages (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 6.1). However, the response accuracy of the experimental items did not significantly differ on any day across languages either (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 6.2). Furthermore, no significant accuracy differences were found between two days in any language – neither for the control nor for the experimental items (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 6.3). Finally, the response accuracy of the control and experimental items did not significantly differ on any day in any language (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 6.4). Overall, since the analysis of the individual days did not reveal any significant difference, no memorization advantage of compounds/CoLiCos in comparison to phrases/PhraLiCos was found if approaches (4) and (5) to the notion of memorization advantage were used. We can finally proceed to the remaining interactions and main effects. The interaction of language × day was significant in the subject analysis only (F1(6, 155) = 2.28, p = .039; F2(6, 110) = 1.73, p = .121). The interaction of item type × day did not reach significance (F1(2, 155) = 0.11, p = .895; F2(2, 110) = 0.02, p = .981). Remember that the last two interactions were not relevant for the ­objectives of the present study. Therefore, Tukey multiple comparisons were not analyzed. Descriptive statistics of these interactions are presented in Appendix 7. The descriptive values of the three independent variables are given in Tab. 18. No main effects of language (F1(3, 155) = 2.01, p = .132; F2(3, 110) = 2.16, p = .097) and item type (F1(1, 155) = 0.13, p = .717; F2(1, 110) = 0.00, p = .954) were found. Tukey multiple comparisons for language showed a significant accuracy difference only between EnglishA and German and only in the subject analysis

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 185

Tab. 17: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the control and experimental items of different languages on the three days. Condition Germancon day 1 Germancon day 2 Germancon day 3 Frenchcon day 1 Frenchcon day 2 Frenchcon day 3 EnglishAcon day 1 EnglishAcon day 2 EnglishAcon day 3 EnglishBcon day 1 EnglishBcon day 2 EnglishBcon day 3 Germanexp day 1 Germanexp day 2 Germanexp day 3 Frenchexp day 1 Frenchexp day 2 Frenchexp day 3 EnglishAexp day 1 EnglishAexp day 2 EnglishAexp day 3 EnglishBexp day 1 EnglishBexp day 2 EnglishBexp day 3

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 8 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6)

84.44 (83.73) 100.00 (100.00) 96.30 (95.37) 91.67 (91.67) 100.00 (100.00) 93.75 (93.75) 93.70 (94.21) 88.89 (88.89) 90.37 (90.51) 89.81 (89.98) 94.44 (94.44) 92.59 (92.36) 96.30 (95.54) 100.00 (100.00) 98.15 (98.15) 86.25 (84.44) 100.00 (100.00) 90.83 (91.37) 92.59 (90.28) 86.67 (85.88) 86.67 (86.51) 90.74 (90.28) 96.30 (96.30) 98.15 (98.15)

16.58 (21.10) 0.00 (0.00) 7.35 (7.38) 12.60 (15.14) 0.00 (0.00) 12.40 (10.46) 9.49 (6.36) 14.43 (12.17) 17.11 (8.44) 15.47 (8.66) 8.33 (9.30) 12.11 (5.94) 7.35 (6.94) 0.00 (0.00) 5.56 (4.54) 16.37 (23.25) 0.00 (0.00) 9.88 (10.38) 12.11 (15.29) 18.33 (14.71) 14.04 (16.33) 14.70 (11.62) 7.35 (9.07) 5.56 (4.54)

(DM1 = −6.05, t1 = −2.84, p1 = .026; DM2 = −6.08, t2 = −2.46, p2 = .072) (for statistical values of the other comparisons, cf. Appendix 8). The analysis revealed a main effect of day (F1(2, 155) = 3.70, p = .027; F2(2, 110) = 3.54, p = .032). Tukey multiple comparisons only revealed a significant accuracy difference between day two and day one (DM1 = 5.10, t1 = 2.72, p1 = .020; DM2 = 5.67, t2 = 2.65, p2 = .025) (for statistical values of the other comparisons, cf. Appendix 9). To sum up the results of response accuracy, we can say the following. Looking at approach (3) to the term “memorization advantage”, the German compounds showed a slight/non-significant memorization advantage in comparison to the French phrases and the English PhraLiCos. The English CoLiCos, however, did not show a memorization advantage with this approach. Focusing on the approaches (4) and (5) to the term “memorization advantage”,

186 

 6 Experimental study I

Tab. 18: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables. Condition German French EnglishA EnglishB Control Experimental Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

54 (36) 48 (36) 54 (36) 54 (36) 105 (72) 105 (72) 70 (48) 70 (48) 70 (48)

95.86 (95.46) 93.75 (93.54) 89.81 (89.38) 93.67 (93.58) 92.94 (92.91) 93.59 (93.07) 90.74 (90.02) 95.67 (95.69) 93.38 (93.27)

9.56 (10.64) 11.23 (13.07) 14.12 (12.14) 11.09 (8.45) 12.06 (10.51) 11.49 (12.14) 13.23 (14.19) 10.17 (9.20) 11.30 (9.33)

the compounds/CoLiCos did not show a memorization advantage in comparison to the phrases/PhraLiCos. The following can be said about the hypotheses introduced in §6.3: (a) The response accuracy of the control items did not significantly differ across languages. Therefore, the first hypothesis was confirmed. (b) The response accuracy of the experimental items differed (though not significantly) across languages. That means, only the compounds but not the CoLiCos showed a slight memorization advantage in comparison to the phrases/PhraLiCos. Hence, the second hypothesis was partly confirmed.

6.4.3 Summary and final discussion of the first experimental study The first experimental study contributes to the debate whether compounds/ CoLiCos differ from phrases/PhraLiCos. First of all, it was essential to establish a baseline in order to be capable of comparing different languages in a psycholinguistic study at all. Therefore, the complex AN/NA constructions of two l­anguages/groups were only contrasted if the response latencies/accuracy of the control items of the same languages/groups did not significantly differ. With regard to the Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language × item type × day, it was observed that the response latencies/ accuracy of the control items of the different languages/groups did mostly not significantly differ on the individual days. Also, Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language × item type did not show a significant difference between the accuracy of the control items of different languages/groups. However, the response-time data of the aforementioned two-way interaction

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 187

signaled that the AN/NA constructions of all languages/groups could not be contrasted because significant ­differences between the control items of different languages/groups occurred. Therefore, it was decided to focus on the comparison between the German compounds and the French phrases on the one hand and on the comparison between the English CoLiCos and the English PhraLiCos on the other hand. One might wonder why the English control items were responded to highly/very significantly faster than the German and French control items. Moreover, one might also ask why all memorized English items together, i.e. both the experimental and the control items, were responded to highly significantly more rapidly than all German or all French items together (cf. main effect and Tukey multiple comparisons of language). The effects are probably based on the frequencies of the control items as well as the frequencies of the constituents of the complex AN/NA constructions (cf.  §6.2.2.2.2). Although one-way ANOVAs did not indicate significant differences between the control items or between the constituents of the AN/NA constructions of any two languages/groups, the following pattern was observed when looking at the descriptive statistics. While the mean frequencies of the German and French control items were similar (32.9 versus 36.9 occurrences pmw respectively), the mean frequency of the English control items was higher (50.1 occurrences pmw). The values of the English items are, at least descriptively, clearly higher than the values of the other two languages. Furthermore, the frequencies of the constituents of the complex AN/NA constructions showed the following. While the mean frequencies of the German and English adjectives were similar (218.3 versus 219.6 occurrences pmw), the mean frequency of the French adjectives was lower (171.5 occurrences pmw). Also, while the mean frequencies of the French and English nouns were similar (45.4 versus 42.3 occurrences pmw), the mean frequency of the German nouns was lower (28.8 occurrences pmw). Although it might be argued that German had an advantage in comparison to French with respect to the mean frequencies of the adjectives, one also saw that German had a disadvantage compared to French with regard to the mean frequencies of the nouns. That means, the advantages and disadvantages between the latter two languages were balanced out. Only a slight advantage of the French constituents (adjectives and nouns together) over the German constituents remained (cf. §6.2.2.2.2). English, however, had an advantage in terms of adjective frequencies in comparison to one language and an advantage in terms of noun frequencies compared to the other language. Overall, the general advantage of the English items might be rooted in the frequencies of the control items as well as the constituents of the complex AN/NA constructions. Despite the frequency difference, the study still included two very valuable comparisons, namely the comparison between compounds (German)

188 

 6 Experimental study I

and phrases (French) as well as the comparison between CoLiCos (EnglishA) and PhraLiCos (EnglishB). I primarily focused on these two comparisons when interpreting the results of the study. The present study took three definitions of the term “memorization advantage” into account (cf. §6.3). If compounds/CoLiCos were responded to faster and/or more accurately than phrases/PhraLiCos on all three days together, the effect was considered to be a memorization advantage of the former. This definition was regarded as superior to the two other possible definitions because it referred to the whole learning process, i.e. it referred to the memorization over the course of three days. A memorization advantage of the German compounds in comparison to the French phrases was found because the former were responded to significantly more quickly than the latter on all three days together. The effect is interesting because the category AN/NA phrase in French, which often fulfils both the descriptive and the naming function, is more frequent than the category AN compound in German, which almost always fulfils the naming function only (cf. Chapter 4). Further, while all German compounds had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw, 50 percent of the French phrases had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw (cf. §6.2.2.2.3). Since the first definition of the term “memorization advantage” could be used for the comparison between German and French, the other two definitions of the term were not considered. With respect to the comparison between German and French on the individual days, it was observed, although no difference reached significance, that the German compounds were responded to much faster than the French phrases on the first day and that the advantage of the German compounds decreased. The effect is not interpreted as a memorization advantage of the phrases. Instead, I argue that the functional difference between German compounds and French phrases explains the result (cf. Chapters 3 and 4). While the German compound (usually) has the single function of naming, the French phrase has a dual function, namely naming and describing. If a construction is non-lexicalized and if no meaning is presented in an experiment, the following happens. In German, the category of the compound signals that a new complex lexical concept has to be named. Since the German AN compound structurally differs from the German AN phrase, its meaning differs from the default or compositional meaning represented by the phrase. In other words, the primary factor, inflectional agreement, is decisive: If an inflectional suffix expresses agreement between an adjective and a noun, i.e. if a German phrase appears, a compositional interpretation is the most likely one. If, however, an adjective and a noun are not in agreement, i.e. if a German compound appears, a non-compositional interpretation is preferred. Overall, different categories typically fulfil different functions in German: While phrases normally describe, compounds almost always name phenomena.

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 189

This standard functional distinction has a structural foundation, i.e. phrases structurally differ from compounds. Therefore, a language user immediately recognizes the function of a non-lexicalized construction and is able to interpret it accordingly. Having been exposed to a compound in my experimental study, the subjects “knew” that the novel compound could name a new complex lexical concept and could immediately come up with their own interpretation. In French, there is no clear functional distinction between compounds and phrases. Since only a handful of endocentric AN compounds exist, AN/NA phrases often fulfil both the descriptive and the naming function. That means, the same structure expresses two different meanings. This might be the reason for the initial difficulty in responding to the French phrases. No meaning was presented and, therefore, the phrase possibly had different meanings, i.e. a compositional and a non-compositional one. Although the descriptive, compositional interpretation might be argued to be the default one, one knows that only naming units, which are non-compositional, have to be stored, i.e. memorized (Booij 2010a: 169). If a language user is exposed to a non-lexicalized French AN/NA phrase and is asked to memorize it, the standard compositional interpretation, which is unusual to be memorized, is in competition with a new non-compositional meaning. Therefore, response latencies are longer at the beginning and can only improve later in time, i.e. once one of the two meanings has been selected. Note, again, that one cannot speak of a memorization advantage of the phrases here. The phrases started the experiment with an advantage in comparison to the compounds because both the category phrase and the individual phrases investigated in the experiment had a greater frequency than the category compound and the individual compounds examined in the study respectively. Moreover, the French constituents (adjectives and nouns together) had a slight frequency advantage over the German constituents. Despite these facts, they were responded to significantly less rapidly than the compounds on all three days together and, in addition to that, were even reacted to much more slowly than the compounds at the initial stages, i.e. on day one and two, of the memorization process. The memorization affinity of the German compounds was also mirrored in the accuracy data: The mean accuracy of the compounds on all days together (98.15 percent in F1) was not only higher than the mean accuracy of the AN/NA constructions of the other languages/groups but also than the mean accuracy of the control items of all languages/groups. Remember that the control items were shorter and had a higher frequency than the AN/NA constructions. I argue that the effect reflects the memorization affinity of compounds. Since they structurally differ from phrases, i.e. from the standard construction type, they clearly signal their naming status, which comes with non-compositional semantics (cf. Chapters 3 and 4). Naming units, in turn, have to be memorized and are

190 

 6 Experimental study I

apparently memorized more easily if they have certain features that unambiguously distinguish them from descriptive units. The results obtained for the German AN compounds as well as the comparison between the German compounds and the French phrases support The FullForm-Storage Principle for Compounds and Phrases introduced in Chapter 5. I suggest that the full-form representation of a compound is earlier available than that of a phrase. Due to the structural as well as semantic-functional peculiarities of a compound, it needs a full-form representation as soon as possible. The memorization advantage revealed in my study might be connected to the fact that a compound has its own entry faster/earlier than a phrase and, consequently, can be accessed faster via the single entry. A phrase, however, is accessed via its individual constituents for a longer time and does not have its own mental representation so early. Accessing and combining the constituents seems to be more time-consuming than accessing the full-form of a construction (cf. also Su 1999). The Tukey multiple comparisons of the two-way interaction showed that the English AN constructions with initial stress, i.e. the CoLiCos, were responded to significantly more slowly and (non-significantly) less accurately than the English AN constructions with non-initial stress, i.e. the PhraLiCos. That means, the default and more frequent stress pattern was found to ­facilitate the recognition of the constructions. The effect was not interpreted as a memorization advantage but rather as a frequency advantage. Therefore, two other definitions of the term “memorization advantage” were needed and the individual days were examined. However, the analyses did not reveal a memorization advantage of the CoLiCos in comparison to the PhraLiCos either. The CoLiCos did not show significant improvements over the PhraLiCos over the course of the three days. A possible explanation for why German compounds but not English CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage is the distinction between primary and secondary factor (cf. Chapter 3). In German, the primary factor, inflectional agreement, clearly separates compounds from phrases on the segmental basis. That means, an inflectional suffix is either attached to the adjective (in a phrase) or not (in a compound). The secondary factor stress mostly mirrors the separation between compounds and phrases but is, overall, less important than the primary factor. In English, where the primary factor is not available, CoLiCos and P ­ hraLiCos can only be distinguished by means of the secondary factor stress. The latter factor, however, does not operate on the segmental but on the suprasegmental/prosodic basis. Hence, the suprasegmental basis can be argued to be weaker than the segmental one. In addition to that, I claim that a specific conflict that prevents the English CoLiCos from showing a memorization advantage exists. In the present study, almost all English AN constructions could be interpreted in a descriptive and compositional way. Semantic compositionality and initial stress, however,

6.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 191

do not go well with each other (cf. §3.4.2). That means, while the segmental basis of AN constructions calls for a compositional interpretation, the suprasegmental basis calls for a non-compositional interpretation. This conflict might explain why the English CoLiCos did not show a memorization advantage in comparison to the English PhraLiCos. We will see in the second experimental study to be discussed in the next chapter whether English CoLiCos are memorized differently than English PhraLiCos if we add semantic non-compositionality to the ­experiment.

7 Experimental study II: The memorization of CoLiCos and PhraLiCos in English136 7.1 Constructions under investigation, background and objectives In the first experimental study presented in Chapter 6, the memorization of English AN constructions with initial stress (e.g. YOUNG tourist) and non-initial stress (e.g. young TOURist) was analyzed. The first kind of constructions were called CoLiCos and the second kind PhraLiCos. The analysis of the study did not reveal a memorization advantage of English CoLiCos in comparison to PhraLiCos. In the study described in the present chapter, English AN constructions were investigated again. However, a second factor was added to the factor stress and it was examined whether a memorization advantage occurred under these conditions. Specifically, the terms “CoLiCos” and “PhraLiCos” were redefined: The former were English AN constructions that were semantically non-compositional and had initial stress, the latter were English AN constructions that were semantically compositional and had non-initial stress. The study was based on the following two aspects. First, German AN compounds, as defined by the primary factor inflectional agreement, are normally stressed on the initial syllable and are typically semantically non-compositional (cf. §3.4.2 and Chapter 4). Since German and English are closely related languages, we can assume that English AN constructions that are semantically non-compositional and have initial stress are compound-like (cf. ibid.). Second, the results of the first study reported in the previous chapter showed, in my opinion, that initial stress and semantic compositionality were incompatible and caused a processing burden. Therefore, I aimed at investigating whether the co-occurrence of initial stress and semantic non-compositionality, which were argued to go well with each other in the literature (cf. §3.4.2), triggered a memorization advantage. Put differently, the objective of the study was to see whether CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage in comparison to PhraLiCos. The question arises why the AN constructions examined in the first study were considered to be semantically compositional. First of all, they were regarded as semantically compositional because the adjectives and nouns were always “­compatible”. No construction was lexicalized and, therefore, no construction was stored in the lexicon. If one is confronted with a non-lexicalized

136 Cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl (2016a). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-007

194 

 7 Experimental study II

AN ­construction that can be easily interpreted as the combination of the adjectival and nominal semantics, it can be assumed that the construction is semantically compositional. Put the other way around, if an “easy” interpretation is not possible, the construction is non-compositional. I will come back to the idea in a second. Before doing so, however, note that I believe that non-lexicalized constructions can be non-compositional; I reject the view that non-compositionality always has its roots in lexicalization (cf. Chapter 4). I claim in Chapters 4 and 5 that non-lexicalized AN compounds are semantically non-compositional right from the beginning of their “lives”. So, for instance, imagine the German compound Grüntasche (green_bag) is created. Its creation only makes sense if its semantics reaches beyond the compositional meaning because the latter is already expressed in the phrase grüne Tasche (‘green bag’) (cf. also Chapter 5). Second, a posttest was conducted in order to find support for the assumption that the AN constructions of the first study were semantically compositional. An online questionnaire was created with the computer program SoSci Survey (Leiner 2014) that was completed by 22 native speakers of English (one male and 21 female participants) with a mean age of 20.82 years (Min-Max: 19–27, SD: 1.68, Median: 20). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 10. Note that it was both a posttest of the first experimental study (cf. Chapter 6) and a pretest of the second experimental study (cf. Chapter 7). I will come back to the pretest part below. Note also that the items occurred in random order for each subject. The questionnaire contained the following task: How easy/difficult is it for you to imagine that the items below exist? For example, a “red car” is probably very easy to imagine, whereas a “deaf chair” is probably very difficult to imagine. Please make your judgment as quickly as possible and without further reflection. Please choose one option for each example. To submit your answers, click on “Next”.

The participants were asked to judge each item by choosing one of six options, i.e. very very easy, very easy, easy, difficult, very difficult or very very difficult. Therefore, the general procedure resembled the idea of a Likert scale (Schütze & Sprouse 2013: 33) (even though the subjects’ judgments were based on words rather than numbers). It was assumed that the existence of semantically compositional items was very very easy, very easy or easy to imagine. The hypothesis was based on the following principle:137

137 Cf. also Aronoff (2007: 55); Klos (2011: 2); Pelletier (2004: 133); Pitt & Katz (2000: 409).

7.1 Constructions under investigation, background and objectives 

 195

Principle of Compositionality: “The meaninge of a complex expression is determined by the lexical meanings of its components, their grammatical meanings and the syntactic structure of the whole” (Löbner 2002: 15).

Crucially, “[t]he principle implies that the meaningse of complex expressions are fully determined by the three sources mentioned, i.e. by the linguistic input alone. Thus, in particular, the process does not draw on extra-linguistic context-knowledge” (ibid.). Since the items were presented in isolation in my online questionnaire, it was expected that it was easy to imagine the existence of compositional constructions because they did not need additional, contextual knowledge. Although the compositional complex constructions were not lexicalized/stored in the lexicon, the adjectives and nouns were always “compatible” and could be combined in a descriptive sense without any problem. Therefore, it was expected that the subjects did not have difficulties in imagining the existence of the compositional constructions. Non-lexicalized non-­ compositional constructions are different. Again, they are not stored in the lexicon. Furthermore, the adjectives and nouns are not compatible this time. Hence, the existence of these constructions is expected to be harder to imagine because one needs to reflect upon a possible relation R that operates in order to connect the adjective to the noun (Holden Härtl p.c.). The two examples used in the introduction of the questionnaire illustrated the contrast. While the subjects were not expected to have any difficulty in imagining the existence of a “red car”, which was considered a compositional construction, they were expected to have more trouble in imagining the existence of a “deaf chair”, which was regarded as a non-compositional one. Since the adjective and the noun of the latter construction were not compatible, i.e. they could not be combined to form a simple descriptive and compositional unit, the subjects had to be creative to come up with a possible meaning. The subjects’ judgments were transformed into numerical values (very very easy = 1, very easy = 2, easy = 3, difficult = 4, very difficult = 5, very very ­difficult = 6). It was expected that the six memorized AN constructions tested in the first experimental study were rated lower than 3.5, which was the midpoint. As Tab. 19 shows, five of the six items reached a mean lower than 3.5, i.e. they were very very easy, very easy or easy to imagine. One item had a mean higher than 3.5. However, the value of 3.64 was very close to the midpoint. A one-sample t-test showed that the total mean (2.16) significantly differed from the value 3.5 in the item analysis (t = –3.75, p = .013). Furthermore, the subject analysis revealed that the mean rating of each participant was lower than 3.5. The total mean in the subject analysis was 2.16 (N: 22, SD: 0.59). Here,

196 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 19: Ratings of the experimental items of the first experimental study. Item long novel young tourist old coffee thin pilot blue motor gray/grey muscle M/SD of 6 (unrounded) means

N

M

SD

22 22 22 22 21 22

1.27 1.41 1.91 2.14 2.62 3.64 2.16

0.63 0.67 1.44 1.46 1.16 1.29 0.87

a one-sample t-test revealed that the total mean highly significantly differed from the value 3.5 (t = –10.71, p = .000). In sum, the posttest confirmed the idea that semantic compositionality represented the dominant pattern in the first study. Therefore, in the follow-up study, both semantically compositional and semantically non-compositional items were investigated in combination with the two stress patterns. That means, the following four conditions were taken into account: Semantically compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. short BRUSH), semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush), semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) and semantically non-compositional items with initial stress (e.g. HARD shirt).

7.2 Method 7.2.1 Participants In the following, the data of 34 subjects who were speakers of English from Canada (26 subjects), the USA (6 subjects), England (1 subject) and South Africa (1 subject), i.e. countries where many or most of the people speak English as their native language (Gramley & Pätzold 1992: 419), were analyzed. With the exception of two subjects, the experiment focused on speakers of North American English, as did the first study reported in Chapter 6. They were recruited at or around the university campus in Kassel. One teaching assistant, one English lecturer, university students of various fields of study and in different semesters and students of The Canadian Summer School in Germany in Kassel in 2015 participated in the study. They could hear and see clearly (with or without glasses) and were paid 20 Euros for participation. Note that there were two groups of subjects. On the one

7.2 Method 

 197

Tab. 20: More information on the 34 participants. Group one

Group two

Number

17 subjects

17 subjects

Age Min–Max Mean SD Median

19–53 23.29 7.97 21

19–65 24.47 10.78 21

Sex

10x female 7x male

9x female 8x male

Variety of English

1x British (England) 4x US 12x Canadian

1x South African 2x US 14x Canadian

hand, all items presented to the first group with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush) had non-initial stress in the experiment of the second group (e.g. short BRUSH). On the other hand, all items presented to the first group with non-initial stress (e.g. thick ROPE) had initial stress in the experiment of the second group (e.g. THICK rope). Tab. 20 provides more information on the subjects of the study. A comment on Tab. 20 must be added. In each group, 16 of the 17 subjects were 19 to 28 years old and speakers of North American English. The data of the two outliers (53 years of age in group one and 65 years of age in group two), who spoke British or South African English, were not excluded from the statistical analyses because these two participants had, overall, neither the slowest response times nor the lowest accuracy rates, i.e. no memorization deficits that might be related to age occurred (Baddeley 2009).

7.2.2 Material 7.2.2.1 Critical and filler items In the study, memorized AN constructions of the following four conditions were investigated: Semantically compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. short BRUSH), semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush), semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) and semantically non-compositional items with initial stress (e.g. HARD shirt). There were eleven AN constructions in each of the four conditions and a total of 44 sound files. They represented the experimental items of the study.

198 

 7 Experimental study II

Since different languages were not compared this time and since all subjects were tested in all conditions, i.e. all factors were within-subject factors, control items were not included. The adjectives of the experimental items belonged to the following groups (cf. also Dixon 1982: 16, 2004: 3–4; Frawley 1992: 463; Motsch 2004: 162–163, 382–383): Physical properties, dimension or speed. The nouns were physical/concrete and inanimate (cf. also Gallmann 2009: 146–147; Givón 1984: 56; Motsch 2004: 321–322). All experimental items of the study are listed in Tab. 21. Note that the categorization into compositional and non-­ compositional constructions was based on my own opinion and, importantly, verified in a pretest (cf. §7.2.2.2.4). Tab. 21: Experimental items (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a).138 Semantically compositional items

Semantically non-compositional items

short brush sharp nail vast tent hot pipe broad hat dry cap tall truck cold hut big shelf thin dress thick rope

hard shirt soft coin sweet fence deep knife warm pill slow pen loud desk fast sock full lamp rough milk sour bike

The filler items were other AN constructions that contained the same adjectives and nouns, i.e., e.g., short brush was an experimental item that had to be memorized on three days, short pen as well as hard brush were filler items on the first day, short hat as well as sweet brush were filler items on the second day and short pill as well as hot brush were filler items on the third day. If an adjective/a noun was part of an experimental item with initial stress, all filler items sharing one of the two constituents with this experimental item, i.e. either the adjective or the noun, had initial stress as well. If an adjective/a noun was part of an experimental item with non-initial stress, all filler items sharing one of the two

138 The subjects of group one were exposed to the first six compositional and to the first six non-compositional items with initial stress and to the last five compositional and to the last five non-compositional items with non-initial stress. It was the other way around in group two.

7.2 Method 

 199

constituents with this experimental item had non-initial stress as well. Different filler items were used on each of the three days. The filler items are listed in Appendix 11.

7.2.2.2 Controlling for potentially confounding variables and pretest of semantic compositionality The experimental and filler items were controlled for the potentially confounding variables number of syllables, constituent frequencies, lexicalization, acoustic realization/technology and duration. Note that, after the potentially confounding variables number of syllables, constituent frequencies and lexicalization had been controlled for, the pretest of semantic compositionality was conducted. Therefore, the test is discussed in a section between the sections on lexicalization and the acoustic realization/technology. Note also that the frequencies of the entire complex constructions are discussed in the section where lexicalization is referred to as well. 7.2.2.2.1 Number of syllables Both the adjectives and the nouns were monosyllabic. 7.2.2.2.2 Frequency (constituents) Looking at the frequencies of the adjectives and nouns, we can say the following. Since each AN construction occurred once with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush) and once with non-initial stress (e.g. short BRUSH), the frequencies of the constituents, i.e. of the adjectives and nouns, in the initial- and noninitial-stress conditions were identical. Moreover, the potentially confounding variable constituent frequency was controlled for across the semantically compositional experimental items and the semantically non-compositional experimental items. The lemma frequencies of all adjectives and nouns were examined in pmw by using the corpus INTERNET-EN of the IntelliText interface (cf. §6.2.2.2.2). Tab. 22 (adjectives) and Tab. 23 (nouns) present the frequencies of the constituents. An independent t-test showed that the mean frequency of the adjectives of the semantically compositional items did not significantly differ from the mean frequency of the adjectives of the semantically non-compositional items (t(20) = –0.11, p = .912). Another independent t-test showed that the mean frequency of the nouns of the semantically compositional items did not significantly differ from the mean frequency of the nouns of the semantically non-compositional items (t(20) = 0.70, p = .489). Overall, the constituent frequencies (adjectives and

200 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 22: Lemma frequencies of the adjectives of the AN constructions (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

Semantically compositional items

Semantically non-compositional items

21.03–301.50 82.86 86.97 55.27

3.68–292.17 87.16 92.49 50.44

Tab. 23: Lemma frequencies of the nouns of the AN constructions (in pmw).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

Semantically compositional items

Semantically non-compositional items

5.18–46.65 21.59 12.54 17.84

8.06–31.00 18.49 7.54 17.11

nouns together) were similar between the compositional and non-compositional ­experimental items. However, since the p-value was smaller in the comparison of the noun frequencies (p = .489) than in the comparison of the adjective frequencies (p = .912) and since the nouns of the compositional experimental items were slightly more frequent than the nouns of the non-compositional experimental items, we can say that the former had a very slight constituent frequency advantage over the latter. This point is considered in §7.3 and §7.4. 7.2.2.2.3 Lexicalization and frequency of the AN constructions The entire AN constructions were examined in order to decide whether they were lexicalized or not. The lemma frequencies of the AN constructions as wholes were investigated with the corpus INTERNET-EN of the IntelliText interface (cf.  §6.2.2.2.3). All semantically non-compositional experimental items had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw if the adjective and the noun were separated by a space (e.g. hard shirt), by a hyphen (e.g. hard-shirt) or if neither a space nor a hyphen occurred between the two constituents (e.g. hardshirt). Therefore, these items were considered to be non-lexicalized (cf. also Plag 2006: 158). All ­semantically compositional experimental items had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw if the adjective and the noun were connected by a hyphen (e.g. short-brush) or if neither a space nor a hyphen appeared between the two constituents (e.g. shortbrush). If the adjective and the noun of the semantically compositional experimental items were separated by a space (e.g. short brush), however, seven of the eleven items had a frequency greater

7.2 Method 

 201

Tab. 24: Lemma frequencies of the semantically compositional experimental items if written with a space (in pmw). Descriptive values Min–Max Mean SD Median

Frequency 0.000–0.017 0.006 0.006 0.006

than 0.000 occurrences pmw. Tab. 24 presents the descriptive statistics of the semantically compositional experimental items if the constituents were separated by a space. Therefore, these seven experimental items were additionally examined by using the concordance function of IntelliText (cf. §6.2.2.2.3). None of the constructions was considered a lexicalized naming unit. Instead, the constructions were simple descriptive units, parts of larger constructions or a proper name (cf. ibid. for examples and more information). There was only one new category that was not mentioned in §6.2.2.2.3. In one example, the complex AN construction occurred in a larger construction by coincidence, i.e. without contributing to the meaning of the larger construction (cf. 51).139 Overall, all experimental items were non-lexicalized constructions. However, one has to keep in mind that the semantically compositional experimental items had a frequency advantage over the semantically non-compositional experimental items. I come back to the issue in §7.3 and §7.4. (51) Extra Thin Dressing140 None of the filler items had a lemma frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pwm. Therefore, all filler items were considered to be non-lexicalized as well. 7.2.2.2.4 Pretest of semantic compositionality The questionnaire in Appendix 10 was used to verify that the AN constructions were semantically compositional or non-compositional. The pretest was part of the same SoSci questionnaire that examined whether the experimental items of

139 Only Hartley et al. (2011) was consulted for the context analysis; the websites the examples were taken from were not visited. 140 Original source given in Hartley et al. (2011): http://www.manordrug.com/ (bold added by MS).

202 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 25: Ratings of the experimental items of the second experimental study. Item (SC) sharp nail big shelf thick rope hot pipe broad hat thin dress tall truck cold hut short brush vast tent dry cap M/SD of 11 means

N

M

SD

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

1.23 1.45 1.45 1.77 2.23 2.27 2.32 2.36 2.41 2.55 3.09

0.53 0.80 0.80 1.23 1.41 1.12 1.32 1.40 1.33 1.37 1.31

2.10

0.56

Item (SNC)

N

M

SD

sour bike fast sock rough milk sweet fence warm pill loud desk full lamp deep knife slow pen hard shirt soft coin

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

5.18 4.82 4.68 4.64 4.41 4.27 4.18 3.95 3.91 3.73 3.73

0.73 0.91 1.17 0.85 0.96 1.24 1.18 1.43 1.38 1.08 1.35

4.32

0.48

SC – Semantically compositional, SNC – Semantically non-compositional.

the first study were semantically compositional (cf. §7.1). As already mentioned earlier, 22 native speakers of English completed the questionnaire and were asked to state how easy/difficult it was for them to imagine that the items existed. The rating scale included six options that were later transformed into numerical values (very very easy = 1, very easy = 2, easy = 3, difficult = 4, very difficult = 5, very very difficult = 6). 3.5 was the midpoint of the scale and all means below this value were considered to represent compositionality but all means above this value were regarded as an indication of non-compositionality (for further details on the participants, the task and the idea of the test, cf. §7.1). Tab. 25 presents the results of the rating. As expected, all semantically compositional items showed a mean rating lower than 3.5 and all semantically non-compositional items showed a mean rating higher than 3.5. An independent t-test showed that the ratings of the semantically compositional items highly significantly differed from the ratings of the semantically non-compositional items (t(20) = –10.00, p = .000). In the subject analysis, the total mean of the semantically compositional items was 2.10 (N: 22, SD: 0.67) and the total mean of the semantically non-compositional items was 4.32 (N: 22, SD: 0.77). A dependent t-test revealed that the ratings of both groups highly significantly differed (t(21) = –17.13, p = .000). 21 of the 22 subjects rated the compositional items on average with a value lower than 3.5. 19 of the 22 subjects rated the non-compositional items on average with a value higher than 3.5. In sum, eleven items were considered to be semantically compositional and eleven items were regarded as semantically non-compositional.

7.2 Method 

 203

7.2.2.2.5 Acoustic realization and technology All experimental and filler items were recorded with a male native speaker of North American English, who was 25 years old at the time of the recordings, and the computer program Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2014). The speaker’s Midwest accent (Ohio) showed some minor influences from New Mexico and Kentucky. 7.2.2.2.6 Duration There were always four sound files of experimental items that had the same duration, namely one item of the following four conditions (cf. also §6.2.2.2.5): Non-initial stress and semantic compositionality (e.g. short BRUSH), initial stress and semantic compositionality (e.g. SHORT brush), non-initial stress and semantic non-compositionality (e.g. hard SHIRT) and initial stress and semantic non-compositionality (e.g. HARD shirt). A filler item (e.g. SHORT pen) had the same duration as the same item with the opposite stress pattern (e.g. short PEN). The mean durations of the experimental and filler items are given in Tab. 26. 7.2.2.2.7 Summary of the potentially confounding variables The potentially confounding variables number of syllables, lexicalization, acoustic realization/technology and duration were successfully controlled for across conditions. However, the compositional experimental items had a frequency as well as a very slight constituent frequency advantage over the non-compositional experimental items. I consider these points in §7.3 and §7.4. 7.2.2.3 Stress pattern of the English adjective-noun constructions Finally, using the procedure already presented in §6.2.2.3, the stress pattern of all items was verified so that 50 percent of the sound files contained items with initial stress and 50 percent of the sound files contained the same items with non-initial stress. Tab. 26: Duration of the experimental and filler items (in ms).

Min–Max Mean SD Median

Experimental items

Filler items

610.0–763.0 717.0 48.1 726.0

575.0–820.0 721.3 61.2 731.5

204 

 7 Experimental study II

7.2.3 Procedure As in the first study, all participants were tested on three days, i.e. on day one, four and eight. This time, however, the experiment consisted of two memorization phases and a recall phase on each day. The subjects were asked to memorize the same experimental items in the first and second memorization phase. They heard and saw the items in the first memorization phase but they only heard them in the second memorization and in the recall phase. Since the number of items to be memorized was much higher in the present study than in the first investigation reported in Chapter 6, an additional memorization phase was implemented. Although the visual presentation of the stimuli in the first memorization phase was supposed to support memorization, the study clearly focused on spoken language. Each subject heard an experimental item nine times, i.e. in the first memorization phase, in the second memorization phase and in the recall phase on the three days, but they saw it only three times, i.e. in the first memorization phase of the three days. The participants heard all filler items only once, i.e. in the recall phase of one day, and did not see them at all. Different filler items were used on each day. The same room, equipment and computer program (E-Prime) as in the first study were used to create and conduct the experiment. A total of six sub-­ experiments were built with E-Prime on the computer, i.e. one sub-experiment for each of the two subject groups for each of the three days. Overall, three different orders existed, i.e. one order for each of the three days. All subjects took a short trial run to get familiar with the procedure. During the experiment, the participants heard all items through headphones. On the screen, they read short instructions and saw the “+”. Moreover, they saw the experimental items on the screen but only in the first memorization phase. In the first memorization phase, a “+” appeared for 1.5 seconds on the screen before the participants heard each item and saw it for 3.5 seconds.141 All subjects were asked to memorize a total of 22 items. In the second memorization phase, a “+” appeared for 1.5 seconds on the screen before the participants had 3.5 seconds to memorize the item that they heard.142 The subjects were asked to memorize the same 22 items as in the first memorization phase. In the recall phase, a “+” appeared for 1.5 seconds on the screen before the participants heard an item and

141 The visual and auditory form of each item started simultaneously. That means, when the written form appeared on the screen, the subjects heard the onset of an item. 142 The 3.5 seconds started at the onset of an item.

7.3 Hypotheses 

 205

had to make their decision. There were no time limit and no feedback slide. The subjects heard a total of 44 AN items. While 22 of them had been memorized in the first and second memorization phase, 22 items had not been memorized before. The response time was measured from the onset of an item.

7.3 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were used in the current study: (1) The experimental items with non-initial stress were expected to be responded to (significantly) faster and more accurately than the experimental items with initial stress on all three days together. The hypothesis was based on the results of the first study (cf. §6.4) and on the observation that English AN constructions mostly carry non-initial stress (cf. §3.4.2). (2) The subjects were expected to respond (significantly) more quickly and accurately to the semantically compositional experimental items than to the semantically non-compositional experimental items on all three days together because the former were less marked than the latter. Also, the former had a frequency as well as a very slight constituent frequency advantage over the latter (cf. §7.2.2.2). (3) Combining hypotheses (1) and (2), responses to the semantically compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. short BRUSH), i.e. responses to the PhraLiCos, were expected to be (significantly) faster and more accurate than responses to the semantically non-compositional items with initial stress (e.g. HARD shirt), i.e. responses to the CoLiCos. That means, it was not expected that approach (3) to the term “memorization advantage” could be used (cf. §6.3 and §6.4). (4) Instead, it was hypothesized that approach (4) and approach (5) to the term “memorization advantage” could be used (cf. §6.3). CoLiCos, i.e. semantically non-compositional constructions with initial stress, were expected to show a memorization advantage in comparison to PhraLiCos, i.e. semantically compositional constructions with non-initial stress. CoLiCos were expected to be responded to (significantly) more slowly and less accurately than PhraLiCos at an early phase of the memorization process, i.e. on the first day, but not at later phases of the memorization process, i.e. on the second and/or third day (approach (4)). Moreover, CoLiCos were expected to improve more from day one to day two/three than PhraLiCos (approach (5)).

206 

 7 Experimental study II

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion response time and response accuracy, the two dependent variables, were analyzed. Before the analysis, it was investigated whether all subjects and experimental items reached the accuracy level of 70 percent. Both the 34 participants and the 22 experimental items reached this response accuracy level. Since stress represented a within-item factor, the response accuracy of an item referred to the response accuracy of its form with initial stress and to the response accuracy of its form with non-initial stress together. A total of 4488 responses (34 subjects × 44 responses per subject per day × 3 days) were collected. The following analyses only include the 2244 responses that were associated with the experimental items. Responses to filler items were not considered any further. 7.4.1 response time The incorrect responses were not included in the analysis of response time. That means, 253 responses were excluded from the data. Next, statistical outliers were discarded by using the procedure described in §6.4.1. 135 values were excluded from the dataset. In sum, 82.71 percent of all responses to the experimental items, i.e. 1856 values, were included in the following analysis. In this dataset, the shortest response time was 596 ms and the longest one was 1598 ms. Eventually, the data were prepared for the ANOVAs by subject and by item. 408 means were used in the subject analysis and 132 means were calculated for the item analysis.143,144 2 × 2 × 3 repeated-measures ANOVAs by subject (F1) and by item (F2) were conducted in order to examine response time. While stress (factor levels: initial stress, non-initial stress), semantic compositionality (factor levels: semantic compositionality, semantic non-compositionality) and day (factor levels: day 1, day 2, day 3) represented fixed factors, subject (in F1) and item (in F2) were random factors. stress was a within-subject and a within-item factor, semantic compositionality was a within-subject and a between-item factor and day was a within-subject and a within-item factor.

143 Subject analysis: 408 = 34 subjects × 12 conditions per subject. The twelve conditions refer to the crossing of the three days, the two stress patterns and the two compositionality patterns. Item analysis: 132 = (11 compositional items × 6 conditions per item) + (11 non-compositional items × 6 conditions per item). Note that an item was either semantically compositional or noncompositional. The six conditions refer to the crossing of the three days and the two stress patterns. 144 Note that two of the 408 values were missing, i.e. the values of two different subjects in two different conditions. These two values were replaced with the means of the respective condition in order to make the repeated-measures ANOVA possible (cf. Howell 2007: 217).

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 207

Tab. 27: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the ­interaction of stress x semantic compositionality. N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH)

102 (33)

1061.1 (1061.2)

139.6 (101.6)

CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt)

102 (33)

1129.9 (1122.5)

149.5 (104.1)

Compositionality + initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush)

102 (33)

1091.3 (1086.3)

136.7 (94.0)

Non-compositionality + non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT )

102 (33)

1077.8 (1073.4)

156.7 (96.6)

Condition

First of all, it was examined whether approach (3) to the term “memorization advantage” could be used. The descriptive statistics of the interaction of stress × semantic compositionality are presented in Tab. 27 for both the subject and the item analysis and in Fig. 6 for the subject analysis only. The interaction of stress x semantic compositionality did not reach significance (F1(1, 363) = 1.54, p = .215; F2(1, 100) = 1.49, p = .226). Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the PhraLiCos, which were semantically compositional and had non-initial stress (e.g. short BRUSH), were responded to highly significantly faster than the CoLiCos, which were semantically non-compositional and had initial stress (e.g. HARD shirt) (DM1 = –68.8, t1 = –5.52, p1 = .000; DM2 = –61.3, t2 = –4.40, p2 = .000). That means, as in the first experimental study reported in Chapter 6, approach (3) to the term “memorization advantage” could not be used in English. Since the non-lexicalized PhraLiCos were less marked and more frequent than the nonlexicalized CoLiCos, they were reacted to more quickly. Note that the difference between the response latencies of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos was the biggest one of all Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality.145 Note also that the findings confirmed a result of the first experimental study: The semantically compositional items with n ­ on-initial

145 The results of the other comparisons were as follows: The response times of the semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) were highly/very significantly faster than those of the CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt) (DM1 = –52.1, t1 = –4.18, p1 = .000; DM2 = –49.1, t2 = –3.53, p2 = .004). Further, the CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt) were responded to significantly more slowly than the semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush) in the subject analysis (DM1 = 38.6, t1 = 3.09, p1 = .011; DM2 = 36.2, t2 = 2.60, p2 = .052). For all other comparisons, no significant difference was found (for statistical values, cf. ­Appendix 12).

208 

 7 Experimental study II

Initial stress 1130

Non-initial stress

Response time (in ms)

1120 1110 1100 1090 1080 1070 1060

Semantic compositionality

Semantic non-compositionality

Semantic compositionality Fig. 6: Interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (F1) (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a).

stress were responded to faster than the semantically compositional items with initial stress (although the difference was not significant this time). Next, the focus lied on the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day. The descriptive statistics are given in Tab. 28. The threeway interaction was not significant (F1(2, 363) = 0.11, p = .900; F2(2,  100) = 0.20, p = .817). Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the response latencies of the PhraLiCos (highly) significantly differed from those of the CoLiCos on the first day (DM1 = –107.1, t1 = –4.96, p1 = .000; DM2 = –81.1, t2  = –3.36, p2 = .048) but not on the second (DM1 = –46.9, t1 = –2.17, p1 = .569; DM2 = –50.3, t2 = –2.09, p2 = .633) and third day (DM1 = –52.2, t1 = –2.42, p1 = .393; DM2 = –52.4, t2 = –2.17, p2 = .571). The three comparisons are displayed in Fig. 7. Based on the results, we can say that the CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the P ­ hraLiCos (approach (4)). Although the ­PhraLiCos had a frequency advantage (and a very slight constituent frequency advantage) over the CoLiCos, the response latencies of the two construction types did

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 209

Tab. 28: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the ­interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day. Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

PhraLiCosday 1 (e.g. short BRUSH)

34 (11)

1125.0 (1136.8)

97.8 (90.0)

PhraLiCosday 2 (e.g. short BRUSH)

34 (11)

1076.2 (1068.3)

151.5 (83.5)

PhraLiCosday 3 (e.g. short BRUSH)

34 (11)

982.3 (978.5)

127.7 (64.1)

CoLiCosday 1 (e.g. HARD shirt)

34 (11)

1232.1 (1217.9)

125.3 (47.8)

CoLiCosday 2 (e.g. HARD shirt)

34 (11)

1123.1 (1118.7)

119.3 (85.2)

CoLiCosday 3 (e.g. HARD shirt)

34 (11)

1034.5 (1030.9)

135.2 (76.5)

(Compositionality + initial stress)day 1 (e.g. SHORT brush)

34 (11)

1173.5 (1166.7)

113.7 (78.2)

(Compositionality + initial stress)day 2 (e.g. SHORT brush)

34 (11)

1087.0 (1079.5)

123.1 (45.5)

(Compositionality + initial stress)day 3 (e.g. SHORT brush)

34 (11)

1013.5 (1012.7)

126.1 (83.6)

(Non-compositionality + non-initial stress)day1 (e.g. hard SHIRT)

34 (11)

1163.5 (1169.9)

112.3 (66.5)

(Non-compositionality + non-initial stress)day2 (e.g. hard SHIRT)

34 (11)

1079.7 (1066.0)

152.2 (56.8)

(Non-compositionality + non-initial stress)day3 (e.g. hard SHIRT)

34 (11)

990.3 (984.3)

154.8 (56.3)

not significantly differ on the second and third day. No other comparison of different construction types on the individual days revealed a significant result (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 13.1). In Fig. 7, one also sees another important result: The CoLiCos improved more than the PhraLiCos from the first to the second day. That means, while the response latencies of the CoLiCos on day two and day one highly/very significantly differed (DM1 = –109.0, t1 = –5.05, p1 = .000; DM2 = –99.2, t2 = –4.12,

210 

 7 Experimental study II

Phrase-like constructions Compound-like constructions 1240

Response time (in ms)

1200 1160 1120 1080 1040 1000 960

1

2 Day

3

Fig. 7: Comparisons of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos on the three days (F1) (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016a, 2016b).

p2 = .004), the reaction times of the PhraLiCos on day two and day one did not do so (DM1 = –48.8, t1 = –2.26, p1 = .506; DM2 = –68.5, t2 = –2.84, p2 = .179).146 ­Therefore, using approach (5) to the term “memorization advantage”, we can say that the CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the PhraLiCos from day one to day two. In sum, both approach (4) and approach (5) showed a ­memorization advantage of the CoLiCos over the PhraLiCos. We now look at the two remaining interactions. The descriptive statistics of the two interactions of stress x day and semantic compositionality x day are given in Tab. 29.

146 With respect to the comparison of day three and day one, highly significant differences for both the CoLiCos (DM1 = –197.6, t1 = –9.15, p1 = .000; DM2 = –187.0, t2 = –7.76, p2 = .000) and the PhraLiCos (DM1 = –142.7, t1 = –6.61, p1 = .000; DM2 = –158.3, t2 = –6.57, p2 = .000) were found. For the CoLiCos, it was found that the response latencies of day three and day two (very) significantly differed (DM1 = –88.6, t1 = –4.10, p1 = .002; DM2 = –87.7, t2 = –3.64, p2 = .021). In the case of the ­PhraLiCos, the reaction times of these two days (highly) significantly differed (DM1 = –93.9, t1 = –4.35, p1 = .001; DM2 = –89.8, t2 = –3.73, p2 = .016). The results of the two other groups are listed in Appendix 13.2.

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 211

Tab. 29: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the ­interactions of stress x day and semantic compositionality x day. Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Initial stressday 1 Initial stressday 2 Initial stressday 3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

1202.8 (1192.3) 1105.1 (1099.1) 1024.0 (1021.8)

122.4 (68.5) 121.7 (69.6) 130.2 (78.8)

Non-initial stressday1 Non-initial stressday2 Non-initial stressday3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

1144.2 (1153.4) 1078.0 (1067.2) 986.3 (981.4)

106.3 (79.0) 150.7 (69.7) 140.9 (58.9)

Compositionalityday1 Compositionalityday2 Compositionalityday3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

1149.3 (1151.8) 1081.6 (1073.9) 997.9 (995.6)

108.1 (83.7) 137.1 (65.8) 126.9 (74.8)

Non-compositionalityday 1 Non-compositionalityday 2 Non-compositionalityday 3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

1197.8 (1193.9) 1101.4 (1092.3) 1012.4 (1007.6)

123.0 (61.6) 137.5 (75.6) 145.9 (69.8)

The interaction of stress x day (F1(2, 363) = 1.10, p = .333; F2(2, 100) = 0.07, p = .931) as well as the interaction of semantic compositionality x day (F1(2, 363) = 1.44, p = .239; F2(2, 100) = 0.87, p = .424) did not reach significance. Although the study primarily aimed at investigating the effects of stress and semantic compositionality in combination, the results of Tukey multiple comparisons of the two aforementioned interactions were also taken into consideration. The experimental items with non-initial stress were responded to very significantly faster than the experimental items with initial stress on the first day, at least in the subject analysis (DM1 = –58.6, t1 = –3.84, p1 = .002; DM2 = –39.0, t2 = –2.29, p2 = .210), but not on the second and third one (for statistical values, cf. ­Appendix 14). The semantically non-compositional experimental items were responded to significantly more slowly than the semantically compositional experimental items on the first day, at least in the subject analysis (DM1 = 48.5, t1 = 3.18, p1 = .018; DM2 = 42.1, t2 = 2.47, p2 = .143), but not on the second and third day (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 15). That means, using approach (4) to the term “memorization advantage”, we can also say that items with one typical feature of compounds, namely initial stress, showed a memorization advantage in comparison to items with one typical feature of phrases, namely non-initial stress. Moreover, non-compositional items, i.e. items with another compound feature, showed a memorization advantage compared to compositional items, i.e. items with another phrasal feature. However, the memorization advantages of the constructions that have only one compound feature are not as important as the memorization advantage

212 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 30: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables. N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Initial stress Non-initial stress

204 (66) 204 (66)

1110.6 (1104.4) 1069.5 (1067.3)

144.2 (100.1) 148.3 (98.6)

Compositionality Non-compositionality

204 (66) 204 (66)

1076.2 (1073.8) 1103.9 (1098.0)

138.7 (98.0) 155.0 (102.6)

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

136 (44) 136 (44) 136 (44)

1173.5 (1172.8) 1091.5 (1083.1) 1005.1 (1001.6)

117.9 (75.7) 137.1 (70.7) 136.4 (71.7)

Condition

of the CoLiCos, which have both compound features, for the following reason. While the CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage with both approach (4) and approach (5) to the notion of memorization advantage, the items that had only one compound feature showed a memorization advantage only with approach (4). Not only items with initial stress and items with non-compositional semantics improved over time but also items with non-initial stress and items with compositional semantics. That means, the response latencies of each of the four aforementioned groups were highly significantly faster on a later day than on an earlier day.147 Hence, approach (5) could not be applied to items with only one typical compound feature.

147 Items with initial stress: Day two versus day one: DM1 = –97.8, t1 = –6.40, p1 = .000; DM2 = –93.2, t2 = –5.47, p2 = .000; day three versus day one: DM1 = –178.8, t1 = –11.71, p1 = .000; DM2 = –170.5, t2 = –10.00, p2 = .000; day three versus day two: DM1 = –81.1, t1 = –5.31, p1 = .000; DM2 = –77.3, t2 = –4.53, p2 = .000. Items with non-initial stress: Day two versus day one: DM1 = –66.3, t1 = –4.34, p1 = .000; DM2 = –86.2, t2 = –5.06, p2 = .000; day three versus day one: DM1 = –157.9, t1 = –10.34, p1 = .000; DM2 = –172.0, t2 = –10.09, p2 = .000; day three versus day two: DM1 = –91.7, t1 = –6.00, p1 = .000; DM2 = –85.8, t2 = –5.03, p2 = .000. Compositional items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = –67.7, t1 = –4.43, p1 = .000; DM2 = –77.8, t2 = –4.57, p2 = .000; day three versus day one: DM1 = –151.4, t1 = –9.91, p1 = .000; DM2 = –156.2, t2 = –9.16, p2 = .000; day three versus day two: DM1 = –83.7, t1 = –5.48, p1 = .000; DM2 = –78.3, t2 = –4.60, p2 = .000. Non-compositional items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = –96.4, t1 = –6.31, p1 = .000; DM2 = –101.6, t2 = –5.96, p2 = .000; day three versus day one: DM1 = –185.4, t1 = –12.14, p1 = .000; DM2 = –186.3, t2 = –10.93, p2 = .000; day three versus day two: DM1 = –89.0, t1 = –5.83, p1 = .000; DM2 = –84.7, t2 = –4.97, p2 = .000.

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 213

Finally, we look at the descriptive statistics of the three independent ­variables (cf. Tab. 30). The main effect of stress was highly significant (F1(1, 363) = 21.77, p = .000; F2(1, 100) = 14.20, p = .000), the main effect of semantic compositionality was very significant in F1 (F1(1, 363) = 9.83, p = .002; F2(1, 100) = 1.35, p = .259) and the main effect of day was highly significant (F1(2, 363) = 121.66, p = .000; F2(2, 100) = 100.99, p = .000). Tukey multiple comparisons of the main effect of day revealed that the response times of day three were highly significantly shorter than the response latencies of day one (DM1 = –168.4, t1 = –15.60, p1 = .000; DM2 = –171.2, t2 = –14.21, p2 = .000) and day two (DM1 = –86.4, t1 = –8.00, p1 = .000; DM2 = –81.5, t2 = –6.76, p2 = .000). The latencies of day two were highly significantly faster than the response times of day one (DM1 = –82.0, t1 = –7.60, p1 = .000; DM2 = –89.7, t2 = –7.44, p2 = .000). In sum, we can say that all of the four hypotheses were confirmed: (1) The items with non-initial stress were responded to highly significantly faster than the items with initial stress. (2) The semantically compositional items were responded to very significantly faster than the semantically non-compositional items (in F1). (3) The responses to the PhraLiCos were highly significantly faster than those to the CoLiCos on all three days together. (4) The CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the ­PhraLiCos with approaches (4) and (5) to the term “memorization advantage”. 7.4.2 response accuracy Both correct and incorrect responses were included in the analysis of response accuracy. In the analysis of response time, the dataset with values smaller than 1608 ms did not contain statistical outliers anymore. The same limit was used here and verified with a boxplot analysis (cf. §6.4.1) whether new outliers occurred because the dataset now included incorrect responses as well. No new outliers appeared. Hence, 8.56 percent of all responses to the experimental items, i.e. 192 values, were not included in the following ANOVAs. The shortest response time of the remaining data was 596 ms and the longest response time was 1606 ms. As in the analysis of response time, a total of 408 means were used in the subject analysis and 132 means were calculated for the item analysis.148 2 × 2 × 3 repeated-measures ANOVAs by subject (F1) and by item (F2) were carried out to investigate response accuracy. stress (factor levels: initial

148 Note that one of the 408 values in the subject analysis was missing and was replaced with the mean of the respective condition (cf. Howell 2007: 217).

214 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 31: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the ­interaction of stress x semantic compositionality. N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH)

102 (33)

93.50 (92.70)

11.86 (10.47)

CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt)

102 (33)

87.81 (88.41)

20.81 (11.11)

Compositionality + initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush)

102 (33)

91.09 (91.07)

13.57 (9.02)

Non-compositionality + non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT )

102 (33)

88.40 (87.95)

16.10 (14.67)

Condition

stress, non-initial stress), semantic compositionality (factor levels: semantic compositionality, semantic non-compositionality) and day (factor levels: day 1, day 2, day 3) represented fixed factors, subject (in F1) and item (in F2) were random factors. stress was a within-subject and a within-item factor, semantic ­compositionality was a within-subject and a between-item factor and day was a within-subject and a within-item factor. First, the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality was of ­interest. The descriptive statistics are given in Tab. 31. The aforementioned two-way interaction did not reach significance (F1(1, 363) = 0.47, p = .491; F2(1, 100) = 0.49, p = .485). Tukey multiple comparisons showed that the PhraLiCos were responded to significantly more accurately than the CoLiCos in F1 (DM1 = 5.69, t1 = 3.05, p1 = .012; DM2 = 4.29, t2 = 2.04, p2 = .181). The comparison is shown in Fig. 8. Again, approach (3) to the term “memorization advantage” could not be used in English.149 Next, the three-way interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day was examined. The descriptive statistics are given in Tab. 32. The three-way interaction was not significant (F1(2, 363) = 1.21, p = .300; F2(2, 100) = 1.25, p = .292). In order to see whether approach (4) to the term “memorization advantage” could be implemented, the accuracy of the ­PhraLiCos and CoLiCos was contrasted on the individual days. The accuracy of the two c­ onstruction types did not significantly

149 The results of the other comparisons of this interaction were as follows: Only the difference between the response accuracy of the non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) and the response accuracy of the PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH) reached significance, at least in the subject analysis (DM1 = –5.10, t1 = –2.73, p1 = .032; DM2 = –4.75, t2 = –2.25, p2 = .116). All other comparisons did not show a significant result (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 16).

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

100

 215

Initial stress

Response accuracy (in %)

Non-initial stress

95

90

85

Semantic compositionality Semantic non-compositionality Semantic compositionality

Fig. 8: Interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (F1).

differ on any of the three days (for ­statistical values, cf. Appendix 17.1).150 Nevertheless, one sees a clear trend if one only considers the descriptive statistics (or the significance levels): While the difference between the response accuracy of the PhraLiCos and the response accuracy of the CoLiCos was almost ten percent on the first day (in F1), it was less than four percent on the second and third day. Therefore, interpreting the descriptive statistics, we can say that the CoLiCos showed a slight memorization advantage in comparison to the PhraLiCos. With approach (5) to the term “memorization advantage”, very significant results were even found. The response accuracy of the CoLiCos (very) significantly differed between day two and day one (DM1 = 13.38, t1 = 4.14, p1 = .002; DM2 = 13.03, t2 = 3.57, p2 = .026) as well as between day three and day one in the subject analysis (DM1 = 12.99, t1 = 4.02, p1 = .003; DM2 = 11.81, t2 = 3.24, p2 = .067). The PhraLiCos did not show this pattern.151,152 Therefore, the CoLiCos showed a memorization

150 The other comparisons of different construction types on the individual days did not reveal a significant result either (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 17.2). 151 PhraLiCos: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 7.53, t1 = 2.33, p1 = .454; DM2 = 10.12, t2 = 2.77, p2 = .207; day three versus day one: DM1 = 6.46, t1 = 2.00, p1 = .695; DM2 = 8.69, t2 = 2.38, p2 = .428. 152 Note that no significant difference was found between the response accuracy of day three and that of day two – neither for the CoLiCos (DM1 = –0.39, t1 = –0.12, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = –1.22, t2 = –0.34, p2 = 1.000) nor for the PhraLiCos (DM1 = –1.08, t1 = –0.33, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = –1.43, t2 = –0.39, p2 = 1.000). The results of the other construction types are listed in Appendix 17.3.

216 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 32: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the ­interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day. Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

PhraLiCosday 1 (e.g. short BRUSH)

34 (11)

88.84 (86.43)

15.28 (14.50)

PhraLiCosday 2 (e.g. short BRUSH)

34 (11)

96.37 (96.55)

8.09 (5.26)

PhraLiCosday 3 (e.g. short BRUSH)

34 (11)

95.29 (95.12)

9.89 (6.88)

CoLiCosday 1 (e.g. HARD shirt)

34 (11)

79.02 (80.13)

25.83 (13.82)

CoLiCosday 2 (e.g. HARD shirt)

34 (11)

92.40 (93.16)

16.98 (7.01)

CoLiCosday 3 (e.g. HARD shirt)

34 (11)

92.01 (91.94)

15.84 (6.43)

(Compositionality + initial stress)day 1 (e.g. SHORT brush)

34 (11)

84.85 (85.30)

17.49 (8.30)

(Compositionality + initial stress)day 2 (e.g. SHORT brush)

34 (11)

93.92 (93.63)

8.97 (8.31)

(Compositionality + initial stress)day 3 (e.g. SHORT brush)

34 (11)

94.51 (94.28)

10.79 (8.20)

(Non-compositionality + non-initial stress)day1 (e.g. hard SHIRT)

34 (11)

81.76 (80.83)

18.78 (20.79)

(Non-compositionality + non-initial stress)day2 (e.g. hard SHIRT)

34 (11)

87.75 (87.59)

16.13 (10.00)

(Non-compositionality + non-initial stress)day3 (e.g. hard SHIRT)

34 (11)

95.69 (95.44)

8.93 (6.19)

advantage in comparison to the PhraLiCos with approach (5) to the notion of memorization advantage. Fig. 9 visualizes the aforementioned effects. We now keep an eye on the remaining interactions. The descriptive statistics are presented in Tab. 33. The two-way interactions of stress x day (F1(2, 363) = 1.03, p = .357; F2(2, 100) = 0.47, p = .624) and semantic compositionality x day (F1(2, 363) = 1.51, p = .223; F2(2, 100) = 0.84, p = .436) did not reach significance. Tukey multiple comparisons revealed that the response accuracy of the items with noninitial stress did not significantly differ from that of the items with initial stress on any of the three days (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 18.1). Also, the accuracy

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

100

 217

Phrase-like constructions Compound-like constructions

Response accuracy (in %)

95

90

85

80

75

1

2

3

Day Fig. 9: Comparisons of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos on the three days (F1).

of the non-compositional items did not significantly differ from that of the compositional items on any of the three days (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 19.1). Looking at the descriptive statistics only, we see that the difference between the Tab. 33: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of stress x day and semantic compositionality x day. Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Initial stressday 1 Initial stressday 2 Initial stressday 3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

81.94 (82.71) 93.16 (93.40) 93.26 (93.11)

22.09 (11.43) 13.50 (7.50) 13.51 (7.29)

Non-initial stressday1 Non-initial stressday2 Non-initial stressday3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

85.30 (83.63) 92.06 (92.07) 95.49 (95.28)

17.36 (17.72) 13.39 (9.05) 9.35 (6.39)

Compositionalityday1 Compositionalityday2 Compositionalityday3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

86.85 (85.86) 95.15 (95.09) 94.90 (94.70)

16.42 (11.54) 8.57 (6.95) 10.28 (7.40)

Non-compositionalityday 1 Non-compositionalityday 2 Non-compositionalityday 3

68 (22) 68 (22) 68 (22)

80.39 (80.48) 90.07 (90.37) 93.85 (93.69)

22.46 (17.23) 16.61 (8.90) 12.89 (6.41)

218 

 7 Experimental study II

response accuracy of the items with non-initial stress and that of the items with initial stress got slightly smaller from day one to day two (in F1) (cf. also the significance levels in Appendix 18.1). The difference between the response accuracy of the non-compositional and that of the compositional items decreased on the final day (cf. also the significance levels in Appendix 19.1). That means, if one looks at only one compound/phrase feature and uses approach (4) to the term “memorization advantage”, one finds some slight evidence for a memorization advantage of items with one compound feature. Using approach (5) to the term “memorization advantage”, the following picture emerged. The response accuracy of the items with initial stress on day two highly significantly differed from that of day one (DM1 = 11.23, t1 = 4.91, p1 = .000; DM2 = 10.68, t2 = 4.14, p2 = .001). While the difference between the response ­accuracy of day three and that of day one was also highly significant (DM1 = 11.32, t1 = 4.95, p1 = .000; DM2 = 10.39, t2 = 4.03, p2 = .001), the difference between day three and two was not (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 18.2). With regard to the items with non-initial stress, the difference between the response accuracy of day two and that of day one was significant (DM1 = 6.76, t1 = 2.96, p1 = .037; DM2  =  8.44, t2 = 3.27, p2 = .018), the difference between day three and one was highly s­ignificant (DM1 = 10.19, t1 = 4.46, p1 = .000; DM2 = 11.65, t2 = 4.52, p2 = .000) and the difference

Response accuracy (in %)

100

Initial stress Non-initial stress

95

90

85

80

1

Fig. 10: Interaction of stress x day (F1).

2 Day

3

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

100

 219

Semantic compositionality

Response accuracy (in %)

Semantic non-compositionality 95

90

85

80

1

2

3

Day Fig. 11: Interaction of semantic compositionality x day (F1).

between day three and two was not significant (for statistical values, cf. ­Appendix 18.3). Fig. 10 visualizes the influence of stress on the response accuracy on the three days. Furthermore, while the response accuracy of the non-compositional items of day two and one (DM1 = 9.68, t1 = 4.24, p1 = .000; DM2 = 9.90, t2 = 3.84, p2 = .003) as well as of day three and one (DM1 = 13.46, t1 = 5.89, p1 = .000; DM2 = 13.21, t2 = 5.12, p2 = .000) highly/very significantly differed, the accuracy of the compositional items only differed (very) significantly between day two and one (DM1 = 8.30, t1 = 3.63, p1 = .004; DM2 = 9.23, t2 = 3.58, p2 = .007) as well as between day three and one (DM1 = 8.06, t1 = 3.53, p1 = .006; DM2 = 8.83, t2 = 3.43, p2 = .011). The difference between day three and two was not significant for any of the two groups (for ­statistical values, cf. Appendix 19.2 and Appendix 19.3). Fig. 11 shows the influence of semantic compositionality on the response accuracy on the three days. Overall, with approach (5), a slight memorization advantage of items with the compound feature initial stress in comparison to items with the phrasal feature non-initial stress was found, at least from day one to day two, because the former improved more than the latter. Moreover, the non-compositional items showed a little memorization advantage in comparison to the compositional items, at least from day one to day three, because the former improved more than the latter.

220 

 7 Experimental study II

Tab. 34: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the three independent variables. N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Initial stress Non-initial stress

204 (66) 204 (66)

89.45 (89.74) 90.95 (90.33)

17.60 (10.13) 14.34 (12.87)

Compositionality Non-compositionality

204 (66) 204 (66)

92.30 (91.88) 88.10 (88.18)

12.77 (9.73) 18.56 (12.91)

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

136 (44) 136 (44) 136 (44)

83.62 (83.17) 92.61 (92.73) 94.38 (94.19)

19.86 (14.75) 13.41 (8.24) 11.63 (6.86)

Condition

Nevertheless, although slight evidence for a memorization advantage of items with one compound feature in comparison to items with one phrasal feature exists (with approach 4 and approach 5), the memorization advantage of CoLiCos, i.e. constructions with two compound features, in comparison to ­PhraLiCos, i.e. constructions with two phrasal features, is overall clearly greater. Finally, we consider the three independent variables in isolation. Tab. 34 presents the descriptive statistics of these variables. A main effect of stress was not found (F1(1, 363) = 1.29, p = .257; F2(1, 100) = 0.16, p = .693). The main effect of semantic compositionality was very significant in the subject analysis (F1(1, 363) = 10.10, p = .002; F2(1, 100) = 1.48, p = .238) and the main effect of day was highly significant (F1(2, 363) = 25.48, p = .000; F2(2, 100) = 21.56, p = .000). The response accuracy of day three was highly significantly greater than the response accuracy of day one (DM1 = 10.76, t1 = 6.66, p1 = .000; DM2 = 11.02, t2 = 6.05, p2 = .000). Responses of day two were highly significantly more accurate than responses of day one (DM1 = 8.99, t1  =  5.56, p1  =  .000; DM2  =  9.56, t2 = 5.24, p2 = .000). The response accuracy of day three did not ­significantly differ from the response accuracy of day two (for statistical values, cf. Appendix 20). In sum, we can say the following about the hypotheses introduced earlier: (1) The results do not support the first hypothesis because the items with noninitial stress were not responded to significantly more accurately than those with initial stress. (2) The second hypothesis was supported because the compositional items were reacted to very significantly more accurately than the non-compositional items. (3) The results support the third hypothesis because the PhraLiCos were responded to significantly more accurately than the CoLiCos on all three days together.

7.4 Statistical analyses, results and discussion 

 221

(4) The final hypothesis was confirmed with the approaches (4) (descriptive statistics only) and (5) to the term “memorization advantage”: The CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the PhraLiCos.

7.4.3 Summary and final discussion of the second experimental study Since no memorization advantage of English AN constructions with initial stress in comparison to those with non-initial stress was found in the first experimental study (Chapter 6), the present study examined whether English AN constructions with initial stress and non-compositional semantics showed a memorization advantage in comparison to constructions with non-initial stress and compositional semantics. The former are called CoLiCos and the latter PhraLiCos (cf. Chapters 3 and 4). The motivation for the analysis was the idea that initial stress and non-compositional semantics represent two typical compound features in Germanic languages. In contrast, phrases usually favor non-initial stress and compositional semantics. As expected, approach (3) to the notion of memorization advantage could not be applied to the English data. That means, the PhraLiCos were responded to highly significantly more quickly and significantly more accurately than the CoLiCos on all three days together. The result was not surprising because noninitial stress and semantic compositionality are less marked and more frequent than initial stress and semantic non-compositionality in the case of English AN constructions. In addition to that, only the CoLiCos but not the PhraLiCos always had a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw (cf. §7.2.2.2.3). While the novelty of compounds or CoLiCos can be recognized by the fact that they have a frequency of 0.000 occurrences pmw, phrases or PhraLiCos behave differently: Due to their compositional semantics, they often have a frequency higher than 0.000 occurrences pmw. Crucially, however, neither the CoLiCos nor the PhraLiCos were lexicalized (cf. ibid.). If the focus lied on the individual days, i.e. on the approaches (4) and (5) to the notion of memorization advantage, a memorization advantage of the CoLiCos in comparison to the PhraLiCos was found. Although the response latencies of the former were (highly) significantly longer than those of the latter on the first day, no significant difference was found on the second and third day. Further, the analysis of the accuracy data revealed a slight memorization advantage because the descriptive statistics showed a higher difference between the CoLiCos and PhraLiCos on day one than on day two and three. I claim that these facts reflect a memorization advantage of the CoLiCos in comparison to the PhraLiCos (approach 4). Moreover, with approach (5), evidence

222 

 7 Experimental study II

for a memorization a ­ dvantage was found as well. While the response-time data of the CoLiCos indicated a highly/very significant difference between day one and day two, the data of the PhraLiCos did not. Hence, the CoLiCos improved more from the initial stage to a later stage of the learning process than the PhraLiCos. The trend was confirmed in the accuracy data: Only the data of the CoLiCos but not the data of the PhraLiCos showed (very) significant differences between day one and day two/three. Again, this supports the view that the former improved more than the latter over the course of the experiment. Overall, it is important to emphasize that the combination of initial stress and semantic non-compositionality, i.e. the combination of two compound features, yielded greater effects than the two compound features alone. The results support the Full-Form-Storage Principle for Compounds and Phrases suggested in Chapter 5. Starting with a lower frequency than the PhraLiCos, the CoLiCos were responded to less quickly and less accurately on the first day. However, the CoLiCos clearly improved more than the PhraLiCos from day one to day two. That means, although the PhraLiCos still had a frequency advantage, their lead to the CoLiCos drastically decreased. Since CoLiCos are inherently semantically non-compositional, a potential meaning cannot be inferred from the simple combination of the meanings of the constituents. Non-compositional meanings need separate entries in the mental lexicon. In contrast, PhraLiCos can be interpreted by combining the meanings of the two constituents that are compatible. Overall, while a CoLiCo can be directly accessed via the full entry of the entire construction very early, a PhraLiCo continues being decomposed into its constituents for a longer time, if not forever; it can only have a full-form entry – if it has one at all – later in time. The present study showed again the connection between and the interplay of structural, semantic-functional and cognitive aspects in the context of the compound-phrase distinction. Compounds or CoLiCos differ from phrases or PhraLiCos on the structural basis, i.e., e.g., in their stress pattern. Different stress patterns, in turn, favor different degrees of semantic compositionality: While initial stress prefers, or even signals, non-compositional semantics, non-initial stress goes well with compositional semantics. Finally, the interplay of structural and semantic-functional factors affects the processing, specifically the memorization, of complex constructions in that CoLiCos show a memorization advantage in comparison to PhraLiCos. We come back to this point in the following chapter.

8 Conclusion The final chapter has the following two objectives. First, I aim at connecting the two experimental studies presented in the Chapters 6 and 7 to the discussion presented in the Chapters 2 to 5 (cf. §8.1). Second, I outline some implications of the present research for the debate on language complexity (cf. §8.2). In sum, the current chapter concludes the book.

8.1 The morphology-syntax divide In §2.1, I argue for the distinction between morphology and syntax and claim that compounds represent morphological constructions that differ from phrases, which are syntactic constructions. The experimental study presented in Chapter 6 supports this view. The analysis of the data revealed that the German compounds showed a memorization advantage in comparison to the French phrases. Crucially, the German compounds did not have an advantage with respect to several potentially confounding variables. The compounds were responded to more accurately and significantly faster than the phrases on all three days together. This was surprising for four reasons. First, despite the fact that neither the compounds nor the phrases were lexicalized, we saw that the phrases had a frequency higher than 0.000 occurrences pmw. In contrast, none of the compounds appeared in the corpus, i.e. none of the compounds had a frequency greater than 0.000 occurrences pmw. Second, not only the individual phrases investigated in the study were slightly more frequent than the individual compounds but also the category phrase in general (in comparison to the category compound in general). While German compounds almost always fulfil the naming function only, French phrases can serve to describe or name something. Third, the result is surprising if we assume that we use AN/NA constructions more often to describe than to name phenomena. Put differently, describing represents the default function of AN/NA constructions. Fourth, the French constituents (adjectives and nouns together) showed a slight frequency advantage over the German constituents. The four aforementioned facts made it likely that the French phrases would be responded to more quickly and accurately on the three days together. However, we observed the opposite pattern, i.e. the German compounds showed faster and more accurate responses. I claim that this result supports the distinction between compounds and phrases or, in general, between morphological and syntactic constructions.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-008

224 

 8 Conclusion

The distinction between morphology and syntax is a structural one in the first place. Using the primary factor, inflectional agreement/inflection, I show how we distinguish between compounds and phrases in §3.2 and §3.3. The primary factor serves to define a construction as a compound or a phrase and, therefore, aims at avoiding circularity. In a cross-linguistic analysis, the primary factor, if available, must be the same in each language. Having defined compounds and phrases, we can use further factors, namely secondary factors, to characterize constructions (cf. §3.4). Investigating endocentric constructions only, we observe that compounds are right-headed but phrases are left- or right-headed (cf. §3.4.1). Stress represents a secondary factor in Germanic languages but not in French: German compounds are usually stressed on the initial syllable/constituent but German phrases tend to be stressed on a non-initial syllable/constituent (cf. §3.4.2). That means, comparing different languages, we realize that secondary factors can be language-specific. Overall, secondary factors do not define compounds and phrases but they can characterize them. The potential of semantic-functional aspects to separate compounds from phrases is also examined in the literature. The comparison between German and French shows that one cannot simply consider compounds to be naming units and phrases to be descriptive units. While German compounds typically function as naming units and German phrases are usually descriptive ones, French relies on a different strategy: It prefers using phrases for both functions (cf. Chapter 4). The first experimental study showed that the interplay of structural and semantic-functional aspects had an influence on the processing, specifically on the memorization, of complex constructions. The naming function of German compounds is clearly signaled through their structure. Since the adjective and the noun of an AN compound are not in agreement, the compound differs from the default AN construction, i.e. from the phrase, where the two constituents agree. The structural distinction on the basis of the primary factor, which can be supported by secondary factors such as stress, triggers a semantic-functional contrast in most cases in German (cf. Chapters 3 and 4). Following Härtl (2015a), I argue that phrases are by default interpreted in a compositional way and, therefore, normally adopt the descriptive function. The structural peculiarities of compounds, on the other hand, indicate a meaning that goes beyond the compositional semantics of phrases. Constructions with non-compositional semantics have to be stored as names in the lexicon if they are repeatedly used by an individual language user or within a language community. If a construction is stored in the social lexicon, i.e. if it is lexicalized, memorization, i.e. storage of the construction in the mental lexicon, precedes lexicalization (cf. §2.3). The current contribution reveals that compounds show a memorization advantage in comparison to phrases. Based on the result, it is assumed that compounds also

8.1 The morphology-syntax divide 

 225

show a lexicalization advantage in comparison to phrases – an idea that was ­discussed in Chapter 4 (cf. also Schlechtweg & Härtl 2016b). Although phrases often serve as naming units and are semantically non-compositional as well, as in French, I argue that they are less prone to be memorized and to become lexicalized because their structural characteristics (e.g. inflectional agreement/ inflection) do not immediately signal that they have to be interpreted in a noncompositional way. The precise effects depend on the language in which a phrase occurs. While a German phrase is typically treated as a descriptive and compositional construction, a French phrase often has a dual function (naming and describing) because compounds are almost never used in this language. Empirical evidence supports this idea. While Böer et al. (2012: Experiment 1) as well as Kotowski et al. (2014: Experiment 1) found that German AN compounds were responded to (highly) significantly more slowly/less accurately than German AN phrases if they had not been memorized, compounds improved more than phrases with memorization. That means, phrases benefited from their default status only if they had not been presented before, i.e. they cannot be argued to have shown a memorization advantage. German AN compounds, however, showed a memorization advantage because they drastically improved if they had been memorized. Looking at the cross-linguistic comparison between German and French, one did not observe that the German compounds simply improved more than the French phrases. Instead, the compounds were overall responded to more accurately and significantly more quickly than the phrases. I believe that this finding mirrors a stronger memorization advantage of compounds vis-à-vis phrases than the results of the aforementioned authors. Although both the category phrase and the specific phrases investigated in the experimental study in Chapter 6 were more frequent in French than the category compound as well as the individual compounds in German, the compounds were never responded to significantly less quickly or accurately than the phrases. I argue that the languagespecific interplay of structural and semantic-functional aspects is responsible for the strong memorization advantage of the German compounds over the French phrases. If the primary factor is not available for constructions of a language (anymore), e.g. for English AN constructions, we cannot call complex constructions of this kind compounds or phrases. The question arises whether the morphology-­syntax distinction is unnecessary here. Although English AN constructions lack the defining criterion of inflectional agreement, I claim that we must maintain the separation of the two grammatical domains (cf. Chapters 3 and 4). Investigating German AN compounds and phrases, one observes that these constructions have typical characteristics. So, having defined them, one sees that compounds are normally stressed on the initial syllable and semantically non-compositional. In

226 

 8 Conclusion

contrast, phrases favor non-initial stress and compositional semantics. Despite the fact that one defines compounds and phrases on the basis of inflectional agreement, one cannot deny that they are also characterized by other properties. Transferring these facts to English, which is closely related to German, I regard English AN constructions with initial stress and non-compositional semantics as compound-like and English AN constructions with non-initial stress and compositional semantics as phrase-like. In other words, although English has lost inflectional adjectival suffixes in the course of its history, the morphology-syntax divide is still relevant for AN constructions of this language. The distinction between CoLiCos and PhraLiCos is both a structural and a semantic-functional one. That means, the individual levels of the factor stress, namely initial and non-initial stress, prefer non-compositional and compositional semantics respectively. The connection between different stress patterns and (non-)compositionality plays a crucial role in the compound-phrase distinction in German and, therefore, legitimizes the decision to use the terms “CoLiCos” and “PhraLiCos” in another Germanic language such as English. Not only the interplay of structural and semantic-functional aspects is similar in German and English AN constructions but also its impact on memorization. Both German AN compounds and English AN CoLiCos showed a memorization advantage in comparison to German AN phrases and English AN PhraLiCos respectively (cf. Böer et al. 2012: Experiment 1; Kotowski et al. 2014: Experiment 1; Chapter 7). That means, although phrases/PhraLiCos represented the default constructions, they were only responded to (highly significantly/ significantly) more quickly/accurately than compounds/CoLiCos if they had not been memorized at all (German) or if they had been memorized on only one day (English). Beyond that, no significant differences were observed between the responses to phrases/PhraLiCos and the responses to compounds/CoLiCos. The structural and semantic-functional properties of compounds/CoLiCos explain why they are memorized more efficiently than phrases/PhraLiCos. Memorization is capable of counterbalancing initial disadvantages of compounds/CoLiCos (cf. also Kotowski et al. 2014: 196) – such as the lower frequency of the specific constructions under investigation or the lower frequency of the category compound/CoLiCo in general. Based on the observations outlined throughout the book, it is argued, as already mentioned in §2.2, for a model of language that separates morphology and syntax on the one hand and the grammar and the lexicon on the other hand. Syntax represents a grammatical domain distinct from the lexicon. In contrast, morphology either belongs to the lexicon or is more closely connected to the lexicon than syntax. Both options are compatible with the results presented in the book: Morphological constructions differ from syntactic

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 

 227

constructions in that they are more prone to be memorized, i.e. to be stored in the mental lexicon.

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction As stated in the previous section, the interplay of structural and semantic-­ functional aspects has an influence on the processing of complex constructions: We see that memorization depends on the way how languages use compounds/ CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos. The present section aims at connecting the relationship between structural, semantic-functional and cognitive aspects in complex constructions to the debate on language complexity. I argue that AN/ NA constructions in German, French and English differ with regard to several definitions of language complexity. While constructions of different languages can be more complex in one specific respect, they can be less complex in others. The analysis is restricted to AN/NA constructions. Since the memorization of NN/NPN/NPDN constructions was not investigated, they are ignored here and, instead, the focus is on those constructions for which the interplay of the three aforementioned kinds of aspects has been directly studied.

8.2.1 The debate on language complexity: Some general remarks The complexity of human languages has been discussed at length in the linguistic literature. Two old and fundamental beliefs have been repeated time and again in this context: (1) As Aboh & Smith (2009: 4), Bickerton (1995: 67), Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams (2011: 315) and Hockett (1958: 180–181) claim, all languages on earth resemble each other in terms of their overall grammatical complexity.153 Grammatical complexity as a whole usually refers to the complexity of morphology and the complexity of syntax together (Aboh & Smith 2009: 4; Hockett 1958: 180– 181). Note, however, that other domains such as phonology – both segmental and suprasegmental phonology – or pragmatics can also be analyzed in the context of language complexity (Aboh & Smith 2009: 16; Dahl 2009: 53–54; Kusters 2003: 11–13). The concept of equal complexity is supported with four arguments. First, since the tasks and functions of languages are the same

153 For a review and discussion, cf. Newmeyer & Preston (2014: 1–7).

228 

 8 Conclusion

throughout the world, languages must be equipped with grammatical means of comparable complexity in order to express concepts of varying complexity (Bickerton 1995: 67; Hockett 1958: 180–181; Riddle 2008: 133). Second, languages cannot differ with respect to their complexity because human beings do not do so either, i.e. people are equal even though they come from different cultures (Newmeyer & Preston 2014: 2). Third, equal complexity is regarded as a necessity if one is convinced of the existence of a universal grammar (ibid.: 4; cf. also Riddle 2008: 133). The fourth reason why languages should be regarded as equally complex comes from language acquisition. Smith (1999: 168) mentions the fact that children are able to acquire any language. Riddle (2008: 133) points to a related phenomenon, namely the assumption that languages can be acquired as first languages with comparable speed. (2) The second traditional belief, which is connected to the first one, is that a lower degree of complexity in one grammatical component, e.g. in morphology, comes with a higher degree of complexity in another one, e.g. in syntax (Bickerton 1995: 67; Hockett 1958: 180–181; Newmeyer & Preston 2014: 3). Culicover (2013: 19) notes that compensation does not necessarily have to take place between morphology and syntax but can also be observed between, for instance, syntax and phonology or pragmatics. Nowadays, however, these two traditional convictions are no longer considered incontestable truths and are rejected by several authors (Newmeyer & Preston 2014: 6–7; for a review, cf. Nichols 2009: 110 and Sampson 2009). Having introduced the debate, we have to establish a crucial distinction for the following analysis, namely the distinction between global and local complexity.

8.2.2 Global versus local complexity Miestamo (2008: 29–32, 2009: 82–83) characterizes and discusses the two terms in the following way. Global complexity refers to what we have discussed so far, i.e. it is the overall grammatical complexity. The two basic beliefs mentioned in the previous section belong to the domain of global complexity because the entire grammatical systems of languages are analyzed and compared. Citing one of his earlier works (Miestamo 2006a), the author criticizes the concept of global complexity for two reasons. First, it is almost impossible to take into account all grammatical phenomena that play a role with respect to the global complexity of a language. Second, one cannot arrange various grammatical phenomena in a hierarchy; that means, one does not know whether certain features or processes contribute more to the overall grammatical complexity than others (cf. also

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 

 229

Baerman, Brown & Corbett 2015: 5; McWhorter 2001: 133). Therefore, Miestamo (2006a, 2008: 29–32, 2009: 82–83) favors the notion of local complexity, which does not concern the grammatical complexity of entire languages but deals with the grammatical complexity of particular aspects. An analysis in the spirit of local complexity might compare, for example, only the past tenses of languages. For the present work, only local complexity is relevant. That means, the overall grammatical complexities of German, French and English are not compared. Instead, I aim at investigating the local complexity of AN/NA constructions in the three aforementioned languages. Before that, however, other important terms must be defined.

8.2.3 Different approaches to complexity Apart from the distinction between global and local complexity, there is a further distinction to be discussed in the present section.

8.2.3.1 Overt, absolute or formal complexity The kind of complexity investigated in the current section puts the grammar in the center of interest (Newmeyer & Preston 2014: 7). Overt complexity “is accessible through overt morphosyntactic patterns” (Bisang 2009: 34) and “reflects explicitness: the structure of the language simply forces the speaker to explicitly encode certain grammatical categories even if they could easily be inferred from context” (ibid.: 35). That means, if a language has more structures on its disposal than another one, the former is more complex in the sense of overt complexity. The term absolute complexity is used with a similar meaning. As Miestamo (2008: 24) notes, “[t]he basic idea behind the absolute approach is that the more parts a system has, the more complex it is” (ibid.). McWhorter (2001: 135) goes in a similar direction and suggests “that an area of grammar is more complex than the same area in another grammar to the extent that it encompasses more overt distinctions and/or rules than another grammar” (ibid.; cf. also McWhorter 2007: 21–22, 29, 31, 2008: 167). Inflectional morphology is argued to increase the degree of overt/absolute complexity in a language (McWhorter 2001: 137). So, we can say that “the number of morphosyntactic features and values” (Baerman et al. 2015: 7) plays the central role if we look at complexity from this perspective. For instance, the presence of a suffix indicating grammatical gender can be considered an aspect that increases complexity (McWhorter 2001: 129). Apart from overt and absolute complexity, a third term is used with a comparable meaning, namely formal complexity. Culicover (2013: 12) prefers this term to refer to absolute

230 

 8 Conclusion

­complexity.154 In my investigation, overt/absolute/formal complexity includes phonological, morphological and syntactic complexity. In the following, I continue using only the term “overt complexity” but consider it to be interchangeable with the other terms. 8.2.3.2 Hidden, interpretive, semantic or pragmatic complexity The kind of complexity discussed in this section puts relations between form and meaning in the center of interest, i.e., e.g., “deviations from a one-to-one mapping between meaning and form” (Baerman et al. 2015: 7). “Hidden complexity reflects economy: the structure of the language does not force the speaker to use a certain grammatical category if it can be inferred from context” (Bisang 2009: 35). That means, “[t]he existence of different analyses of one and the same surface structure adds a considerable degree of hidden complexity to a language” (ibid.: 43). We can also use the term “interpretive complexity”, which is “the relative difficulty from one language to another for a hearer to assign a semantic or pragmatic interpretation to an utterance” (Newmeyer & Preston 2014: 7). Apart from hidden and interpretive complexity, the notion of semantic complexity is a third term with a similar meaning. It increases if forms have several meanings and, therefore, “a tendency to homonymy and polysemy” (Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk 2008: 56) exists. Finally, one might also use the term “pragmatic complexity” if “one needs to rely heavily on inferences about what […] [someone has] in mind” (Jackendoff & Wittenberg 2014: 66; cf. also Kusters 2003: 11). Overall, the more meanings a form has, the higher is the hidden, interpretive, semantic or pragmatic complexity of the form. In the following, I continue using only the term “hidden complexity” but consider it to be interchangeable with the other terms.

154 Culicover (2013: 3) defines formal complexity as “the measure of the amount of idiosyncracy in a grammar, that is, phenomena that cannot be accounted for without special stipulations” (ibid.; cf. also McWhorter 2007: 33). Therefore, his approach differs from that of Miestamo (2008: 25) who concentrates on “regularities or patterns that an entity, e.g., the language system, contains, leaving everything that shows no regularity or patterning outside its scope” (ibid.). Miestamo’s position is inspired by Gell-Mann’s (1994: 50) notion of “effective complexity, which can be roughly characterized as the length of a concise description of the regularities of […] [a] system or string” (ibid.). As will become clear soon, the distinction between regularities and irregularities is not relevant for my purpose. Also, note that the approaches have a crucial similarity: We can say that both are based on the idea that “[t]he more information that it takes to describe the system, the more complex it is” (Culicover 2013: 12; cf. also Dahl 2004: 21). For the present contribution, this idea is enough and one does not have to worry about the regular-irregular distinction anymore.

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 

 231

8.2.3.3 Relative or processing complexity The final kind of complexity to be discussed here puts the users of languages in the center of interest (Newmeyer & Preston 2014: 7). Relative complexity is “complexity in terms of cost and difficulty to language users, i.e., how difficult a phenomenon is to process (encode/decode) or learn” (Miestamo 2008: 25). That means, a higher degree of complexity means here a higher degree of difficulty or more processing costs (ibid.). Culicover (2013: 12) considers the terms “relative complexity” and “processing complexity” to be interchangeable and defines them as “a measure of the resources required to compute the correspondences between particular grammatical forms and their meanings” (ibid.: 3). According to Miestamo (2008: 25, 2009: 81–82), investigating complexity from this perspective requires to determine the exact nature of a language user because specific linguistic aspects might be challenging only for some individuals or only in some situations. Specifically, one has to distinguish between native speakers and non-native speakers as well as between perception and production of language (cf. also Kusters 2003: 6; Moran & Blasi 2014: 219). Learners of a foreign language can experience difficulties in dealing with a grammatical aspect that native speakers of the same language do not have or vice versa (cf. also McWhorter 2001: 133). Also, the production of linguistic structures can be more complex, i.e. more difficult or more costly, than their comprehension or vice versa (cf. also Kusters 2003: 37). For example, language production can be more complex for a speaker if he or she has to pay attention to inflectional agreement (ibid.: 46). Finally, in foreign-language learning, relative complexity depends on the exact languages that are in interaction (Moran & Blasi 2014: 219–220). For instance, as the aforementioned authors claim, English is easier to learn than Chinese for someone who speaks German as a native language because English and German are related (cf. also Kusters 2003: 1; Lindström 2008: 221; McWhorter 2001: 135). 8.2.3.4 Combining different approaches to complexity The question whether a specific linguistic phenomenon is more complex than another one can only be answered if one defines complexity appropriately. This becomes evident in a comparison of the following two principles presented by Miestamo (2006b, 2008: 33–37): The principle of Fewer Distinctions: The principle of Fewer Distinctions can be seen in terms of description length as follows: language A, where more functional distinctions are grammaticalized within a given functional domain, requires a longer description for that functional domain than language B, where fewer distinctions are made; language A thus shows more complexity in this respect. (Miestamo 2008: 34)

232 

 8 Conclusion

The One-Meaning-One-Form principle: The One-Meaning-One-Form principle can be connected to complexity in the absolute sense, since a situation where the morphosyntactic coding of a function strictly adheres to the One-Meaning-One-Form principle can be given a shorter description than one where the principle is violated. When the form-function correspondences are not one-to-one, either syntagmatically or paradigmatically, the description of the system needs additional specification concerning these form-function relationships. (ibid.)

We assume with Miestamo (2006b) that the degree of complexity of a linguistic phenomenon increases if the time necessary to describe the phenomenon increases as well. Looking at the two aforementioned principles, one notices that one and the same construction can be considered more complex from one perspective but less complex from another perspective. That means, the two principles above go in opposite directions: If the first principle is met, i.e. if only few distinctions are made, overt complexity is low but hidden complexity is high. If the second principle is met, i.e. if one form expresses one meaning, it is the other way around. Now, one understands why it is recognized in the literature that different approaches to language complexity can or should be connected to each other. So, first of all, the connection between overt and hidden complexity is discussed. Hawkins (2014: 29) claims that a linguistic form can show a low degree of syntactic complexity but a high degree of semantic complexity. Note that I consider syntactic complexity to be an example of overt complexity and semantic complexity to be hidden complexity. In general, the author suggests that a low degree of complexity in one respect can trigger a high degree of complexity in another respect. Jackendoff & Wittenberg (2014: 66) connect syntactic complexity, i.e. overt complexity, to semantic/pragmatic complexity, i.e. hidden complexity, by arguing that discourse context and other pragmatic factors play a more crucial role for hearers if they are confronted with forms of a low syntactic complexity. According to the authors, a higher degree of syntactic complexity makes the listener less dependent on pragmatics and semantics (cf. also Kusters 2008: 12). Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk (2008: 55–56) use the term “semantic complexity” in the context of pidgins and creoles and suggest that the low degree of lexical, phonological, morphological and syntactic complexity found in these languages appears together with a high degree of semantic complexity. In sum, overt and hidden complexity go in opposite directions: If one increases, the other decreases. This observation is compatible with the two following principles: While a high degree of overt complexity together with a low degree of hidden complexity mirrors transparency, a low degree of overt complexity together with a high degree of hidden complexity reflects economy.

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 

 233

The Transparency Principle: “The Transparency Principle demands that the relation between form and meaning is as transparent as possible. Highest transparency is attained when every single meaning is expressed in a separate form” (Kusters 2003: 21). The Economy Principle: “The Economy Principle states that as few semantic categories or category combinations as possible should be expressed morphologically. Simpler structures are favoured over elaborate structures in morphology” (ibid.).

Second, not only the connection between overt and hidden complexity but also the connection between overt and processing complexity is discussed. Miestamo (2008: 28–29, 2009: 82) states that research could reveal important aspects concerning the influence of absolute, i.e. overt, complexity on relative, i.e. processing, complexity: Although the notions of complexity and difficulty are logically independent, and must be kept apart for theoretical and methodological reasons, their relationship is worth examining – complexity does not entail difficulty and difficulty does not entail complexity, but to which extent they correlate in language is an interesting question. (Miestamo 2008: 28–29)

Note that the aforementioned author uses the term “complexity” but actually means absolute, or overt, complexity. Moreover, “difficulty” refers to what is called relative, or processing, complexity. Third, apart from the connections between overt and hidden as well as between overt and processing complexity, the connection between hidden and processing complexity is also referred to in a paper: Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk (2008: 57) argue that semantic, i.e. hidden, complexity leads to greater processing costs. Combining the three kinds of complexity, we are left with the following two possible options with respect to their interaction: (1) On the one hand, it might be expected that a high degree of overt complexity together with a low degree of hidden complexity causes a high degree of processing complexity. For instance, it might be the case that an extended use of inflectional morphology increases the processing complexity because language users have to acquire or learn more (Culicover 2013: 13). (2) On the other hand, a high degree of hidden complexity together with a low degree of overt complexity could cause a high degree of processing complexity (cf. Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk 2008: 57). The latter idea is connected to McWhorter’s (2001: 135) thought “that a highly elaborated grammar could be argued to be easier rather than harder to process, in making distinctions more clearly than a less elaborated grammar, and thus leaving less to context” (ibid.).

234 

 8 Conclusion

To sum up, the notions of overt, hidden and processing complexity were introduced. It seems to be the case that a low degree of complexity in one respect comes with a high degree of complexity in another respect. If overt complexity increases, hidden complexity decreases; if overt complexity decreases, hidden complexity increases. The question, which is important for the current contribution, is when processing complexity increases and when it decreases: If overt complexity increases/hidden complexity decreases or if overt complexity decreases/ hidden complexity increases. The issue is discussed in the following by referring to the analysis of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/PhraLiCos in German, French and English conducted in the preceding chapters of this work. I point to the fact that overt and hidden complexity can play a different role in different languages (Bisang 2009: 48–49) and discuss the implications for the processing complexity of languages. 8.2.3.5 Three languages and three approaches to complexity: The case of adjective-noun/noun-adjective constructions In the present section, the three approaches to the notion of complexity are combined and applied to AN/NA constructions in German, French and English. Referring to the analyses of the Chapters 3 to 7, I show why AN/NA constructions differ in terms of local complexity in the three languages under investigation. The discussion is based on the following questions/aspects:



(I) Overt complexity (1) Availability of compounds and phrases: A “Yes”-response to the two following questions implies that the primary factor, inflectional agreement, is available in the respective language. (a) Does the language have compounds? (b) Does the language have phrases? (2) The exact nature of the primary factor: Which features does inflectional agreement refer to in phrases? (a) Gender? (b) Number? (c) Case? (d) Definiteness?



(3) If one only looks at typical AN/NA naming constructions of the respective languages, what can one say about overt complexity and the primary factor then?



(4) Secondary factor I: Headedness (a) Are there right-headed phrases/PhraLiCos? (b) Are there left-headed phrases/PhraLiCos?

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 







 235

(c) If not all phrases/PhraLiCos are right-headed or left-headed, is there a rule that determines the position of the head in most cases?155 (d) If one only looks at typical AN/NA naming constructions of the respective languages, what can one say about overt complexity and the secondary factor headedness then? (5) Secondary factor II: Stress (a) Are there compounds with initial stress? (b) Are there compounds with non-initial stress? (c) If not all compounds have initial stress or non-initial stress, is there a rule that determines the stress pattern in most cases? (d) Are there phrases with initial stress? (e) Are there phrases with non-initial stress? (f) If not all phrases have initial or non-initial stress, is there a rule that determines the stress pattern in most cases? (g) If one only looks at typical AN/NA naming constructions of the respective languages, what can one say about overt complexity and the secondary factor stress then? (II) Hidden complexity (6) Naming units: (a) Are compounds/CoLiCos used as lexicalized naming units? (b) Are phrases/PhraLiCos used as lexicalized naming units? (c) Is there a preference for compounds/CoLiCos or phrases/PhraLiCos when it comes to the creation of naming units?



(III) Processing complexity (7) Memorization advantage: Is there empirical evidence for a memorization advantage/disadvantage of (the preferred naming) constructions?



As can be seen, the debate on language complexity is connected to the discussions in the Chapters 3 to 7. Specifically, the objective is to examine the structural factors inflectional agreement (primary factor), headedness (secondary factor) and stress (secondary factor) (cf. Chapter 3) with respect to the phenomenon of overt complexity. Note that the focus lies on spoken language. Further, it is my goal to analyze semantic-functional properties of compounds/CoLiCos and phrases/ PhraLiCos (cf. Chapter 4) in the context of hidden complexity. Moreover, cognitive aspects (cf. primarily Chapters 6–7, cf. also Chapter 5) of the compound-phrase distinction are connected to the phenomenon of processing complexity. Finally,

155 Note that endocentric compounds/CoLiCos that are composed of an adjective and a noun are always right-headed in the three languages under investigation.

236 

 8 Conclusion

the interplay of structural, semantic-functional and cognitive aspects of AN/NA constructions or, put differently, the interplay of overt, hidden and processing complexity of AN/NA constructions are discussed by referring to German, French and English. 8.2.3.5.1 Overt complexity 8.2.3.5.1.1 Primary factor 8.2.3.5.1.1.1 Availability of compounds and phrases German and French have both compounds and phrases that are composed of an adjective as well as a noun and are defined by the primary factor. In English, however, inflectional agreement between an adjective and a noun is ruled out and one cannot speak of AN compounds and phrases in the latter language. Therefore, German and French show a higher degree of overt complexity than English because the category of the compound can be separated from the category of the phrase on the basis of inflectional agreement only in the former two languages. 8.2.3.5.1.1.2 Nature of the primary factor AN compounds are defined by the absence of inflectional agreement between the adjective and the noun. Therefore, they are not considered in this subsection. Instead, one has to focus on phrases and ask which features are relevant for inflectional agreement, i.e. how does the adjective and the noun of a phrase agree in German and French respectively. In German, adjectival suffixes of phrases vary according to definiteness, gender, number and case. In French, however, only gender and number are expressed. Furthermore, one has to take into account three other aspects. First, while German differentiates three grammatical genders, French has only two. Second, German uses suffixes in order to express gender agreement between the adjective and the noun. French, however, does not always do so. In some cases, the base represents the masculine form and a suffix attaches only to the feminine form of a construction. In other cases, the base is both the masculine and feminine form (without any suffix). In yet other cases, the masculine and feminine forms have different bases (without any suffix). Third, differences between singular and plural forms have both a phonological and orthographic nature in German but mostly only an orthographic one in French. Overall, German phrases show a higher degree of overt complexity than French phrases.

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 

 237

8.2.3.5.1.1.3 Typical adjective-noun/noun-adjective naming constructions only If the analysis is restricted to constructions that are naming units and have to be stored in the social and mental lexicon, a different picture emerges. While German prefers using compounds to name complex lexical concepts, French favors phrases for this purpose. Therefore, we have to compare German compounds with French phrases here and must say that French phrases show a higher degree of overt complexity. Since the adjective and the noun are not in agreement in German compounds, one always (and simply) combines the adjectival base and the noun. In contrast, the adjective and the noun must agree in French phrases. Therefore, different bases or suffixes can be necessary to realize gender (and number) agreement. 8.2.3.5.1.2 Secondary factors 8.2.3.5.1.2.1 Headedness Both German AN compounds and phrases are right-headed. English AN constructions are right-headed as well. French endocentric compounds are also right-headed. French phrases, however, can be right- or left-headed (Dethloff & Wagner 2007: 68). While some adjectives appear in prenominal position, others occur after the noun (ibid.). A third group of adjectives have a different meaning in pre- and postnominal position (ibid.). Therefore, considering headedness and all types of AN/NA constructions, one sees that French shows a higher degree of overt complexity than German and English. If only typical naming constructions of the three languages are taken into account, the picture does not change. Since French prefers using phrases to express complex lexical concepts, complex naming units can be either right- or leftheaded. This is in opposition to German, which relies on (right-headed) compounds by default, and English, which uses right-headed constructions as well. 8.2.3.5.1.2.2 Stress German AN compounds almost always have initial stress and German AN phrases favor non-initial stress. There are just a few exceptions. Since initial stress represents a typical compound feature in Germanic languages, initial stress is regarded as a marker of English CoLiCos and non-initial stress as a characteristic of PhraLiCos. Stress does not play any role for the compound-phrase distinction in French. Therefore, it can be ignored in this language. Overall, with regard to the secondary factor stress, one observes that the system of AN/NA constructions is more complex in German and English than in French. If one only focuses on typical naming constructions, one notices that initial stress represents a feature of English CoLiCos and a typical

238 

 8 Conclusion

characteristic of German compounds; French phrases, however, are not stressed in any particular way. Hence, German compounds and English CoLiCos are more complex than French phrases in this respect. 8.2.3.5.1.3 Concluding remarks on overt complexity With respect to the system of AN/NA constructions in the three languages under investigation, German shows the highest degree of overt complexity. Both compounds and phrases exist in this language and are defined by the absence/presence of inflectional agreement. Further, German phrases are rather complex because suffixes can change depending on gender, number, case and definiteness. The language also has two stress patterns at its disposal, one of which typically characterizes compounds and one of which usually occurs in phrases. Although French knows both compounds and phrases as well, inflectional agreement is overall simpler than in German. Even if French is more complex than German with respect to headedness, it is less complex with respect to stress. Finally, since only stress is of interest in English, the language must be considered to have the lowest degree of overt complexity. If the analysis is restricted to typical AN/NA naming constructions in the three languages, i.e. to German compounds, French phrases and English constructions with initial stress, French is more complex than German and English. A language user has to pay attention to inflectional agreement only in French phrases but neither in German compounds nor in English constructions with initial stress. Although stress plays a crucial role in the German and English but not in the French constructions, French phrases can be, in opposition to German compounds and English CoLiCos, either left- or right-headed. German compounds are more complex than English CoLiCos because the former, but not the latter, can be exceptionally stressed on a non-initial syllable. 8.2.3.5.2 Hidden complexity Whereas German AN compounds almost always represent naming units, phrases composed of an adjective and a noun are by default descriptive units in this language. In English, AN constructions with initial stress express/name complex lexical concepts but constructions with non-initial stress normally describe phenomena. Since French has only a handful of AN compounds, French AN/NA phrases often fulfil both the descriptive and the naming function. That means, the functional distinction between compounds/CoLiCos (naming units) and phrases/PhraLiCos (descriptive units) is often reliable in German and English but not in French. Therefore, French is more complex in the sense of hidden complexity than German and English, which, in turn, show a comparable degree of complexity.

8.2 Language complexity and the compound-phrase distinction 

 239

8.2.3.5.3 Processing complexity Processing specifically means memorization for the purpose of the current analysis. Since language users normally memorize only naming – and not descriptive – units (Booij 2010a: 169), the discussion is restricted to typical naming ­constructions in the three languages. German compounds showed a memorization advantage in comparison to French phrases. I believe that the result reflects the higher degree of hidden complexity of French phrases. They can serve as both naming and descriptive units and, thus, can have two meanings. Crucially, the comprehension of spoken language was under investigation in my experiment (cf. Chapter 6). After a person heard a specific form, e.g. an AN/NA construction, one or several meanings can come to the mind of the language user. If a German speaker hears an AN compound in this language, she/he immediately knows that the construction’s meaning goes beyond the combination of the two constituent meanings. That means, knowing that the meaning of the compound is not compositional, a German speaker can select a specific non-compositional interpretation. In French, however, the form-meaning correspondence is not straightforward. A phrase can express a descriptive/compositional meaning and, in addition to that, function as a naming unit that semantically differs from the descriptive unit. I believe that the dual function/meaning of French phrases is responsible for the memorization disadvantage.156 We saw in Chapter 6 that the cross-linguistic comparison between German/ French and English could not be realized due to frequency differences among the individual constituents of the complex constructions. Therefore, only the memorization of CoLiCos and PhraLiCos in English was compared (cf. Chapters 6 and 7). Interestingly, Böer et al.’s (2012: Experiment 1) as well as Kotowski et al.’s (2014: Experiment 1) analysis for German is somehow similar to my work on English. While they compared the memorization of German AN compounds with that of German AN phrases, I compared the memorization of English AN CoLiCos with that of English AN PhraLiCos. In all cases, a memorization advantage of compounds (German) / CoLiCos (English) was found and expressed in the greater improvement of these constructions in comparison to phrases (German) / PhraLiCos (English). Nevertheless, I also found a decisive difference between German and English. Take an adjective (e.g. young) and a noun (e.g. tourist) that can be combined to

156 French might have an advantage when it comes to production. Štekauer (2016: 67), who contrasts “the tendency toward economy of expression and the tendency toward semantic transparency” (ibid.), claims that “the former of them […] [is] speaker/writer-friendly and the latter listener/reader-friendly” (ibid.). However, this is only a thought that has not been investigated in the present work.

240 

 8 Conclusion

form a compositional construction (e.g. young tourist). I did not find a memorization advantage of English compositional constructions with initial stress. The combination of the same adjective and noun showed a memorization advantage in German, where the construction was a compound. I claim that the findings are rooted in the distinction between the primary factor, inflectional agreement, and the secondary factor stress. A German compound immediately signals that it has a non-compositional meaning because it differs from the corresponding phrase in its segmental phonology, i.e. it lacks an adjectival suffix expressing agreement between the adjective and the noun. Initial stress alone cannot fulfil the job, as can be seen in the English data. In English AN constructions with initial stress, segmental and suprasegmental/prosodic information are in conflict: While the former calls for a compositional interpretation of, e.g., young tourist, the latter, i.e. initial stress, is only compatible with a non-compositional interpretation. This conflict hinders rather than facilitates processing. English AN constructions only show a memorization advantage if they have, apart from initial stress, a second compound feature, namely non-compositional semantics. 8.2.3.5.4 Summary In German, AN combinations that express/name a complex lexical concept are usually compounds, and not phrases, which are by default descriptive units. Therefore, the structural separation of compounds and phrases is typically reflected in the semantic-functional distinction between naming and descriptive units. This is not the case in French because, in this language, phrases often fulfil both functions. Hence, we see that the system of AN/NA constructions clearly differs between the two languages: While German turns out to be more complex than French if we focus on overt complexity, French has a higher degree of hidden complexity than German. The experimental results showed that the lower degree of hidden complexity of the German compounds caused a memorization advantage, i.e. a lower degree of processing complexity, of these constructions – at least in comprehension. English has the lowest degree of overt complexity and, together with German, a lower degree of hidden complexity than French. With respect to processing complexity, English seems to be located between German and French. That means, it has the potential, i.e. the secondary factor stress, to disambiguate and, thus, to keep hidden complexity at a minimal level. However, this secondary factor does not seem to be as effective as the primary factor.

Appendix Appendix 1: Filler items of the first experimental study Day

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

German

French

English

Altpilot Langtourist Jungroman Dünnkaffee/Dünncafé/Dünncafe Graumotor Blaumuskel

vieux pilote long touriste jeune roman café mince moteur gris muscle bleu

old pilot long tourist young novel thin coffee gray/grey motor blue muscle

Magazin Restaurant Emotion Parlament Journalist Protokoll

magazine restaurant émotion parlement journaliste protocole

magazine restaurant emotion parliament journalist protocol

Alttourist Langmotor Jungkaffee/Jungcafé/Jungcafe Blaupilot Grauroman Dünnmuskel

vieux touriste long moteur jeune café pilote bleu roman gris muscle mince

old tourist long motor young coffee blue pilot gray/grey novel thin muscle

Krokodil Bungalow Zylinder Korruption Saxofon/Saxophon Ambulanz

crocodile bungalow cylindre corruption saxophone ambulance

crocodile bungalow cylinder corruption saxophone ambulance

Altmuskel Langkaffee/Langcafé/Langcafe Jungmotor Dünnroman Graupilot Blautourist

vieux muscle long café jeune moteur roman mince pilote gris touriste bleu

old muscle long coffee young motor thin novel gray/grey pilot blue tourist

Projektor Detektiv

projecteur détective

projector detective

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-009

242 

Day

 Appendix

German

French

English

Kilogramm157 Marathon Optiker Mikrophon/Mikrofon

kilogramme marathon opticien microphone

kilogram/kilogramme marathon optician microphone

Appendix 2: Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of l­ anguage x item type x day (response time, first experimental study) Note: Appendix 2 is subdivided into the subsections Appendix 2.1 to Appendix 2.13. All subsections refer to the results of Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language x item type x day (response time, first experimental study). Appendix 2.1: Comparisons of the control items of EnglishB and the control items of EnglishA on different days Day one: DM1 = 11.9, t1 = 0.37, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 16.6, t2 = 0.46, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 30.5, t1 = 0.95, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 29.2, t2 = 0.81, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −36.0, t1 = −1.12, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −34.9, t2 = −0.97, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 2.2: Comparisons of the PhraLiCos (= experimental items of EnglishB) and the CoLiCos (= experimental items of EnglishA) on different days Day one: DM1 = −55.5, t1 = −1.73, p1 = .988; DM2 = −81.2, t2 = −2.25, p2 = .835; day two: DM1 = −20.2, t1 = −0.63, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −43.0, t2 = −1.19, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −75.5, t1 = −2.35, p1 = .778; DM2 = −71.5, t2 = −1.98, p2 = .945. Appendix 2.3: CoLiCos (comparisons of different days) and PhraLiCos (comparisons of different days) CoLiCos (= experimental items EnglishA): Day two versus day one: DM1 = −44.1, t1 = −1.37, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −61.1, t2 = −1.69, p2 = .990; day three versus day one: DM1 = −60.1, t1 = −1.87, p1 = .971; DM2 = −106.0, t2 = −2.94, p2 = .353; day three versus day two: DM1 = −16.1, t1 = −0.50, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −44.9, t2 = −1.25, p2 = 1.000. 157 A general comment is in order here. Judgments of the morphemic structure of an item can vary from one person to another (Augst 1975: 18, 34). For instance, the German Kilogramm (‘­kilogram’) was considered to be composed of only one free morpheme, namely Gramm (‘gram’), and the bound morpheme kilo (‘kilo’) (cf. also Stein 2007: 97). Another rater might consider Kilo to be a free morpheme (in addition to being a bound morpheme).

Appendix 

 243

PhraLiCos (= experimental items EnglishB): Day two versus day one: DM1 = −8.7, t1 = −0.27, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −22.9, t2 = −0.63, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −80.1, t1 = −2.49, p1 = .678; DM2 = −96.3, t2 = −2.67, p2 = .548; day three versus day two: DM1 = −71.4, t1 = −2.22, p1 = .853; DM2 = −73.4, t2 = −2.03, p2 = .929. Appendix 2.4: EnglishA control items (comparisons of different days) and ­EnglishB control items (comparisons of different days) EnglishA control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = −25.9, t1 = −0.81, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −17.1, t2 = −0.47, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −9.9, t1 = −0.31, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.6, t2 = 0.04, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = 16.0, t1 = 0.50, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 18.7, t2 = 0.52, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = −7.3, t1 = −0.23, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −4.5, t2 = −0.12, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −57.8, t1 = −1.80, p1 = .981; DM2 = −49.8, t2 = −1.38, p2 = .999; day three versus day two: DM1 = −50.6, t1 = −1.57, p1 = .996; DM2 = −45.4, t2 = −1.26, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 2.5: Further comparisons of the control items of different languages/ groups on individual days French versus German: Day one: DM1 = 8.7, t1 = 0.26, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −9.0, t2 = −0.25, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −35.4, t1 = −1.07, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −11.0, t2 = −0.31, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −95.9, t1 = −2.89, p1 = .378; DM2 = −86.8, t2 = −2.40, p2 = .741. French versus EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = 112.5, t1 = 3.40, p1 = .121; DM2 = 116.8, t2 = 3.24, p2 = .188; day two: DM1 = 106.6, t1 = 3.22, p1 = .190; DM2 = 109.6, t2 = 3.04, p2 = .292; day three: DM1 = 20.1, t1 = 0.61, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 19.1, t2 = 0.53, p2 = 1.000. French versus EnglishB: Day one: DM1 = 100.6, t1 = 3.04, p1 = .285; DM2 = 100.3, t2 = 2.78, p2 = .465; day two: DM1 = 76.1, t1 = 2.30, p1 = .811; DM2 = 80.3, t2 = 2.23, p2 = .848; day three: DM1 = 56.1, t1 = 1.69, p1 = .991; DM2 = 54.0, t2 = 1.50, p2 = .998. Appendix 2.6: Further comparisons of the control items of different languages/ groups on individual days EnglishA versus German: Day one: DM1 = −103.9, t1 = −3.23, p1 = .184; DM2 = −125.9, t2 = −3.49, p2 = .100; day two: Subject analysis: See footnote in main text; DM2 = −120.6, t2 = −3.34, p2 = .146; day three: DM1 = −115.9, t1 = −3.61, p1 = .067; DM2 = −105.9, t2 = −2.93, p2 = .356.

244 

 Appendix

Appendix 2.7: Further comparisons of the control items of different languages/ groups on individual days EnglishB versus German: Day one: DM1 = −91.9, t1 = −2.86, p1 = .401; DM2 = −109.3, t2 = −3.03, p2 = .296; day two: DM1 = −111.5, t1 = −3.47, p1 = .099; DM2 = −91.4, t2 = −2.53, p2 = .650; day three: See footnote in main text. Appendix 2.8: Comparisons between the French and the German experimental items on individual days Day one: DM1 = 89.9, t1 = 2.71, p1 = .511; DM2 = 130.1, t2 = 3.61, p2 = .072; day two: DM1 = 48.2, t1 = 1.45, p1 = .999; DM2 = 59.5, t2 = 1.65, p2 = .993; day three: DM1 = −10.6, t1 = −0.32, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 5.4, t2 = 0.15, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 2.9: Further comparisons of the experimental items of different ­languages/groups on individual days EnglishA versus German: Day one: DM1 = −20.5, t1 = −0.64, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 32.9, t2 = 0.91, p2 = 1.000; day two: Subject analysis not allowed due to significant differences between the control items of the languages, DM2 = −4.5, t2 = −0.13, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −35.6, t1 = −1.11, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −36.7, t2 = −1.02, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB versus German: Day one: DM1 = −76.0, t1 = −2.36, p1 = .769; DM2 = −48.3, t2 = −1.34, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −62.1, t1 = −1.93, p1 = .958; DM2 = −47.5, t2 = −1.32, p2 = 1.000; day three: Analyses not allowed due to significant differences between the control items of the languages. French versus EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = 110.3, t1 = 3.33, p1 = .144; DM2 = 97.3, t2 = 2.69, p2 = .527; day two: DM1 = 90.1, t1 = 2.72, p1 = .505; DM2 = 64.0, t2 = 1.77, p2 = .983; day three: DM1 = 24.9, t1 = 0.75, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 42.1, t2 = 1.17, p2 = 1.000. French versus EnglishB: Day one: Significant results, see footnote in the main text; day two: DM1 = 110.3, t1 = 3.33, p1 = .144; DM2 = 107.0, t2 = 2.97, p2 = .335; day three: DM1 = 100.4, t1 = 3.03, p1 = .288; DM2 = 113.6, t2 = 3.15, p2 = .231. Appendix 2.10: German experimental items (comparisons of individual days) Day two versus day one: DM1 = −22.6, t1 = −0.70, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −23.7, t2 = −0.66, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −45.0, t1 = −1.40, p1 = .999; DM2 = −36.4, t2 = −1.01, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −22.4, t1 = −0.70, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −12.7, t2 = −0.35, p2 = 1.000.

Appendix 

 245

Appendix 2.11: French experimental items (remaining comparisons of individual days) Day two versus day one: DM1 = −64.3, t1 = −1.89, p1 = .968; DM2 = −94.3, t2 = −2.61, p2 = .589; day three versus day one: Significant results, see main text; day three versus day two: DM1 = −81.3, t1 = −2.38, p1 = .756; DM2 = −66.9, t2 = −1.85, p2 = .972. Appendix 2.12: German control items (comparisons of different days) and French control items (comparisons of different days) German control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 12.3, t1 = 0.38, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −22.4, t2 = −0.62, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = 2.2, t1 = 0.07, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −18.4, t2 = −0.51, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −10.1, t1 = −0.31, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 4.0, t2 = 0.11, p2 = 1.000. French control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = −31.8, t1 = −0.93, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −24.4, t2 = −0.68, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −102.4, t1 = −3.00, p1 = .306; DM2 = −96.1, t2 = −2.66, p2 = .551; day three versus day two: DM1 = −70.6, t1 = −2.07, p1 = .919; DM2 = −71.7, t2 = −1.99, p2 = .943. Appendix 2.13: Comparisons of the control and the experimental items on ­different days in German and EnglishB German: Day one: DM1 = −89.9, t1 = −2.80, p1 = .447; DM2 = −59.3, t2 = −1.64, p2 = .993; day two: DM1 = −55.0, t1 = −1.71, p1 = .989; DM2 = −58.0, t2 = −1.61, p2 = .995; day three: DM1 = −42.7, t1 = −1.33, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −41.3, t2 = −1.14, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB: Day one: DM1 = −105.9, t1 = −3.30, p1 = .157; DM2 = −120.3, t2 = −3.33, p2 = .149; day two: DM1 = −104.4, t1 = −3.25, p1 = .176; DM2 = −101.9, t2 = −2.82, p2 = .432; day three: DM1 = −83.6, t1 = −2.60, p1 = .597; DM2 = −73.9, t2 = −2.05, p2 = .925. Appendix 3: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of language x day and item type x day (Response time, first experimental study) Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Germanday 1 Germanday 2 Germanday 3

18 (12) 18 (12) 18 (12)

991.6 (987.6) 986.5 (964.6) 970.2 (960.2)

149.1 (80.4) 138.5 (57.9) 150.8 (64.9)

246 

 Appendix

Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Frenchday 1 Frenchday 2 Frenchday 3

16 (12) 16 (12) 16 (12)

1040.9 (1048.1) 992.9 (988.8) 917.0 (919.5)

130.4 (127.9) 100.1 (93.4) 119.5 (96.5)

EnglishAday 1 EnglishAday 2 EnglishAday 3

18 (12) 18 (12) 18 (12)

929.5 (941.1) 894.5 (902.0) 894.5 (888.9)

130.6 (152.7) 118.6 (108.8) 123.7 (72.3)

EnglishBday 1 EnglishBday 2 EnglishBday 3

18 (12) 18 (12) 18 (12)

907.7 (908.8) 899.7 (895.1) 838.7 (835.7)

104.9 (95.2) 116.2 (72.9) 142.3 (66.7)

Controlday 1 Controlday 2 Controlday 3

35 (24) 35 (24) 35 (24)

898.3 (896.9) 885.7 (879.8) 858.1 (856.2)

116.5 (91.6) 107.6 (75.1) 135.8 (72.6)

Experimentalday 1 Experimentalday 2 Experimentalday 3

35 (24) 35 (24) 35 (24)

1032.3 (1045.9) 998.3 (995.4) 951.4 (945.9)

123.8 (110.3) 118.7 (68.6) 131.2 (77.0)

Appendix 4: Non-significant Tukey multiple comparisons of language (response time, first experimental study) French versus German: DM1 = 0.8, t1 = 0.06, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 14.7, t2 = 1.00, p2 = .751; EnglishB versus EnglishA: DM1 = −24.1, t1 = −1.84, p1 = .259; DM2 = −30.8, t2 = −2.09, p2 = .163. Appendix 5: Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of language x item type (response accuracy, first experimental study), comparisons of the experimental items across languages French versus German: DM1 = −5.79, t1 = −1.86, p1 = .578; DM2 = −5.96, t2 = −1.70, p2 = .685; EnglishB versus German: DM1 = −3.09, t1 = −1.02, p1 = .970; DM2 = −2.99, t2 = −0.85, p2 = .989; French versus EnglishA: DM1 = 3.72, t1 = 1.20, p1 = .932; DM2 = 4.38, t2 = 1.25, p2 = .913; French versus EnglishB: DM1 = −2.70, t1 = −0.87, p1 = .988; DM2 = −2.97, t2 = −0.85, p2 = .990; EnglishB versus EnglishA: DM1 = 6.42, t1 = 2.13, p1 = .400; DM2 = 7.35, t2 = 2.10, p2 = .419. EnglishA versus German: See main text. Appendix 6: Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of l­ anguage x item type x day (response accuracy, first experimental study) Note: Appendix 6 is subdivided into the subsections Appendix 6.1 to Appendix 6.4. All subsections refer to the results of Tukey multiple comparisons of

Appendix 

 247

the interaction of language x item type x day (response accuracy, first ­experimental study). Appendix 6.1: Comparisons of the control items of different languages/groups on individual days French versus German: Day one: DM1 = 7.22, t1 = 1.34, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 7.94, t2 = 1.31, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 0.00, t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.00, t2 = 0.00, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −2.55, t1 = −0.47, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −1.62, t2 = −0.27, p2 = 1.000. EnglishA versus German: Day one: DM1 = 9.26, t1 = 1.77, p1 = .984; DM2 = 10.48, t2 = 1.73, p2 = .987; day two: DM1 = −11.11, t1 = −2.13, p1 = .897; DM2 = −11.11, t2 = −1.84, p2 = .975; day three: DM1 = −5.93, t1 = −1.14, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −4.86, t2 = −0.80, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB versus German: Day one: DM1 = 5.37, t1 = 1.03, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 6.25, t2 = 1.03, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −5.56, t1 = −1.06, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.56, t2 = −0.92, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −3.70, t1 = −0.71, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −3.01, t2 = −0.50, p2 = 1.000. French versus EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = −2.04, t1 = −0.38, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −2.55, t2 = −0.42, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 11.11, t1 = 2.07, p1 = .921; DM2 = 11.11, t2 = 1.84, p2 = .975; day three: DM1 = 3.38, t1 = 0.63, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 3.24, t2 = 0.54, p2 = 1.000. French versus EnglishB: Day one: DM1 = 1.85, t1 = 0.34, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.69, t2 = 0.28, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 5.56, t1 = 1.03, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 5.56, t 2 = 0.92, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 1.16, t1 = 0.22, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.39, t2 = 0.23, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB versus EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = −3.89, t1 = −0.75, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −4.23, t2 = −0.70, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 5.56, t1 = 1.06, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 5.56, t2 = 0.92, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 2.22, t1 = 0.43, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.85, t2 = 0.31, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 6.2: Comparisons of the experimental items of different languages/ groups on individual days French versus German: Day one: DM1 = −10.05, t1 = −1.87, p1 = .971; DM2 = −11.09, t2 = −1.83, p2 = .975; day two: DM1 = 0.00, t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.00, t2 = 0.00,

248 

 Appendix

p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −7.31, t1 = −1.36, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −6.78, t2 = −1.12, p2 = 1.000. EnglishA versus German: Day one: DM1 = −3.70, t1 = −0.71, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.26, t2 = −0.87, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −13.33, t1 = −2.55, p1 = .633; DM2 = −14.12, t2 = −2.33, p2 = .787; day three: DM1 = −11.48, t1 = −2.20, p1 = .864; DM2 = −11.64, t2 = −1.92, p2 = .959. EnglishB versus German: Day one: DM1 = −5.56, t1 = −1.06, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.26, t2 = −0.87, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −3.70, t1 = −0.71, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −3.70, t2 = −0.61, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 0.00, t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.00, t2 = 0.00, p2 = 1.000. French versus EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = −6.34, t1 = −1.18, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.83, t2 = −0.96, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 13.33, t1 = 2.48, p1 = .690; DM2 = 14.12, t2 = 2.33, p2 = .787; day three: DM1 = 4.17, t1 = 0.77, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 4.86, t2 = 0.80, p2 = 1.000. French versus EnglishB: Day one: DM1 = −4.49, t1 = −0.83, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.83, t2 = −0.96, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 3.70, t1 = 0.69, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 3.70, t2 = 0.61, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −7.31, t1 = −1.36, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −6.78, t2 = −1.12, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB versus EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = −1.85, t1 = −0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.00, t2 = 0.00, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 9.63, t1 = 1.84, p1 = .975; DM2 = 10.42, t2 = 1.72, p2 = .988; day three: DM1 = 11.48, t1 = 2.20, p1 = .864; DM2 = 11.64, t2 = 1.92, p2 = .959. Appendix 6.3: Comparisons of the control items (on individual days) and ­comparisons of the experimental items (on individual days) for each language/ group German control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 15.56, t1 = 2.98, p1 = .321; DM2 = 16.27, t2 = 2.69, p2 = .533; day three versus day one: DM1 = 11.85, t1 = 2.27, p1 = .826; DM2 = 11.64, t2 = 1.92, p2 = .959; day three versus day two: DM1 = −3.70, t1 = −0.71, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −4.63, t2 = −0.76, p2 = 1.000. French control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 8.33, t1 = 1.51, p1 = .998; DM2 = 8.33, t2 = 1.38, p2 = .999; day three versus day one: DM1 = 2.08, t1 = 0.38, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 2.08, t2 = 0.34, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −6.25, t1 = −1.13, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −6.25, t2 = −1.03, p2 = 1.000.

Appendix 

 249

EnglishA control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = −4.81, t1 = −0.92, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.32, t2 = −0.88, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −3.33, t1 = −0.64, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −3.70, t2 = −0.61, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = 1.48, t1 = 0.28, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.62, t2 = 0.27, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB control items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 4.63, t1 = 0.89, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 4.46, t2 = 0.74, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = 2.78, t1 = 0.53, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 2.38, t2 = 0.39, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −1.85, t1 = −0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −2.08, t2 = −0.34, p2 = 1.000. German experimental items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 3.70, t1 = 0.71, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 4.46, t2 = 0.74, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = 1.85, t1 = 0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 2.61, t2 = 0.43, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −1.85, t1 = −0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −1.85, t2 = −0.31, p2 = 1.000. French experimental items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 13.75, t1 = 2.48, p1 = .686; DM2 = 15.56, t2 = 2.57, p2 = .622; day three versus day one: DM1 = 4.58, t1 = 0.83, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 6.92, t2 = 1.14, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −9.17, t1 = −1.66, p1 = .993; DM2 = −8.63, t2 = −1.43, p2 = .999. EnglishA experimental items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = −5.93, t1 = −1.14, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −4.40, t2 = −0.73, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = −5.93, t1 = −1.14, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −3.77, t2 = −0.62, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = 0.00, t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.63, t2 = 0.10, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB experimental items: Day two versus day one: DM1 = 5.56, t1 = 1.06, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 6.02, t2 = 0.99, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day one: DM1 = 7.41, t1 = 1.42, p1 = .999; DM2 = 7.87, t2 = 1.30, p2 = 1.000; day three versus day two: DM1 = 1.85, t1 = 0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.85, t2 = 0.31, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 6.4: Comparisons of the control and experimental items on individual days and in different languages/groups German: Day one: DM1 = −11.85, t1 = −2.27, p1 = .826; DM2 = −11.81, t2 = −1.95, p2 = .953; day two: DM1 = 0.00, t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.00, t2 = 0.00, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −1.85, t1 = −0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −2.78, t2 = −0.46, p2 = 1.000. French: Day one: DM1 = 5.42, t1 = 0.98, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 7.22, t2 = 1.19, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 0.00, t1 = 0.00, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.00, t2 = 0.00, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 2.92, t1 = 0.53, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 2.38, t2 = 0.39, p2 = 1.000.

250 

 Appendix

EnglishA: Day one: DM1 = 1.11, t1 = 0.21, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 3.94, t2 = 0.65, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 2.22, t1 = 0.43, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 3.01, t2 = 0.50, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 3.70, t1 = 0.71, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 4.00, t2 = 0.66, p2 = 1.000. EnglishB: Day one: DM1 = −0.93, t1 = −0.18, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −0.30, t2 = −0.05, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −1.85, t1 = −0.35, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −1.85, t2 = −0.31, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −5.56, t1 = −1.06, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −5.79, t2 = −0.96, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 7: Numbers of observations (N), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the interactions of language x day and item type x day (Response ­accuracy, first experimental study) Condition

N1 (N2)

M1 (M2)

SD1 (SD2)

Germanday 1 Germanday 2 Germanday 3

18 (12) 18 (12) 18 (12)

90.37 (89.63) 100.00 (100.00) 97.22 (96.76)

13.86 (16.20) 0.00 (0.00) 6.39 (6.02)

Frenchday 1 Frenchday 2 Frenchday 3

16 (12) 16 (12) 16 (12)

88.96 (88.06) 100.00 (100.00) 92.29 (92.56)

14.39 (19.08) 0.00 (0.00) 10.94 (10.01)

EnglishAday 1 EnglishAday 2 EnglishAday 3

18 (12) 18 (12) 18 (12)

93.15 (92.25) 87.78 (87.38) 88.52 (88.51)

10.57 (11.35) 16.05 (12.97) 15.31 (12.57)

EnglishBday 1 EnglishBday 2 EnglishBday 3

18 (12) 18 (12) 18 (12)

90.28 (90.13) 95.37 (95.37) 95.37 (95.25)

14.64 (9.77) 7.68 (8.81) 9.58 (5.88)

Controlday 1 Controlday 2 Controlday 3

35 (24) 35 (24) 35 (24)

89.86 (89.90) 95.71 (95.83) 93.24 (93.00)

13.69 (13.69) 9.34 (8.55) 12.35 (7.88)

Experimentalday 1 Experimentalday 2 Experimentalday 3

35 (24) 35 (24) 35 (24)

91.62 (90.13) 95.62 (95.54) 93.52 (93.54)

12.89 (14.98) 11.08 (9.99) 10.32 (10.75)

Appendix 8: Non-significant Tukey multiple comparisons of language (response accuracy, first experimental study) French versus German: DM1 = −2.11, t1 = −0.96, p1 = .771; DM2 = −1.93, t2 = −0.78, p2 = .864; EnglishB versus German: DM1 = −2.19, t1 = −1.03, p1 = .733; DM2 = −1.88, t2 = −0.76, p2 = .872; French versus EnglishA: DM1 = 3.94, t1 = 1.79, p1 = .281;

Appendix 

 251

DM2 = 4.16, t2 = 1.68, p2 = .338; French versus EnglishB: DM1 = 0.08, t1 = 0.04, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −0.05, t2 = −0.02, p2 = 1.000; EnglishB versus EnglishA: DM1 = 3.86, t1 = 1.81, p1 = .272; DM2 = 4.21, t2 = 1.70, p2 = .328. EnglishA versus German: See main text. Appendix 9: Non-significant Tukey multiple comparisons of day (response accuracy, first experimental study) Day three versus day one: DM1 = 2.66, t1 = 1.42, p1 = .333; DM2 = 3.25, t2 = 1.52, p2 = .285; day three versus day two: DM1 = −2.44, t1 = −1.30, p1 = .397; DM2 = −2.42, t2 = −1.13, p2 = .498. Appendix 10: Screenshots of the posttest (first experimental study) and pretest (second experimental study) (test created with Leiner 2014) First page: Hello and thank you very much for completing this questionnaire that consists of only one page and belongs to my PhD project. The data are treated anonymously and do not tell us anything about your intelligence or other personal qualities. Please answer the following questions. 1. Personal information Please provide the following information. How old are you?   Are you female or male?

female  male  neither ○ ○ ○

Are you a native speaker of English?

yes    no ○ ○

Have you taken classes in Linguistics?

yes    no ○ ○

If you have taken classes in Linguistics, how many?  

252 

 Appendix

2. Judgment of items How easy/difficult is it for you to imagine that the items below exist? For example, a “red car” is probably very easy to imagine, whereas a “deaf chair” is probably very difficult to imagine. Please make your judgment as quickly as possible and without further reflection. Please choose one option for each example. To submit your answers, click on “Next”. thin dress

very very easy ○

very easy difficult easy ○ ○ ○

blue motor

○

○

gray/grey muscle

○

long novel

○

very very very difficult difficult ○ ○

○

○

○

○ ○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

cold hut

○

○

○

○

○

○

fast sock

○

○

○

○

○

○

hard shirt

○

○

○

○

○

○

slow pen

○

○

○

○

○

○

old coffee

○

○

○

○

○

○

thick rope

○

○

○

○

○

○

dry cap

○

○

○

○

○

○

sweet fence

○

○

○

○

○

○

big shelf

○

○

○

○

○

○

hot pipe

○

○

○

○

○

○

sour bike

○

○

○

○

○

○

soft coin

○

○

○

○

○

○

broad hat

○

○

○

○

○

○

rough milk

○

○

○

○

○

○

warm pill

○

○

○

○

○

○

deep knife

○

○

○

○

○

○

thin pilot

○

○

○

○

○

○

 253

Appendix 

loud desk

○

○

○

○

○

○

full lamp

○

○

○

○

○

○

short brush

○

○

○

○

○

○

young tourist

○

○

○

○

○

○

vast tent

○

○

○

○

○

○

sharp nail

○

○

○

○

○

○

tall truck

○

○

○

○

○

○ Next

Marcel Schlechtweg, Universität Kassel (Germany) – 2015 Second page: Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire!

Your answers were transmitted, you may close the browser window or tab now. Marcel Schlechtweg, Universität Kassel (Germany) – 2015 Appendix 11: Filler items of the second experimental study Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

short pen hard brush vast shirt sharp coin soft tent sweet pipe deep cap warm knife broad pill slow hat hot fence dry nail tall desk cold sock loud hut fast shelf full milk

warm coin vast pill hard pipe broad shirt sharp fence hot cap deep tent soft nail slow knife dry pen sweet brush short hat tall sock cold desk thin bike loud shelf sour hut

short pill warm pen hard tent dry fence sharp cap sweet nail soft pipe broad coin vast knife slow shirt hot brush deep hat tall milk loud truck sour desk cold rope thick dress

254 

 Appendix

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

big dress thin lamp rough truck thick bike sour rope

fast milk full rope rough dress big lamp thick truck

fast lamp rough bike big hut thin shelf full sock

Appendix 12: Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (response time, second experimental study) Semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): DM1 = −13.5, t1 = −1.08, p1 = .701; DM2 = −12.9, t2 = −0.93, p2 = .790. Semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH): DM1 = 16.7, t1 = 1.34, p1 = .538; DM2 = 12.2, t2 = 0.88, p2 = .817. PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH) versus semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): DM1 = −30.2, t1 = −2.42, p1 = .073; DM2 = −25.1, t2 = −1.80, p2 = .278. Appendix 13: Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (response time, second experimental study) Note: Appendix 13 is subdivided into the subsections Appendix 13.1 to Appendix 13.2. Both subsections refer to the results of Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (response time, second experimental study). Appendix 13.1: Remaining comparisons of different construction types on ­individual days Semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day one: DM1 = −10.1, t1 = −0.47, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 3.2, t2 = 0.13, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −7.3, t1 = −0.34, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −13.5, t2 = −0.56, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −23.2, t1 = −1.07, p1 = .996; DM2 = −28.4, t2 = −1.18, p2 = .990.

Appendix 

 255

Semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH): Day one: DM1 = 38.5, t1 = 1.78, p1 = .828; DM2 = 33.1, t2 = 1.37, p2 = .966; day two: DM1 = 3.6, t1 = 0.16, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −2.3, t2 = −0.10, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 8.0, t1 = 0.37, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 5.8, t2 = 0.24, p2 = 1.000. Semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt): Day one: DM1 = −68.6, t1 = −3.18, p1 = .066; DM2 = −48.0, t2 = −1.99, p2 = .698; day two: DM1 = −43.4, t1 = −2.01, p1 = .687; DM2 = −52.6, t2 = −2.18, p2 = .566; day three: DM1 = −44.2, t1 = −2.05, p1 = .661; DM2 = −46.6, t2 = −1.93, p2 = .735. PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH) versus semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day one: DM1 = −48.6, t1 = −2.25, p1 = .514; DM2 = −29.9, t2 = −1.24, p2 = .984; day two: DM1 = −10.8, t1 = −0.50, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −11.2, t2 = −0.46, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −31.2, t1 = −1.44, p1 = .955; DM2 = −34.2, t2 = −1.42, p2 = .957. CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt) versus semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day one: DM1 = 58.6, t1 = 2.71, p1 = .220; DM2 = 51.2, t2 = 2.12, p2 = .608; day two: DM1 = 36.1, t1 = 1.67, p1 = .881; DM2 = 39.1, t2 = 1.62, p2 = .896; day three: DM1 = 21.0, t1 = 0.97, p1 = .998; DM2 = 18.2, t2 = 0.76, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 13.2: Comparisons of the individual days of the two remaining ­construction types Semantically non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT): Day two versus day one: DM1 = −83.7, t1 = −3.88, p1 = .006; DM2 = −103.9, t2 = −4.31, p2 = .002; day three versus day one: DM1 = −173.2, t1 = −8.02, p1 = .000; DM2 = −185.6, t2 = −7.70, p2 = .000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −89.4, t1 = −4.14, p1 = .002; DM2 = −81.8, t2 = −3.39, p2 = .044. Semantically compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day two versus day one: DM1 = −86.5, t1 = −4.01, p1 = .004; DM2 = −87.2, t2 = −3.62, p2 = .023; day three versus day one: DM1 = −160.1, t1 = −7.41, p1 = .000; DM2 = −154.0, t2 = −6.39, p2 = .000; day three versus day two: DM1 = −73.5, t1 = −3.41, p1 = .032; DM2 = −66.8, t2 = −2.77, p2 = .208. Appendix 14: Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x day (response time, second experimental study), comparisons of

256 

 Appendix

the experimental items with non-initial stress and the experimental items with initial stress Day two: DM1 = −27.1, t1 = −1.77, p1 = .482; DM2 = −31.9, t2 = −1.87, p2 = .426; day three: DM1 = −37.7, t1 = −2.47, p1 = .133; DM2 = −40.4, t2 = −2.37, p2 = .177. Appendix 15: Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of semantic compositionality x day (response time, second experimental study), comparisons of the semantically non-compositional and the ­ compositional ­experimental items Day two: DM1 = 19.8, t1 = 1.30, p1 = .785; DM2 = 18.4, t2 = 1.08, p2 = .888; day three: DM1 = 14.5, t1 = 0.95, p1 = .933; DM2 = 12.0, t2 = 0.70, p2 = .981. Appendix 16: Remaining Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality (response accuracy, second experimental study) Non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): DM1 = −2.70, t1 = −1.44, p1 = .471; DM2 = −3.11, t2 = −1.48, p2 = .454. Non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt): DM1 = 0.59, t1 = 0.32, p1 = .989; DM2 = −0.45, t2 = −0.22, p2 = .996. PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH) versus compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): DM1 = 2.41, t1 = 1.29, p1 = .569; DM2 = 1.63, t2 = 0.78, p2 = .865. CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt) versus compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): DM1 = −3.28, t1 = −1.76, p1 = .293; DM2 = −2.66, t2 = −1.26, p2 = .588. Appendix 17: Relevant Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x semantic compositionality x day (response accuracy, second experimental study) Note: Appendix 17 is subdivided into the subsections Appendix 17.1 to Appendix 17.3. All subsections refer to results of Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction

Appendix 

 257

of stress x semantic compositionality x day (response accuracy, second experimental study). Appendix 17.1: Comparisons of the PhraLiCos and CoLiCos on individual days Day one: DM1 = 9.82, t1 = 3.04, p1 = .098; DM2 = 6.31, t2 = 1.73, p2 = .850; day two: DM1 = 3.97, t1 = 1.23, p1 = .987; DM2 = 3.39, t2 = 0.93, p2 = .999; day three: DM1 = 3.28, t1 = 1.02, p1 = .997; DM2 = 3.18, t2 = 0.87, p2 = .999. Appendix 17.2: Remaining comparisons of different construction types on ­individual days Non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day one: DM1 = −3.09, t1 = −0.96, p1 = .998; DM2 = −4.47, t2 = −1.22, p2 = .986; day two: DM1 = −6.18, t1 = −1.91, p1 = .753; DM2 = −6.04, t2 = −1.66, p2 = .883; day three: DM1 = 1.18, t1 = 0.36, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 1.17, t2 = 0.32, p2 = 1.000. Non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt): Day one: DM1 = 2.75, t1 = 0.85, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.70, t2 = 0.19, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = −4.66, t1 = −1.44, p1 = .955; DM2 = −5.57, t2 = −1.53, p2 = .929; day three: DM1 = 3.68, t1 = 1.14, p1 = .993; DM2 = 3.50, t2 = 0.96, p2 = .998. Non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT) versus ­PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH): Day one: DM1 = −7.07, t1 = −2.19, p1 = .558; DM2 = −5.60, t2 = −1.54, p2 = .927; day two: DM1 = −8.63, t1 = −2.67, p1 = .242; DM2 = −8.96, t2 = −2.46, p2 = .379; day three: DM1 = 0.39, t1 = 0.12, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.32, t2 = 0.09, p2 = 1.000. PhraLiCos (e.g. short BRUSH) versus compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day one: DM1 = 3.99, t1 = 1.23, p1 = .986; DM2 = 1.14, t2 = 0.31, p2 = 1.000; day two: DM1 = 2.45, t1 = 0.76, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 2.92, t2 = 0.80, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = 0.78, t1 = 0.24, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.84, t2 = 0.23, p2 = 1.000. CoLiCos (e.g. HARD shirt) versus compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day one: DM1 = −5.83, t1 = −1.80, p1 = .816; DM2 = −5.17, t2 = −1.42, p2 = .957; day two: DM1 = −1.52, t1 = −0.47, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −0.47, t2 = −0.13, p2 = 1.000; day three: DM1 = −2.50, t1 = −0.77, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −2.34, t2 = −0.64, p2 = 1.000.

258 

 Appendix

Appendix 17.3: Comparisons of the individual days of the two remaining construction types Compositional items with initial stress (e.g. SHORT brush): Day two versus day one: DM1 = 9.07, t1 = 2.81, p1 = .177; DM2 = 8.33, t2 = 2.29, p2 = .494; day three versus day one: DM1 = 9.66, t1 = 2.99, p1 = .112; DM2 = 8.98, t2 = 2.46, p2 = .376; day three versus day two: DM1 = 0.59, t1 = 0.18, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = 0.64, t2 = 0.18, p2 = 1.000. Non-compositional items with non-initial stress (e.g. hard SHIRT): Day two versus day one: DM1 = 5.98, t1 = 1.85, p1 = .790; DM2 = 6.76, t2 = 1.85, p2 = .784; day three versus day one: DM1 = 13.92, t1 = 4.31, p1 = .001; DM2 = 14.61, t2 = 4.01, p2 = .006; day three versus day two: DM1 = 7.94, t1 = 2.46, p1 = .367; DM2 = 7.85, t2 = 2.15, p2 = .586. Appendix 18: Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x day (response accuracy, second experimental study) Note: Appendix 18 is subdivided into the subsections Appendix 18.1 to Appendix 18.3. All subsections refer to results of Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of stress x day (response accuracy, second experimental study). Appendix 18.1: Comparisons of the experimental items with non-initial stress and the experimental items with initial stress on different days Day one: DM1 = 3.37, t1 = 1.47, p1 = .682; DM2 = 0.92, t2 = 0.36, p2 = .999; day two: DM1 = −1.10, t1 = −0.48, p1 = .997; DM2 = −1.33, t2 = −0.51, p2 = .995; day three: DM1 = 2.23, t1 = 0.98, p1 = .926; DM2 = 2.17, t2 = 0.84, p2 = .959. Appendix 18.2: Remaining comparison of the experimental items with initial stress on different days Day three versus day two: DM1 = 0.10, t1 = 0.04, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −0.29, t2 = −0.11, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 18.3: Remaining comparison of the experimental items with non-initial stress on different days Day three versus day two: DM1 = 3.43, t1 = 1.50, p1 = .663; DM2 = 3.21, t2 = 1.25, p2 = .813.

Appendix 

 259

Appendix 19: Tukey multiple comparisons of the interaction of semantic ­compositionality x day (response accuracy, second experimental study) Note: Appendix 19 is subdivided into the subsections Appendix 19.1 to ­Appendix 19.3. All subsections refer to results of Tukey multiple comparisons of the ­interaction of semantic compositionality x day (response accuracy, second experimental study). Appendix 19.1: Comparisons of the semantically non-compositional and the ­compositional experimental items on different days Day one: DM1 = −6.45, t1 = −2.82, p1 = .054; DM2 = −5.39, t2 = −2.09, p2 = .301; day two: DM1 = −5.07, t1 = −2.22, p1 = .228; DM2 = −4.72, t2 = −1.83, p2 = .452; day three: DM1 = −1.05, t1 = −0.46, p1 = .997; DM2 = −1.01, t2 = −0.39, p2 = .999. Appendix 19.2: Remaining comparison of the semantically non-compositional experimental items on different days Day three versus day two: DM1 = 3.77, t1 = 1.65, p1 = .564; DM2 = 3.31, t2 = 1.29, p2 = .792. Appendix 19.3: Remaining comparison of the semantically compositional ­experimental items on different days Day three versus day two: DM1 = −0.25, t1 = −0.11, p1 = 1.000; DM2 = −0.39, t2 = −0.15, p2 = 1.000. Appendix 20: Remaining Tukey multiple comparison of day (response ­accuracy, second experimental study) Day three versus day two: DM1 = 1.76, t1 = 1.09, p1 = .519; DM2 = 1.46, t2 = 0.80, p2 = .703.

References Abbuhl, Rebekha & Gass, Susan & Mackey, Alison. 2013. Experimental research design. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 116–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aboh, Enoch O. & Smith, Norval. 2009. Simplicity, simplification, complexity and complexification: Where have the interfaces gone? In Aboh, Enoch O. & Smith, Norval (eds.), Complex processes in new languages (Creole Language Library (CLL) 35), 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ackema, Peter. 2014. Japanese causatives are not relevant to lexical integrity. Studia Linguistica 68(2). 169–197. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2002. Syntactic atomicity. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6(2). 93–128. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2005. Word-formation in optimality theory. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 285–313. Dordrecht: Springer. Adams, Valerie. 1973. An introduction to Modern English word-formation (English Language Series 7). London: Longman. Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited/Longman. Albert, Ruth & Marx, Nicole. 2010. Empirisches Arbeiten in Linguistik und Sprachlehrforschung: Anleitung zu quantitativen Studien von der Planungsphase bis zum Forschungsbericht. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Albert, Ruth & Marx, Nicole. 2014. Empirisches Arbeiten in Linguistik und Sprachlehrforschung: Anleitung zu quantitativen Studien von der Planungsphase bis zum Forschungsbericht. 2nd, revised and updated edn. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Allen, Margaret Reece. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut (Doctoral dissertation). Altmann, Hans. 2011. Prüfungswissen Wortbildung. 3rd, revised edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13(4). 571–612. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, Stephen R. 2015. A short history of morphological theory. To appear in Audring, Jenny & Masini, Francesca (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://cowgill.ling.yale.edu/sra/short-history.pdf (Accessed on July 5, 2016). Archangeli, Diana. 1997. Optimality Theory: An introduction to Linguistics in the 1990s. In Archangeli, Diana & Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.), Optimality Theory: An overview, 1–32. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Arnaud, Pierre J.L. 2016. Categorizing the modification relations in French relational subordinative [NN]N compounds. In ten Hacken, Pius (ed.), The semantics of compounding, 71–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnaud, Pierre J.L. & Renner, Vincent. 2014. English and French [NN]N lexical units: A categorical, morphological and semantic comparison. Word Structure 7(1). 1–28.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110570861-010

262 

 References

Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2011. Towards an exemplar-based model of stress in English noun-noun compounds. Journal of Linguistics 47(3). 549–585. Aronoff, Mark. 2000. Morphology between lexicon and grammar. In Booij, Geert & Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17.1), 344–349. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Aronoff, Mark. 2007. Language: Between words and grammar. In Jarema, Gonia & Libben, Gary (eds.), The mental lexicon: Core perspectives, 55–79. Oxford: Elsevier. Aronoff, Mark & Anshen, Frank. 2001. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 237–247. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Augst, Gerhard. 1975. Lexikon zur Wortbildung: Morpheminventar A-G (Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache Mannheim 24.1). Tübingen: TBL Verlag Gunter Narr. Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Baayen, R. Harald. 2013. Multivariate statistics. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 337–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baayen, R. Harald & Schreuder, Robert. 1999. War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a noninteractive activation parallel dual-route model. Brain and Language 68. 27–32. Baayen, R. Harald & Dijkstra, Ton & Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 94–117. Baddeley, Alan D. 2009. Memory and aging. In Baddeley, Alan D. & Eysenck, Michael W. & Anderson, Michael C. (eds.), Memory, 293–315. Hove: Psychology Press. Baddeley, Alan D. & Thomson, Neil & Buchanan, Mary. 1975. Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14(6). 575–589. Baerman, Matthew & Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity: An introduction. In Baerman, Matthew & Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 3–10. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3). 373–415. Baker, Mark C. 1992. Morphological classes and grammatical organization. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 89–106. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Baker, Mark C. 1998. Comments on the paper by Sadock. In Lapointe, Steven G. & Brentari, Diane K. & Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 188–212. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications (Center for the Study of Language and Information). Bakken, Kristin. 2006. Lexicalization. In Brown, Keith & Anderson, Anne H. & Bauer, Laurie & Berns, Margie & Hirst, Graeme & Miller, Jim (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 106–108. 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier. Barz, Irmhild. 1993. Graphische Varianten bei der substantivischen Komposition. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 30(3). 167–172. Barz, Irmhild. 1996. Komposition und Kollokation. In Knobloch, Clemens & Schaeder, Burkhard (eds.), Nomination: Fachsprachlich und gemeinsprachlich, 127–146. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

References 

 263

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie. 1998. When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics 2(1). 65–86. Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Compounding. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook: Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20.1), 695–707. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bauer, Laurie. 2004. Adjectives, compounds, and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(1) (Worlds of Words – A tribute to Arne Zettersten). 7–22. Bauer, Laurie. 2005. The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Kastovsky, Dieter & Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its demarcations: Selected papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 264), 97–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bauer, Laurie. 2009. Typology of compounds. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 343–356. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Laurie & Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol. 2015. Introduction. In Bauer, Laurie & Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Semantics of complex words (Studies in Morphology 3), 1–8. Heidelberg: Springer. Bauer, Laurie & Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Béchade, Hervé-D. 1992. Phonétique et morphologie du français moderne et contemporain. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Bell, Melanie J. 2011. At the boundary of morphology and syntax: Noun noun constructions in English. In Galani, Alexandra & Hicks, Glyn & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) 178), 137–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bell, Melanie J. 2012. The English noun-noun construct: A morphological and syntactic object. In Ralli, Angela & Booij, Geert & Scalise, Sergio & Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.), Morphology and the architecture of the grammar: On-line proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011, 59–91. University of Patras: http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/mmm. http://pwpl.lis.upatras. gr/index.php/mmm/article/viewFile/2424/2683 (Accessed on July 8, 2016). Bell, Melanie J. & Plag, Ingo. 2012. Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English. Journal of Linguistics 48(3). 485–520. Bell, Melanie J. & Plag, Ingo. 2013. Informativity and analogy in English compound stress. Word Structure 6(2). 129–155. Bell, Melanie J. & Schäfer, Martin. 2016. Modelling semantic transparency. Morphology 26(2). 157–199. Berg, Thomas. 2012. The cohesiveness of English and German compounds. The Mental Lexicon 7(1). 1–33. Bernardini, Silvia & Baroni, Marco & Evert, Stefan. 2006. A WaCky introduction. In Baroni, Marco & Bernardini, Silvia (eds.), Wacky! Working papers on the web as corpus, 9–40. Bologna: Gedit Edizioni. http://wackybook.sslmit.unibo.it/ (Accessed on January 7, 2015). Bibliographisches Institut GmbH. 2016. Duden. http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/ Rotwein (Accessed on July 6, 2016), http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Storch

264 

 References

(Accessed on August 4, 2016), http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Sohnespflicht (Accessed on September 27, 2016), http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Heiszwasser (Accessed on October 7, 2016), http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Jungvogel (Accessed on October 7, 2016). Bickerton, Derek. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bickerton, Derek. 1995. Language and human behavior. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Bisang, Walter. 2009. On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Sampson, Geoffrey & Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (Studies in the Evolution of Language 13), 34–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bisetto, Antonietta & Scalise, Sergio. 1999. Compounding: Morphology and/or syntax? In Mereu, Lunella (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180), 31–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook: Volume 2 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20.2), 1596–1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933/1935. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Böer, Katja & Kotowski, Sven & Härtl, Holden. 2012. Nominal composition and the demarcation between morphology and syntax: Grammatical, variational and cognitive factors. In Fludernik, Monika & Kohlmann, Benjamin (eds.), Anglistentag 2011 Freiburg: Proceedings, 63–74. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier (WVT). Boersma, Paul. 2001. PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9/10). 341–347. Boersma, Paul. 2013. Acoustic analysis. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 375–396. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2012. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]: Version 5.3.13. http://www.praat.org/ (Accessed on April 19, 2012). Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2014. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]: Version 5.4.02. http://www.praat.org/ (Accessed on December 18, 2014). Bölte, Jens & Dohmes, Petra & Zwitserlood, Pienie. 2013. Interference and facilitation in spoken word production: Effects of morphologically and semantically related context stimuli on picture naming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 42(3). 255–280. Booij, Geert E. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), Advances in nonlinear phonology, 143–160. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14(4). 301–327. Booij, Geert. 2005. Construction-dependent morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio IV.2. 163–178. Booij, Geert. 2009a. Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. In Scalise, Sergio & Magni, Elisabetta & Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of language today (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 76), 83–100. Berlin: Springer. Booij, Geert. 2009b. Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. Word Structure 2(2). 219–240. Booij, Geert. 2010a. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert. 2010b. Construction Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 1–13.

References 

 265

Booij, Geert. 2012. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert. 2014. Language use and the architecture of grammar: A Construction Morphology perspective. Suvremena lingvistika 40(78). 193–212. Booij, Geert & Audring, Jenny. 2015. Construction Morphology and the Parallel Architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science. 1–26. Borer, Hagit. 1991. The causative-inchoative alternation: A case study in parallel morphology. The Linguistic Review 8. 119–158. Borthen, Kaja. 2007. The correspondence between cognitive status and the form of kind-referring NPs. In Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron (eds.), The grammar-pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 155), 143–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bortz, Jürgen. 1993. Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler. 4th, entirely revised edn. Berlin: Springer. Botha, Rudolf P. 1981. A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounding. In Moortgat, Michael & van der Hulst, Harry & Hoekstra, Teun (eds.), The scope of lexical rules, 1–77. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Botha, Rudolf P. 1984. Morphological mechanisms: Lexicalist analyses of synthetic compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces: Why languages vary. Bingley: Emerald. Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13(2). 181–254. Broccias, Cristiano. 2013. Cognitive grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 191–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bronk, Maria & Zwitserlood, Pienie & Bölte, Jens. 2013. Manipulations of word frequency reveal differences in the processing of morphologically complex and simple words in German. Frontiers in Psychology 4. 1–14. Brysbaert, Marc & New, Boris. 2009. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41(4). 977–990. Buchstaller, Isabelle & Khattab, Ghada. 2013. Population samples. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 74–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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 Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 253–281. Hamburg: Buske. Bühl, Achim & Zöfel, Peter. 2002. SPSS 11: Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse unter Windows. 8th, revised and extended edn. München: Pearson Studium. Bußmann, Hadumod. 2008. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th, revised and supplemented edn. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.

266 

 References

Butler, Christopher. 1985. Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Butterworth, Brian. 1983. Lexical representation. In Butterworth, Brian (ed.), Language production: Volume 2: Development, writing and other language processes, 257–294. London: Academic Press, Inc. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological Studies in Language (TSL) 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 119–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Bybee, Joan L. 1995a. Diachronic and typological properties of morphology and their implications for representation. In Feldman, Laurie Beth (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 225–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bybee, Joan L. 1995b. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5). 425–455. Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan L. & Slobin, Dan I. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58(2). 265–289. Caldwell-Harris, Catherine & Berant, Jonathan & Edelman, Shimon. 2012. Measuring mental entrenchment of phrases with perceptual identification, familiarity ratings, and corpus frequency statistics. In Divjak, Dagmar & Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Frequency effects in language representation (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 244.2), 165–194. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Cappelle, Bert & Shtyrov, Yury & Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2010. Heating up or cooling down the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115. 189–201. Caramazza, Alfonso & Laudanna, Alessandro & Romani, Cristina. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition 28(3). 297–332. Caramazza, Alfonso & Miceli, Gabriele & Silveri, M. Caterina & Laudanna, Alessandro. 1985. Reading mechanisms and the organisation of the lexicon: Evidence from acquired dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2(1). 81–114. Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation). Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2005. Phrases inside compounds: A puzzle for lexicon-free morphology. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(3). 34–42. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2010. The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catach, Nina. 1981. Orthographe et lexicographie: Les mots composés. Paris: Nathan. Chen, Aoju. 2012. The prosodic investigation of information structure. In Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate (eds.), The expression of information structure (The Expression of Cognitive Categories (ECC) 5), 249–286. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Chen, Train-Min & Chen, Jenn-Yeu. 2006. Morphological encoding in the production of compound words in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 491–514. Chetail, Fabienne. 2014. Effect of number of syllables in visual word recognition: New insights from the lexical decision task. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(10). 1249–1256. Chialant, Doriana & Caramazza, Alfonso. 1995. Where is morphology and how is it processed? The case of written word recognition. In Feldman, Laurie Beth (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 55–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

References 

 267

Chiarelli, Valentina & Yagoubi, Radouane El & Mondini, Sara & Danieli, Morena & Perrone, Gelsomina & Semenza, Carlo. 2007. The electrophysiological correlates of noun-noun compounds. Brain and Language 103. 20–21. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company (A Xerox Company). Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2). 239–297. Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(6). 991–1013. Clahsen, Harald. 2006a. Dual-mechanism morphology. In Brown, Keith & Anderson, Anne H. & Bauer, Laurie & Berns, Margie & Hirst, Graeme & Miller, Jim (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 1–5. 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier. Clahsen, Harald. 2006b. Linguistic perspectives on morphological processing. In Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.), Advances in the theory of the lexicon (Interface Explorations 13), 355–388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Clahsen, Harald & Almazan, Mayella. 2001. Compounding and inflection in language impairment: Evidence from Williams Syndrome (and SLI). Lingua 111(10). 729–757. Clahsen, Harald & Eisenbeiß, Sonja & Sonnenstuhl-Henning, Ingrid. 1997. Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words. Theoretical Linguistics 23(3). 201–249. Clark, Eve V. 1980. Lexical innovations: How children learn to create new words. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 18. 1–24. Clark, Eve V. 1998. Lexical creativity in French-speaking children. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 17(2). 513–530. Clark, Eve V. 2001. Morphology in language acquisition. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 374–389. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Clark, Eve V. 2016. First language acquisition. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Eve V. & Gelman, Susan A. & Lane, Nancy M. 1985. Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56(1). 84–94. Clark, Herbert H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(4). 335–359. Corbett, Greville G. 2001. Morphology and agreement. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 191–205. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Corbin, Danielle. 1997. Locutions, composés, unités polylexématiques: Lexicalisation et mode de construction. In Martins-Baltar, Michel (ed.), La locution entre langue et usages, 53–101. Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex: ENS Éditions Fontenay/Saint-Cloud. Coulmas, Florian. 1985. Lexikalisierung von Syntagmen. In Schwarze, Christoph & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Handbuch der Lexikologie, 250–268. Königstein: Athenäum. Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culicover, Peter W. 2013. Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cutler, Anne. 1984. Stress and accent in language production and understanding. In Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm: Studies in discourse phonology (Research in Text Theory 8), 77–90. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

268 

 References

Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dahl, Östen. 2009. Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: The case of Elfdalian and Swedish. In Sampson, Geoffrey & Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (Studies in the Evolution of Language 13), 50–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dardano, Maurizio. 1978. La comprensione delle parole nell’Italiano di Oggi. Roma: Bulzoni Editore. Dell, Gary S. & Gordon, Jean K. 2003. Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes? In Schiller, Niels O. & Meyer, Antje S. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (Phonology and Phonetics 6), 9–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dethloff, Uwe & Wagner, Horst. 2007. Die französische Grammatik: Regeln, Anwendung, Training. 2nd edn. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 2005. Decomposing compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(3). 14–33. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 2009. Why are compounds a part of human language? A view from asymmetry theory. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 145–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 14). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax (Janua Linguarum Series Maior 107). Berlin: Mouton Publishers. Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective classes: A crosslinguistic typology, 1–49 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dohmes, Petra & Zwitserlood, Pienie & Bölte, Jens. 2004. The impact of semantic transparency of morphologically complex words on picture naming. Brain and Language 90. 203–212. Don, Jan. 2014. Morphological theory and the morphology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Donalies, Elke. 2003. Hochzeitstorte, laskaparasol, elmas küpe, cow’s milk, casa de campo, cigarette-filtre, ricasdueñas …: Was ist eigentlich ein Kompositum? Deutsche Sprache 31. 76–93. Donalies, Elke. 2005. Die Wortbildung des Deutschen: Ein Überblick (Studien zur deutschen Sprache: Forschungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 27). 2nd, revised edn. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Dormann, Carsten F. 2013. Parametrische Statistik: Verteilungen, maximum likelihood und GLM in R. Berlin: Springer Spektrum. Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53(4). 810–842. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987. Morphological islands: Constraint or preference? In Steele, Ross & Threadgold, Terry (eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday: Volume 2, 71–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References 

 269

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2006. Compound types. In Libben, Gary & Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The representation and processing of compound words, 23–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drews, Etta & Zwitserlood, Pienie & Bolwiender, Agnes & Heuer, Uwe. 1994. Lexikalische Repräsentation morphologischer Strukturen. In Felix, Sascha W. & Habel, Christopher & Rickheit, Gert (eds.), Kognitive Linguistik: Repräsentation und Prozesse, 273–298. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Duñabeitia, Jon Andoni & Perea, Manuel & Carreiras, Manuel. 2007. The role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from Basque and Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(6). 1171–1176. Dupoux, Emmanuel & Pallier, Christophe & Sebastián, Núria & Mehler, Jacques. 1997. A destressing “deafness” in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36. 406–421. Dupoux, Emmanuel & Sebastián-Gallés, Núria & Navarrete, Eduardo & Peperkamp, Sharon. 2008. Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106(2). 682–706. Ebert, Christian & Ebert, Cornelia. 2010. Methoden. In Carstensen, Kai-Uwe & Ebert, Christian & Ebert, Cornelia & Jektat, Susanne & Klabunde, Ralf & Langer, Hagen (eds.), Computerlinguistik und Sprachtechnologie: Eine Einführung, 169–479. 3rd, revised and extended edn. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Eisenberg, Peter. 2002. Struktur und Akzent komplexer Komposita. In Restle, David & Zaefferer, Dietmar (eds.), Sounds and systems: Studies in structure and change: A Festschrift for Theo Vennemann (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 141), 349–365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Band 1: Das Wort. 3rd, revised edn. Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Melzer. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4). 555–595. Erben, Johannes. 2000. Einführung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre (Grundlagen der Germanistik 17). 4th, updated and supplemented edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Fabb, Nigel. 2001. Compounding. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 66–83. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Fábregas, Antonio. 2016. On a grammatically relevant definition of word and why it belongs to syntax. To appear in Proceedings of Sylex 2. https://www.academia.edu/667065/On_a_ grammatically_relevant_definition_of_word_and_why_it_belongs_to_syntax (Accessed on July 6, 2016). Fábregas, Antonio & Scalise, Sergio. 2012. Morphology: From data to theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fahrmeir, Ludwig & Künstler, Rita & Pigeot, Iris & Tutz, Gerhard. 2003. Statistik: Der Weg zur Datenanalyse. 4th, revised edn. Berlin: Springer. Farnetani, Edda & Torsello, Carol Taylor & Cosi, Piero. 1988. English compounds versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse: An acoustic and perceptual study. Language and Speech 31(2). 157–180. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud & Fenk, August. 2008. Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In Miestamo, Matti & Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 94), 43–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2009. Productivity in English word-formation: An approach to N+N compounding (European University Studies: Series XXI: Linguistics 341). Bern: Peter Lang.

270 

 References

Fiedler, Sabine. 2007. English phraseology: A coursebook. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Finegan, Edward. 2015. Language: Its structure and use. 7th edn. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Fiorentino, Robert & Poeppel, David. 2007a. Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(7). 953–1000. Fiorentino, Robert & Poeppel, David. 2007b. Processing of compound words: An MEG study. Brain and Language 103. 18–19. Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1982. Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1996. Phraseologische, terminologische und onymische Wortgruppen als Nominationseinheiten. In Knobloch, Clemens & Schaeder, Burkhard (eds.), Nomination: Fachsprachlich und gemeinsprachlich, 147–170. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1997. Das Zusammenwirken von Wortbildung und Phraseologisierung in der Entwicklung des Wortschatzes. In Wimmer, Rainer & Berens, Franz-Josef (eds.), Wortbildung und Phraseologie (Studien zur deutschen Sprache: Forschungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 9), 9–24. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Forster, Kenneth I. & Davis, Chris. 1984. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10(4). 680–698. Frauenfelder, Uli H. & Schreuder, Robert. 1992. Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 165–183. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert & Hyams, Nina. 2011. An introduction to language. 9th edn. Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Fudge, Erik. 1984. English word-stress. London: George Allen & Unwin. Gabriel, Christoph & Meisenburg, Trudel. 2007. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Gaeta, Livio. 2015. Lexeme formation in a conscious approach to the lexicon. In Bauer, Laurie & Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Semantics of complex words (Studies in Morphology 3), 115–141. Heidelberg: Springer. Gaeta, Livio & Ricca, Davide. 2009. Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Rivista di Linguistica 21(1). 35–70. Gaeta, Livio & Zeldes, Amir. 2012. Deutsche Komposita zwischen Syntax und Morphologie: Ein korpusbasierter Ansatz. In Gaeta, Livio & Schlücker, Barbara (eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache: Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 46), 197–217. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gagné, Christina L. 2002. Lexical and relational influences on the processing of novel compounds. Brain and Language 81. 723–735. Gagné, Christina L. 2009. Psycholinguistic perspectives. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 255–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gagné, Christina L. & Spalding, Thomas L. 2006a. Conceptual combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. In Libben, Gary & Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The representation and processing of compound words, 145–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gagné, Christina L. & Spalding, Thomas L. 2006b. Using conceptual combination research to better understand novel compound words. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3(2). 9–16.

References 

 271

Gagné, Christina L. & Spalding, Thomas L. 2009. Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language 60. 20–35. Gagné, Christina L. & Spalding, Thomas L. 2010. Relational competition during compound interpretation. In Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311), 287–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gagné, Christina L. & Marchak, Kristan A. & Spalding, Thomas L. 2010. Meaning predictability and compound interpretation: A psycholinguistic investigation. Word Structure 3(2). 234–251. Gallmann, Peter. 2009. Die flektierbaren Wortarten: Das Substantiv (Nomen). In Dudenredaktion (eds.), Duden: Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch, 145–248. 8th, revised edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Gamache, Jessica L. 2013. Lexical bias and prosodic cues: An eye-tracking study of compound/ phrase disambiguation. Proceedings of the Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Montreal. https://msu.edu/~gamache1/Gamache%202013%20ASA.pdf (Accessed on May 13, 2016). Gargesh, Ravinder. 2008. Indian English: Phonology. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, 231–243. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gaskell, M. Gareth & Dumay, Nicolas. 2003. Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition 89(2). 105–132. Gell-Mann, Murray. 1994. The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York, NY: A W.H. Freeman/Owl Book (Henry Holt and Company). Gelman, Susan A. & Wilcox, Sharon A. & Clark, Eve V. 1989. Conceptual and lexical hierarchies in young children. Cognitive Development 4(4). 309–326. Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8(1). 1–24. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2005a. Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon-syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics 41(3). 571–591. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2005b. Lexicalism and modular overlap in English: A comment on Sergio Scalise & Emiliano Guevara: The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of the lexicon. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(2). 43–62. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2009a. Compounding and lexicalism. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 178–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2009b. The English compound stress myth. Word Structure 2(1). 1–17. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2015. Lexical structures: Compounding and the modules of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Giraudo, Hélène & Grainger, Jonathan. 2000. Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4/5). 421–444. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction: Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

272 

 References

Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch-accent: A typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, 83–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gramley, Stephan & Pätzold, Kurt-Michael. 1992. A survey of modern English. London: Routledge. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton. Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. 2nd, revised edn. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Gries, Stefan Th. & Newman, John. 2013. Creating and using corpora. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 257–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimshaw, Jane. 1986. A morphosyntactic explanation for the Mirror Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4). 745–749. Guevara, Emiliano & Scalise, Sergio. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. In Scalise, Sergio & Magni, Elisabetta & Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of language today (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 76), 101–128. Berlin: Springer. Gumnior, Heidi & Bölte, Jens & Zwitserlood, Pienie. 2006. A chatterbox is a box: Morphology in German word production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(7/8). 920–944. Gunkel, Lutz & Zifonun, Gisela. 2009. Classifying modifiers in common names. Word Structure 2(2). 205–218. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gut, Ulrike B. 2008. Nigerian English: Phonology. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, 35–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hadikin, Glenn. 2014. Korean English: A corpus-driven study of a new English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL) 62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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. Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1). 3–16. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Halle, Morris & Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16(1). 57–116. Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael. 1988. Morphology in the Generative paradigm. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 1–19. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in Distributed Morphology. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 129–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Härtl, Holden. 2013. Introduction. In Härtl, Holden (ed.), Interfaces of morphology: A Festschrift for Susan Olsen (Studia Grammatica 74), 7–10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 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.

References 

 273

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). Härtl, Holden. 2015c. Why word-formation is the short route to the lexicon: A pragmatic approach to adjective-noun compounds in German. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002482 (Accessed on July 27, 2016). Härtl, Holden. 2016. Sogenannt (‘so-called’) and the lexicon-pragmatics interface. http://ling. auf.net/lingbuzz/003017 (Accessed on July 27, 2016). Submitted. Hartley, Tony & Sharoff, Serge & Stephenson, Paul & Wilson, James & Babych, Bogdan & Thomas, Martin. 2011. IntelliText. http://corpus.leeds.ac.uk/itweb/htdocs/Query.html# (Accessed from April 14, 2014 to February 29, 2016). Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold. Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. Hasson, Uri & Giora, Rachel. 2007. Experimental methods for studying the mental representation of languages. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica & Mittelberg, Irene & Coulson, Seana & Spivey, Michael J. (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 18), 302–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hawkins, John A. 2014. Major contributions from formal linguistics to the complexity debate. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Preston, Laurel B. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 14–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heltai, Pál. 2013. Cross-linguistic influences in the acquisition of nominal compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10(3). 19–46. Herbermann, Clemens-Peter. 1981. Wort, Basis, Lexem und die Grenze zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Bildung komplexer Substantive. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Heynderickx, Priscilla. 2001. Relationele adjectieven in het Nederlands. Antwerpen: Lessius Hogeschool. Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2009. Compounding in cognitive linguistics. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier & Gaglia, Sascha. 2012. Mophological theories, the autonomy of morphology, and Romance data. In Gaglia, Sascha & Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Inflection and word formation in Romance languages (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) 186), 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Hoffmann, Ludger. 2010. D. Laute, Töne, Schriftzeichen: Das Kapitel im Überblick. In Hoffmann, Ludger (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft: Ein Reader, 353–366. 3rd, updated and extended edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hohenhaus, Peter. 1996. Ad-hoc-Wortbildung: Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen (European University Studies: Series XIV: Anglo-Saxon Language and Literature 317). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

274 

 References

Hohenhaus, Peter. 2005. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 353–373. Dordrecht: Springer. Höhle, Tilman N. 1982. Über Komposition und Derivation: Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1(1). 76–112. Howell, David C. 2007. The treatment of missing data. In Outhwaite, William & Turner, Stephen P. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of social science methodology, 208–224. London: SAGE Publications. Huber, Magnus. 2008. Ghanaian English: Phonology. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, 67–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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. Inhoff, Albrecht Werner & Radach, Ralph & Heller, Dieter. 2000. Complex compounds in German: Interword spaces facilitate segmentation but hinder assignment of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 23–50. Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51(3). 639–671. Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. A Parallel Architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 1146. 2–22. Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 2016. English noun-noun compounds in conceptual semantics. In ten Hacken, Pius (ed.), The semantics of compounding, 15–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, Ray & Audring, Jenny. 2015. Morphology in the Parallel Architecture. To appear in Audring, Jenny & Masini, Francesca (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/jackendoff/papers/ audringmorphology.pdf (Accessed on July 5, 2016). Jackendoff, Ray & Wittenberg, Eva. 2014. What you can say without syntax: A hierarchy of grammatical complexity. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Preston, Laurel B. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 65–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, Joachim. 1993. Integration. In Reis, Marga (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, 63–116. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Jacobs, Joachim. 1999. Informational autonomy. In Bosch, Peter & van der Sandt, Rob (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 56–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jarema, Gonia & Busson, Céline & Nikolova, Rossitza & Tsapkini, Kyrana & Libben, Gary. 1999. Processing compounds: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language 68. 362–369. Jarema, Gonia & Perlak, Danuta & Semenza, Carlo. 2007. The processing of compounds in bilingual aphasia. Brain and Language 103. 22–23. Jensen, John T. & Stong-Jensen, Margaret. 1984. Morphology is in the lexicon! Linguistic Inquiry 15(3). 474–498. Ji, Hongbo & Gagné, Christina L. & Spalding, Thomas L. 2011. Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language 65. 406–430.

References 

 275

Jiang, Nan. 2012. Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Joanisse, Marc F. & Seidenberg, Mark S. 1999. Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(13). 7592–7597. Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2010. Why stepwise isn’t so wise. http://www.danielezrajohnson.com/ stepwise.pdf (Accessed on April 27, 2017). Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2013. Descriptive statistics. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 288–315. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Juhasz, Barbara J. & Inhoff, Albrecht Werner & Rayner, Keith. 2005. The role of interword spaces in the processing of English compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(1/2). 291–316. Juhasz, Barbara J. & Starr, Matthew S. & Inhoff, Albrecht Werner & Placke, Lars. 2003. The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology 94(2). 223–244. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaiser, Elsi. 2013. Experimental paradigms in psycholinguistics. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 135–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik (Studienreihe Englisch 14). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann – Bagel GmbH & Bern: Francke Verlag. Kastovsky, Dieter. 2006. Vocabulary. In Hogg, Richard & Denison, David (eds.), A history of the English language, 199–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kastovsky, Dieter. 2009. Diachronic perspectives. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 323–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. Houndmills: Macmillan. Katamba, Francis & Stonham, John. 2006. Morphology. 2nd edn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Kehayia, Eva & Jarema, Gonia & Tsapkini, Kyrana & Perlak, Danuta & Ralli, Angela & Kadzielawa, Danuta. 1999. The role of morphological structure in the processing of compounds: The interface between Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. Brain and Language 68. 370–377. Kingdon, Roger. 1958. The groundwork of English stress. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kleiner, Stefan & Knöbl, Ralf & Dudenredaktion. 2015. Duden – Das Aussprachewörterbuch (Duden Band 6). 7th, completely revised and updated edn. Berlin: Dudenverlag. Klinge, Alex. 2009. The role of configurational morphology in Germanic nominal structure and the case of English noun-noun constellations. Word Structure 2(2). 155–183. Klos, Verena. 2011. Komposition und Kompositionalität: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der semantischen Dekodierung von Substantivkomposita (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 292). Berlin: De Gruyter. Koefoed, Geert. 1993. Benoemen. een beschouwing over de faculté du langage. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. Koester, Dirk & Gunter, Thomas C. & Wagner, Susanne. 2007. The morphosyntactic decomposition and semantic composition of German compound words investigated by ERPs. Brain and Language 102. 64–79.

276 

 References

Kolan, Limor & Leikin, Mark & Zwitserlood, Pienie. 2011. Morphological processing and lexical access in speech production in Hebrew: Evidence from picture-word interference. Journal of Memory and Language 65. 286–298. Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol & Zimmermann, Július. 2015. Word-formation strategies: Semantic transparency vs. formal economy. In Bauer, Laurie & Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Semantics of complex words (Studies in Morphology 3), 85–113. Heidelberg: Springer. 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 International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327), 191–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kremers, Joost. 2015. Morphology is in the eye of the beholder. Linguistische Berichte 243. 245–294. Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In Bonami, Olivier & Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 5, 111–132. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5 (Accessed on November 23, 2015). Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungaria 55(3–4), 243–276. Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate (eds.), The expression of information structure (The Expression of Cognitive Categories (ECC) 5), 1–44. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Krifka, Manfred & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry & Carlson, Gregory N. & ter Meulen, Alice & Link, Godehard & Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Kunter, Gero. 2011. Compound stress in English: The phonetics and phonology of prosodic prominence (Linguistische Arbeiten 539). Berlin: De Gruyter. Kusters, Christiaan Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht: LOT (University of Leiden, Doctoral dissertation). Kusters, Christiaan Wouter. 2008. Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Miestamo, Matti & Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 94), 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kutner, Michael H. & Nachtsheim, Christopher J. & Neter, John & Li, William. 2005. Applied linear statistical models. 5th edn. New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill. Ladd, D. Robert. 1984. English compound stress. In Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm: Studies in discourse phonology (Research in Text Theory 8), 253–266. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lampert, Martina & Lampert, Günther. 2010. Word-formation or word formation? The formation of complex words in Cognitive Linguistics. In Onysko, Alexander & Michel, Sascha (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 221), 29–73. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Landsbergen, Frank. 2009. Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Excercises in evolutionary linguistics. Utrecht: LOT (University of Leiden, Doctoral dissertation).

References 

 277

Lang, Margaret & Perez, Isabelle. 2004. Modern French Grammar: A practical guide. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lapointe, Steven G. 1981. General and restricted agreement phenomena. In Moortgat, Michael & van der Hulst, Harry & Hoekstra, Teun (eds.), The scope of lexical rules, 125–159. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Lapointe, Steven G. 1985. A theory of grammatical agreement. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc. Larson-Hall, Jenifer. 2010. A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Lees, Robert B. 1963/1968. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University & The Hague: Mouton. Lees, Robert B. 1970. Problems in the grammatical analysis of English nominal compounds. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.), Progress in linguistics: A collection of papers (Janua Linguarum 43), 174–186. The Hague: Mouton. Leiner, Dominik J. 2014. SoSci Survey [Computer software]: Version 2.6.00-i. https://www. soscisurvey.de (Accessed from February 25, 2015 to March 23, 2015). Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York, NY: Academic Press. Li, Charles N. 1971. Semantics and the structure of compounds in Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California (Doctoral dissertation). Libben, Gary. 1998. Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language 61. 30–44. Libben, Gary. 2006. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In Libben, Gary & Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The representation and processing of compound words, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Libben, Gary. 2010. Compound words, semantic transparency, and morphological transcendence. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New Impulses in Word-Formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 317–330. Hamburg: Buske. Libben, Gary & Gibson, Martha & Yoon, Yeo Bom & Sandra, Dominiek. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 84. 50–64. Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2). 249–336. Liberman, Mark & Sproat, Richard. 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 131–181. Leland Stanford Junior University: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Lieber, Rochelle. 1983. Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2). 251–285. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992a. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992b. Compounding in English. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1). 79–96. Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 375–427. Dordrecht: Springer.

278 

 References

Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. IE, Germanic: English. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 357–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. Compounding in the lexical semantic framework. In ten Hacken, Pius (ed.), The semantics of compounding, 38–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle & Scalise, Sergio. 2006. The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio V.1. 7–32. Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol. 2009. Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindner, Katrin. 2014. Einführung in die germanistische Linguistik. München: C.H. Beck. Lindsay, Shane & Gaskell, M. Gareth. 2013. Lexical integration of novel words without sleep. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39(2). 608–622. Lindström, Eva. 2008. Language complexity and interlinguistic difficulty. In Miestamo, Matti & Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 94), 217–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lipka, Leonhard. 1977. Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierung als Probleme einer synchronischen Wortbildungslehre. In Brekle, Herbert E. & Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung: Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloqium vom 9. – 10. Juli 1976: Anläßlich des 70. Geburtstags von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1977 (Gesamthochschule Wuppertal: Schriftenreihe Linguistik 1), 155–164. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann. Lipka, Leonhard. 1981. Zur Lexikalisierung im Deutschen und Englischen. In Lipka, Leonhard & Günther, Hartmut (eds.), Wortbildung (Wege der Forschung 564), 119–132. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Lipka, Leonhard. 2002. English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics & word-formation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Lipka, Leonhard & Handl, Susanne & Falkner, Wolfgang. 2004. Lexicalization & institutionalization: The state of the art in 2004. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 1(1). 2–19. Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding semantics. London: Hodder Education (An Hachette UK Company). Lowe, John J. 2015. Historical syntax: The syntax of Sanskrit compounds. Language 91(3). e71–e115. Lübke, Regina. 2007. Französische Grammatik. München: Bassermann. Lüdi, Georges. 1986. Forms and functions of bilingual speech in pluricultural migrant communities in Switzerland. In Fishman, Joshua A. & Tabouret-Keller, Andrée & Clyne, Michael & Krishnamurti, Bh. & Abdulaziz, Mohamed (eds.), The Fergusonian impact: In honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the occasion of his 65th birthday: Volume 2: Sociolinguistics and the sociology of language (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 42), 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics: Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahboob, Ahmar & Ahmar, Nadra Huma. 2008. Pakistani English: Phonology. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, 244–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Manelis, Leon & Tharp, David A. 1977. The processing of affixed words. Memory and Cognition 5(6). 690–695. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. 2nd, completely revised and enlarged edn. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

References 

 279

Marelli, Marco & Luzzatti, Claudio. 2012. Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language 66. 644–664. Marslen-Wilson, William D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25(1–2). 71–102. Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15(3). 576–585. Masini, Francesca. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2(2). 254–271. Masini, Francesca & Benigni, Valentina. 2012. Phrasal lexemes and shortening strategies in Russian: The case for constructions. Morphology 22(3). 417–451. Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word-structure. London: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, Peter H. 2002. What can we conclude? In Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 266–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mattissen, Johanna. 2003. Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh: A contribution to a typology of polysynthesis (Typological Studies in Language (TSL) 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. 1993/2001a. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction (Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 14). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. 2001b. Prosodic morphology. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 283–305. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 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. McWhorter, John H. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2–3). 125–166. McWhorter, John H. 2007. Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McWhorter, John H. 2008. Why does a language undress? Strange cases in Indonesia. In Miestamo, Matti & Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 94), 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meindl, Claudia. 2011. Methodik für Linguisten: Eine Einführung in Statistik und Versuchsplanung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Meineke, Eckhard. 1991. Springlebendige Tradition: Kern und Grenzen des Kompositums. Sprachwissenschaft 16. 27–88. Menn, Lise & Duffield, Cecily Jill. 2014. Looking for a ‘Gold Standard’ to measure language complexity: What psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics can (and cannot) offer to formal linguistics. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Preston, Laurel B. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 281–302. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mereu, Lunella. 1999. Introduction. In Mereu, Lunella (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180), 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miestamo, Matti. 2006a. On the feasibility of complex metrics. In Kerge, Krista & Sepper, Maria-Maren (eds.), Finest Linguistics: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian

280 

 References

Conference of Linguistics, Tallinn, May 6–7, 2004 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of Tallinn University 8), 11–26. Tallinn: TLÜ. Miestamo, Matti. 2006b. On the complexity of standard negation. In Suominen, Mickael & Arppe, Antti & Airola, Anu & Heinämäki, Orvokki & Miestamo, Matti & Määttä, Urho & Niemi, Jussi & Pitkänen, Kari K. & Sinnemäki, Kaius (eds.), A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday (Special Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19), 345–356. Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland. Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Matti & Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 94), 23–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miestamo, Matti. 2009. Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In Sampson, Geoffrey & Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (Studies in the Evolution of Language 13), 80–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Minitab Inc. 2013. Minitab ® 17.1.0. http://www.minitab.com/de-de & http://www.onthehub. com/minitab/ (Kivuto Solutions Inc.) (Accessed on July 22, 2014). Mithun, Marianne. 2010. Constraints on compounds and incorporation. In Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311), 37–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mondini, Sara & Jarema, Gonia & Luzzatti, Claudio & Burani, Cristina & Semenza, Carlo. 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. Mondini, Sara & Luzzatti, Claudio & Saletta, Paola & Allamano, Nadia & Semenza, Carlo. 2005. Mental representation of prepositional compounds: Evidence from Italian agrammatic patients. Brain and Language 94. 178–187. Mondria, Jan-Arjen & Mondria-de Vries, Siebrich. 1994. Efficiently memorizing words with the help of word cards and “hand computer”: Theory and applications. System 22(1). 47–57. Montermini, Fabio. 2010. Units in compounding. In Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311), 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moran, Steven & Blasi, Damián. 2014. Cross-linguistic comparison of complexity measures in phonological systems. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Preston, Laurel B. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 217–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moroni, Manuela Caterina. 2010. Modalpartikeln zwischen Syntax, Prosodie und Informationsstruktur (Sabest – Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Sprach- und Translationswissenschaft 20). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Morrill, Tuuli. 2012. Acoustic correlates of stress in English adjective-noun compounds. Language and Speech 55(2). 167–201. Motsch, Wolfgang. 1970. Analyse von Komposita mit zwei nominalen Elementen. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.), Progress in linguistics: A collection of papers (Janua Linguarum 43), 208–223. The Hague: Mouton. Motsch, Wolfgang. 1977. Ein Plädoyer für die Beschreibung von Wortbildungen auf der Grundlage des Lexikons. In Brekle, Herbert E. & Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung: Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloqium vom 9. – 10. Juli 1976: Anläßlich des 70. Geburtstags von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1977 (Gesamthochschule Wuppertal: Schriftenreihe Linguistik 1), 180–202. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann.

References 

 281

Motsch, Wolfgang. 1981. Analyse von Komposita mit zwei nominalen Elementen. In Lipka, Leonhard & Günther, Hartmut (eds.), Wortbildung (Wege der Forschung 564), 212–232. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Motsch, Wolfgang. 2004. Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen (Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 8). 2nd, revised edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Münte, Thomas F. & Say, Tessa & Clahsen, Harald & Schiltz, Kolja & Kutas, Marta. 1999. Decomposition of morphologically complex words in English: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 7(3). 241–253. Murphy, Gregory L. 1990. Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 29. 259–288. Nakata, Tatsuya. 2008. English vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards and computers: Implications from cognitive psychology research for optimal spaced learning. ReCALL 20(1). 3–20. Nation, I.S. Paul. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers (A division of Wadsworth, Inc.). Nation, I.S. Paul. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neath, Ian & Nairne, James S. 1995. Word-length effects in immediate memory: Overwriting trace decay theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(4). 429–441. Neef, Martin. 2009. IE, Germanic: German. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 386–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neef, Martin & Vater, Heinz. 2006. Concepts of the lexicon in theoretical linguistics. In Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.), Advances in the theory of the lexicon (Interface Explorations 13), 27–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Preston, Laurel B. 2014. Introduction. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Preston, Laurel B. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 1–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson, Geoffrey & Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (Studies in the Evolution of Language 13), 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nicoladis, Elena. 1999. “Where is my brush-teeth?” Acquisition of compound nouns in a FrenchEnglish bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3). 245–256. Nicoladis, Elena. 2002a. When is a preposition a linking element? Bilingual children’s acquisition of French compound nouns. Folia Linguistica XXXVI(1–2). 45–63. Nicoladis, Elena. 2002b. What’s the difference between ‘toilet paper’ and ‘paper toilet’? FrenchEnglish bilingual children’s crosslinguistic transfer in compound nouns. Journal of Child Language 29(4). 843–863. Nicoladis, Elena. 2002c. The cues that children use in acquiring adjectival phrases and compound nouns: Evidence from bilingual children. Brain and Language 81. 635–648. Nicoladis, Elena. 2006. Preschool children’s acquisition of compounds. In Libben, Gary & Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The representation and processing of compound words, 96–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nübling, Damaris & Fahlbusch, Fabian & Heuser, Rita. 2012. Namen: Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Núñez, Rafael. 2007. Inferential statistics in the context of empirical cognitive linguistics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica & Mittelberg, Irene & Coulson, Seana & Spivey,

282 

 References

Michael J. (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 18), 87–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. O’Grady, William & de Guzman, Videa. 2010. Morphology: The analysis of word structure. In O’Grady, William & Archibald, John & Aronoff, Mark & Rees-Miller, Janie (eds.), Contemporary linguistics: An introduction, 115–153. 6th edn. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Olsen, Susan. 1986. Wortbildung im Deutschen: Eine Einführung in die Theorie der Wortstruktur. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag. Olsen, Susan. 2000a. Composition. In Booij, Geert & Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17.1), 897–916. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Olsen, Susan. 2000b. Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte 181. 55–69. Onysko, Alexander & Michel, Sascha. 2010. Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word formation. In Onysko, Alexander & Michel, Sascha (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 221), 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Ortner, Hanspeter & Ortner, Lorelies. 1984. Zur Theorie und Praxis der Kompositaforschung (Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache Mannheim 55). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Pawley, Andrew & Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, Jack C. & Schmidt, Richard W. (eds.), Language and communication, 191–226. London: Longman. Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2004. The principle of semantic compositionality. In Davis, Steven & Gillon, Brendan S. (eds.), Semantics: A reader, 133–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peperkamp, Sharon & Vendelin, Inga & Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2010. Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics 38(3). 422–430. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2012. Languages of the world: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perry, Fred L. 2005. Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253(5019). 530–535. Pinker, Steven & Prince, Alan. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In Sutton, Laurel A. & Johnson, Christopher & Shields, Ruth (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on the grammar of event structure, February 15–18, 1991, 230–251. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pinker, Steven & Ullman, Michael T. 2002. The past-tense debate: The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6(11). 456–463. Pitt, David & Katz, Jerrold J. 2000. Compositional idioms. Language 76(2). 409–432. Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation (Topics in English Linguistics 28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plag, Ingo. 2006. The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics 10(1). 143–172.

References 

 283

Plag, Ingo. 2010. Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29(2). 243–282. Plag, Ingo. 2014. Phonological and phonetic variability in complex words: An uncharted territory. Rivista di Linguistica 26(2). 209–228. Plag, Ingo & Kunter, Gero. 2010. Constituent family size and compound stress assignment in English. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 349–382. Hamburg: Buske. Plag, Ingo & Kunter, Gero & Lappe, Sabine. 2007. Testing hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based investigation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2). 199–232. Plag, Ingo & Kunter, Gero & Lappe, Sabine & Braun, Maria. 2008. The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84(4). 760–794. Plag, Ingo & Kunter, Gero & Schramm, Mareile. 2011. Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics 39(3). 362–374. Plaut, David C. 2011. Connectionist perspectives on lexical representation. In Gaskell, Gareth & Zwitserlood, Pienie (eds.), Lexical representation: A multidisciplinary approach (Phonology and Phonetics 17), 149–169. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Podesva, Robert J. & Zsiga, Elizabeth. 2013. Sound recordings: Acoustic and articulatory data. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 169–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pompino-Marschall, Bernd. 2009. Einführung in die Phonetik. 3rd, revised edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Pörings, Ralf & Schmitz, Ulrich. 2003. Sprache und Sprachwissenschaft: Eine kognitiv orientierte Einführung. 2nd, revised and updated edn. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Postal, Paul Martin. 1969. Anaphoric islands. In Binnick, Robert I. & Davison, Alice & Green, Georgia M. & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 205–239. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Prasada, Sandeep & Hennefield, Laura & Otap, Daniel. 2012. Conceptual and linguistic representations of kinds and classes. Cognitive Science 36(7). 1224–1250. Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Psychology Software Tools, Inc. 2010. E-Prime 2.0 Professional [Computer program]. Sharpsburg, PA. Pulvermüller, Friedemann & Cappelle, Bert & Shtyrov, Yury. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 397–416. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rakić, Stanimir. 2009. Some observations on the structure, type frequencies and spelling of English compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 6(1). 59–83. Ralli, Angela. 2013. Compounding and its locus of realization: Evidence from Greek and Turkish. Word Structure 6(2). 181–200. Reetz, Henning. 2003. Spezielle Verfahren V: Analyse und Synthese von Sprachlauten. In Rickheit, Gert & Herrmann, Theo & Deutsch, Werner (eds.), Psycholinguistics: An international handbook (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 24), 202–212. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

284 

 References

Riddle, Elizabeth M. 2008. Complexity in isolating languages: Lexical elaboration versus grammatical economy. In Miestamo, Matti & Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) 94), 133–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robert, Paul. 2008. Le nouveau Petit Robert: Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. New edn. of the Petit Robert of Paul Robert. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert. Roelofs, Ardi & Baayen, Harald. 2002. Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9(1). 132–138. Rosenberg, Maria. 2013. Semantic and formal structure: A corpus-based study of Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts. In ten Hacken, Pius & Thomas, Claire (eds.), The semantics of word formation and lexicalization, 102–120. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Rumelhart, David E. & McClelland, James L. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, James L. & Rumelhart, David E. & the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Volume 2: Psychological and biological models, 216–271. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rumsey, Deborah. 2013. Statistik II für Dummies [German translation by Judith Muhr]. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Russell, Kevin. 1997. Optimality Theory and morphology. In Archangeli, Diana & Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.), Optimality Theory: An overview, 102–133. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Sadler, Louisa & Arnold, Douglas J. 1994. Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics 30(1). 187–226. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1985. Autolexical syntax: A proposal for the treatment of noun incorporation and similar phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(4). 379–439. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1988. The autolexical classification of lexemes. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 271–290. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1998. On the autonomy of compounding morphology. In Lapointe, Steven G. & Brentari, Diane K. & Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 161–187. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications (Center for the Study of Language and Information). Sadock, Jerrold M. 2012. The modular architecture of grammar (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sampson, Geoffrey. 2009. A linguistic axiom challenged. In Sampson, Geoffrey & Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (Studies in the Evolution of Language 13), 1–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sandra, Dominiek. 1990. On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 42A(3). 529–567. Sauer, Hans. 2004. Lexicalization and demotivation. In Booij, Geert & Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim & Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17.2), 1625–1636. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Scalise, Sergio & Fábregas, Antonio. 2010. The head in compounding. In Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311), 109–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References 

 285

Scalise, Sergio & Guevara, Emiliano. 2005. The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of the lexicon. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 147–187. Dordrecht: Springer. Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene. 2010. Why compounding? In Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Scarborough Don L. & Cortese, Charles & Scarborough, Hollis S. 1977. Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3(1). 1–17. Schäfer, Martin. 2009. A+N constructions in Mandarin and the ‘compound vs. phrase’ debate. Word Structure 2(2). 272–293. Schäfer, Martin. 2013. Semantic transparency and anaphoric islands. In ten Hacken, Pius & Thomas, Claire (eds.), The semantics of word formation and lexicalization, 140–160. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schane, Sanford A. 1970. Phonological and morphological markedness. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.), Progress in linguistics: A collection of papers (Janua Linguarum 43), 286–294. The Hague: Mouton. Schiller, Niels O. & Meyer, Antje S. 2003. Introduction to the relation between speech comprehension and production. In Schiller, Niels O. & Meyer, Antje S. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (Phonology and Phonetics 6), 1–7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schiller, Niels O. & Fikkert, Paula & Levelt, Clara C. 2004. Stress priming in picture naming: An SOA study. Brain and Language 90. 231–240. Schlechtweg, Marcel. 2013. Morphologische Ansätze zum mentalen Lexikon und ihre Implikationen für den Zweitsprachenerwerb. University of Kassel (Thesis). Schlechtweg, Marcel & Härtl, Holden. 2016a. Memorization and the morphology-syntax divide: A cross-linguistic investigation. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13(2) (Selected papers from the Word-Formation Theories conference, Košice, 26–28 June, 2015). 46–68. Schlechtweg, Marcel & Härtl, Holden. 2016b. The lexicalization of complex constructions: An analysis of adjective-noun combinations. In Audring, Jenny & Masini, Francesca & Sandler, Wendy (eds.), Quo vadis morphology? MMM10 on-line proceedings: On-line proceedings of the Tenth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM10) Haifa, Israel, 7–10 September 2015, 159–168. University of Leiden/University of Bologna/University of Haifa. http://www.lilec-mmm.it/ wp-content/uploads/2016/07/MMM10_proceedings_BOOK.pdf (Accessed on July 26, 2016). Schlücker, Barbara. 2012. Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit: Übersicht und Einführung. In Gaeta, Livio & Schlücker, Barbara (eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache: Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 46), 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schlücker, Barbara. 2013. The semantics of lexical modification: Meaning and meaning relations in German A + N compounds. In ten Hacken, Pius & Thomas, Claire (eds.), The semantics of word formation and lexicalization, 121–139. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schlücker, Barbara. 2014. Grammatik im Lexikon: Adjektiv-Nomen-Verbindungen im Deutschen und Niederländischen (Linguistische Arbeiten 553). Berlin: De Gruyter. Schlücker, Barbara. 2016. Adjective-noun compounding in Parallel Architecture. In ten Hacken, Pius (ed.), The semantics of compounding, 178–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

286 

 References

Schlücker, Barbara & Hüning, Matthias. 2009a. Compounds and phrases: A functional comparison between German A + N compounds and corresponding phrases. Rivista di Linguistica 21(1). 209–234. Schlücker, Barbara & Hüning, Matthias. 2009b. Introduction. Word Structure 2(2). 149–154. Schlücker, Barbara & Plag, Ingo. 2011. Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua 121(9). 1539–1551. Schmerling, Susan F. 1971. A stress mess. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1(1). 52–66. Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2008. New words in the mind: Concept-formation and entrenchment of neologisms. Anglia 126(1). 1–36. Schneider, Walter & Eschman, Amy & Zuccolotto, Anthony. 2002a. E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc. Schneider, Walter & Eschman, Amy & Zuccolotto, Anthony. 2002b. E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc. Schneider, Walter & Eschman, Amy & Zuccolotto, Anthony. 2007. E-Prime Getting Started Guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc. Schöpperle, Peter & Härtl, Holden. 2011. Morphological vs. syntactic composition: The case of nominal compounds. Paper presentation at the AG 3 “Wort oder Phrase?” of the 33rd DGfS Conference, University of Göttingen, February 23–25, 2011. https://www.uni-kassel. de/fb02/fileadmin/datas/fb02/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Anglistik_Amerikanistik/Dateien/ Linguistik/Presentations/DGfS_2011.pdf (Accessed on May 17, 2016). Schpak-Dolt, Nikolaus. 2010. Einführung in die französische Morphologie (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 36). 3rd, revised and supplemented edn. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schreuder, Robert & Baayen, R. Harald. 1995. Modelling morphological processing. In Feldman, Laurie Beth (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 131–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Schuster, Saskia. 2016. Variation und Wandel: Zur Kongruenz morphologischer und syntaktischer A+N-Verbindungen im Deutschen und Niederländischen seit 1700 (Konvergenz und Divergenz: Sprachvergleichende Studien zum Deutschen 4). Berlin: De Gruyter. Schütze, Carson T. & Sprouse, Jon. 2013. Judgment data. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwarze, Christoph. 1999. Lexical-functional morphology and the structure of the lexicon. In Mereu, Lunella (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180), 73–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwarze, Christoph & Wunderlich, Dieter. 1985. Einleitung. In Schwarze, Christoph & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Handbuch der Lexikologie, 7–23. Königstein: Athenäum. Seidler, S. 1988. Untersuchung zum Erwerb von Wortbildungsregeln Deverbativa Nomina (Agens und Instrument) im Französischen. University of Hamburg (Master’s Thesis). Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1981. English compounding and the theory of word structure. In Moortgat, Michael & van der Hulst, Harry & Hoekstra, Teun (eds.), The scope of lexical rules, 229–277. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 7). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Semenza, Carlo & Mondini, Sara. 2006. The neuropsychology of compound words. In Libben, Gary & Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The representation and processing of compound words, 71–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Semenza, Carlo & Mondini, Sara. 2010. Compound words in neuropsychology. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 331–348. Hamburg: Buske.

References 

 287

Sereno, Joan A. & Jongman, Allard. 1997. Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition 25(4). 425–437. Sharoff, Serge. 2006. Creating general-purpose corpora using automated search engine queries. In Baroni, Marco & Bernardini, Silvia (eds.), Wacky! Working papers on the web as corpus, 63–98. Bologna: Gedit Edizioni. http://wackybook.sslmit.unibo.it/ (Accessed on November 7, 2014). Siddiqi, Daniel. 2014. The morphology-syntax interface. In Carnie, Andrew & Sato, Yosuke & Siddiqi, Daniel (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 345–364. London: Routledge. Silva, Renita & Clahsen, Harald. 2008. Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(2). 245–260. Simoska, Silvana. 1999. Die morphologische und semantische Vielfalt des Adjektiv+NomenKompositums. Deutsche Sprache 27. 156–187. Smith, Neil. 1999. Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snider, Neal & Arnon, Inbal. 2012. A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In Divjak, Dagmar & Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Frequency effects in language representation (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 244.2), 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Søgaard, Anders. 2005. Compounding theories and linguistic diversity. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Hodges, Adam & Rood, David S. (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (Studies in Language Companion Series 72), 319–337. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spalding, Thomas L. & Gagné, Christina L. & Mullaly, Allison & Ji, Hongbo. 2010. Relationbased interpretation of noun-noun phrases: A new theoretical approach. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 283–315. Hamburg: Buske. Spence, Nicol C.W. 1969. Composé nominal, locution et syntagme libre. La Linguistique 5(2). 5–26. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in Generative Grammar (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 2). Oxford: Blackwell. Spencer, Andrew. 2000. Morphology and syntax. In Booij, Geert & Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17.1), 312–334. Berlin: Walter der Gruyter. Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Does English have productive compounding? In Booij, Geert & DeCesaris, Janet & Ralli, Angela & Scalise, Sergio (eds.), Topics in morphology: Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Barcelona, 20–22 September 2001, 329–341. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Applicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Spencer, Andrew. 2004. Syntactic heads and word formation by Marit Julien: Review by Andrew Spencer. Journal of Linguistics 40(2). 434–437. Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer. Spencer, Andrew. 2011. What’s in a compound? Journal of Linguistics 47(2). 481–507. Sprenger, Simone A. & Levelt, Willem J.M. & Kempen, Gerard. 2006. Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 161–184. Sproat, Richard. 1988. On anaphoric islandhood. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 291–301. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

288 

 References

Stein, Gabriele. 2007. A dictionary of English affixes: Their function and meaning. München: Lincom Europa. Štekauer, Pavol. 2001. Fundamental principles of an onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Onomasiology Online 2. 15–54. Štekauer, Pavol. 2005a. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer. Štekauer, Pavol. 2005b. Meaning predictability in word formation: Novel, context-free naming units (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics (SFSL) 54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol. 2005c. Compounding and affixation: Any difference? In Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Kastovsky, Dieter & Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its demarcations: Selected papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 264), 151–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol. 2016. Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In ten Hacken, Pius (ed.), The semantics of compounding, 54–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Štekauer, Pavol & Valera, Salvador & Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2012. Word-formation in the world’s languages: A typological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stemberger, Joseph Paul & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition 14(1). 17–26. Stemberger, Joseph Paul & MacWhinney, Brian. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 101–116. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflection. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Stump, Gregory T. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Su, Yi-ching. 1999. The representation of compounds and phrases in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Chinese. The Web Journal of Modern Language Linguistics (WJMLL) 4–5. http://wjmll.ncl.ac.uk/issue04–05/su.htm (Accessed on May 17, 2016). Taft, Marcus. 2004. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 57A(4). 745–765. Taft, Marcus & Ardasinski, Sam. 2006. Obligatory decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental Lexicon 1(2). 183–199. Tallerman, Maggie. 2007. Did our ancestors speak a holistic protolanguage? Lingua 117. 579–604. ten Hacken, Pius. 1994. Defining morphology: A principled approach to determining the boundaries of compounding, derivation and inflection (Informatik und Sprache 4). Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. ten Hacken, Pius. 2010. Synthetic and exocentric compounds in a Parallel Architecture. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 17), 233–251. Hamburg: Buske. ten Hacken, Pius. 2013. Compounds in English, in French, in Polish, and in general. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10(1). 97–113. ten Hacken, Pius. 2016. Introduction: Compounds and their meaning. In ten Hacken, Pius (ed.), The semantics of compounding, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thiele, Johannes. 1993. Wortbildung der französischen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.

References 

 289

Titone, Debra A. & Connine, Cynthia M. 1999. On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 31(12). 1655–1674. Treffers-Daller, Jeanine. 2005. Evidence for insertional codemixing: Mixed compounds and French nominal groups in Brussels Dutch. International Journal of Bilingualism 9(3/4). 477–508. Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 2008. International English: A guide to the varieties of Standard English. 5th edn. London: Routledge. Tuggy, David. 2005. Cognitive approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64), 233–265. Dordrecht: Springer. Ullman, Michael T. 2001. The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(2). 105–122. Van Goethem, Kristel. 2008. A comparative study of A-N compounds and lexicalized A-N phrases in Germanic and Romance languages. Paper presentation at the Workshop on naming strategies, Free University of Berlin, October 6–7, 2008. http://neon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de/static/events/namingstrategies_abstracts.pdf (Accessed on September 30, 2015). 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. van Heuven, Walter J.B. & Mandera, Pawel & Keuleers, Emmanuel & Brysbaert, Marc. 2014. SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67(6). 1176–1190. van Jaarsveld, Henk J. & Rattink, Gilbert E. 1988. Frequency effects in the processing of lexicalized and novel nominal compounds. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17(6). 447–473. Versace, Rémy & Nevers, Brigitte. 2003. Word frequency effect on repetition priming as a function of prime duration and delay between the prime and the target. British Journal of Psychology 94(3). 389–408. Villoing, Florence. 2012. French compounds. Probus 24(1). 29–60. 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. Vogel, Irene & Hestvik, Arild & Pincus, Nadya. 2013. Perception and bias in the processing of English compound versus phrasal stress: The effect of synthetic versus natural speech. http://udel.edu/~hestvik/publications/Vogel-Hestvik-Pincus-submitted.pdf (Accessed on May 13, 2016). Vroomen, Jean & Tuomainen, Jyrki & de Gelder, Beatrice. 1998. The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 133–149. Wandruszka, Ulrich. 1976. Probleme der neufranzösischen Wortbildung (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 16). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Ward, Gregory & Sproat, Richard & McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67(3). 439–474. Weiskopf, Daniel A. 2007. Compound nominals, context, and compositionality. Synthese 156(1). 161–204. Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2). 245–274. Willmann, Helmut & Messinger, Heinz & Langenscheidt-Redaktion. 1993. Langenscheidts Grosswörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache: „Der kleine Muret-Sanders“: Englisch-Deutsch. 6th edn. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

290 

 References

Wilson, James & Hartley, Anthony & Sharoff, Serge & Stephenson, Paul. 2010. Advanced corpus solutions for humanities researchers. In Otoguro, Ryo & Ishikawa, Kiyoshi & Umemoto, Hiroshi & Yoshimoto, Kei & Harada, Yasunari (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), 4–7 November 2010, Tohoku University, 769–778. Waseda University: Institute for Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Development. Winkler, Susanne. 2012. The information structure of English. In Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate (eds.), The expression of information structure (The Expression of Cognitive Categories (ECC) 5), 71–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1986. Probleme der Wortstruktur. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 5(2). 209–252. Wunderlich, Dieter. 2006a. Introduction: What the study of the lexicon is about. In Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.), Advances in the theory of the lexicon (Interface Explorations 13), 1–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wunderlich, Dieter. 2006b. Why is there morphology? Paper presentation at the Workshop on Theoretical Morphology, Leipzig, June 18, 2006. http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/ mitarbeiter/wunderlich/Why_morphology.pdf (Accessed on May 17, 2016). Wunderlich, Dieter. 2008. Spekulationen zum Anfang von Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27(2). 229–265. Yagoubi, Radouane El & Chiarelli, Valentina & Mondini, Sara & Perrone, Gelsomina & Danieli, Morena & Semenza, Carlo. 2008. Neural correlates of Italian nominal compounds and potential impact of headedness effect: An ERP study. Cognitive Neurospsychology 25(4). 559–581. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, Cornelia. 2012. Identifying term candidates through adjective-noun constructions in English. Terminology 18(2). 226–242. Zimmer, Karl E. 1971. Some general observations about nominal compounds. Stanford University: Working Papers on Language Universals 5. C1–C21. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & He, Xiao & Jonckheere, Natalie. 2013. An L2 study on the production of stress patterns in English compounds. In Becker, Misha & Grinstead, John & Rothman, Jason (eds.), Generative linguistics and acquisition: Studies in honor of Nina M. Hyams (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders (LALD) 54), 185–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 1990. Compounding and inflection. In Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Luschützky, Hans C. & Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary morphology (Trend in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 49), 133–138. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 1992. Compounding in French. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1). 221–240. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Forestress and afterstress. The Ohio State University (OSU): Working Papers in Linguistics (WPL) 32. 46–62. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Luschützky, Hans C. & Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary morphology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 49), 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1994. The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3). 341–368. Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1995. Prozesse und lexikalische Repräsentationen bei der visuellen Worterkennung. In Spillner, Bernd (ed.), Sprache: Verstehen und Verständlichkeit: Kongreßbeiträge zur 25. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik GAL e.V. (forum Angewandte Linguistik 28), 115–118. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

References 

 291

Zwitserlood, Pienie. 2003. The internal structure of words: Consequences for listening and speaking. In Schiller, Niels O. & Meyer, Antje S. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (Phonology and Phonetics 6), 79–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zwitserlood, Pienie & Bölte, Jens & Dohmes, Petra. 2000. Morphological effects on speech production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4/5). 563–591. Zwitserlood, Pienie & Bölte, Jens & Dohmes, Petra. 2002. Where and how morphologically complex words interplay with naming pictures. Brain and Language 81. 358–367. Zwitserlood, Pienie & Bolwiender, Agnes & Drews, Etta. 2005. Priming morphologically complex verbs by sentence contexts: Effects of semantic transparency and ambiguity. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(1/2). 395–415.