Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:23:29.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Level Playing-Field: Perceptibility and Inflection in English Compounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Robert Kirchner  and
Elena Nicoladis
Robert Kirchner
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Elena Nicoladis
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To explain why English compounds generally avoid internal inflectional suffixation (e.g., key-chain rather than keys-chain), linguists have often invoked the Level Ordering Hypothesis, that is, that particular types of morphology, in this case inflectional suffixation, are derivationally ordered after compounding. However, a broad range of counter-examples and conceptual objections to Level Ordering have emerged. We propose an alternative account, based on the observation that certain English inflectional suffixes are more perceptible than others (-ing > -s > -ed), and that these suffixes are less crucial to lexical access and recovery of meaning than corresponding root-final segments. This proposal was tested in perception and production experiments. In the perception experiment, compounds with a nonsense word as modifier (e.g., dacks van, dacked van) were auditorily presented to native English speakers, who were asked to spell what they heard. The participants omitted significantly more -ed than -s or -ing. In the production experiment, native English speakers read these compounds. The speakers dropped significantly more -ed than -s or -ing. Furthermore, they dropped more of these sounds when they were spelled as affixes than as part of the root (e.g., dacked van vs. dact van). These results suggest that English speakers’ avoidance or inclusion of inflection in compounds is based not on Level Ordering but on perceptibility, as well as the status of the consonant as an affix. We further present a formal analysis capturing these factors in terms of Steriade’s Licensing-by-Cue proposal.

Résumé

Résumé

Afin d’expliquer le manque d’inflection à l’intérieur des mots composés anglais (par ex. key-chain plutôt que keys-chain), les linguistes invoquent souvent l’hypothèse des niveaux séquentiels. Néanmoins, cette hypothèse est confrontée à de nombreux contre-exemples et objections conceptuelles. Nous proposons une analyse alternative, basée sur l’observation que certains suffixes inflectionnels anglais sont plus perceptibles que d’autres (-ing > -s > -ed), et que l’accès lexique et la récupération du sens dépendent moins de ces suffixes que des segments finaux des racines. Nous testons cette analyse par des expériences de perception et de production. Les résultats indiquent que la perceptibilité et le rôle affixal de la consonne expliquent mieux l’exclusion ou l’inclusion d’une flexion dans les mots composés anglais que ne le fait l’hypothèse des niveaux séquentiels. Nous présentons aussi une analyse formelle qui explique ces facteurs dans le cadre de la phonotactique perceptuelle.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 91 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90:119–161.Google Scholar
Alegre, Maria A., and Gordon, Peter. 1996. Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition 60:65–82.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar: A study of Finnish genitives. In Variation, change, and phonological theory, ed. Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland, and Wetzels, W. Leo, 35–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, and van Rijn, Heddderick. 1993. The CELEX database on CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance, and control. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Funcational phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32:45–86.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10:425–455.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casali, Rod. 1996. Resolving hiatus. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1995. German plurals in adult second language development: Evidence for a dual-mechanism model of inflection. In The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford, ed. Eubank, Lynn, Selinker, Larry, and Smith, Michael Sharwood, 123–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.73.11claGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary E., 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:527–539.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter. 1985. Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition 21:73–93.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1980. Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Locating language in time and space, ed. Labov, William, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1991. Functional constraints on linguistic variation. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2000. Phonological restructuring in Yidin and its theoretical consequences. In The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory, ed. Hermans, Ben and Oostendorp, Marc van, 175–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce P., and MacEachern, Margaret. 1998. Quatrain form in English folk verse. Language 74:473–507.Google Scholar
Hayes, Jenny, Murphy, Victoria, Davey, Neil, Smith, Pamela, and Peters, Lorna. 2002. The /s/ morpheme and the compounding phenomenon in English. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Gray, Wayne and Schunn, Christian, 101–106. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Quest for the essence of language. In Selected writings, vol. 2: Word and language, 345–359. The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An Optimality-Theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2003. Root-controlled fusion in Zoque: Root-Faith and neutralization avoidance. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Rutgers Optimality Archive 599-0403. http://roa.rutgers.edu/ [accessed November 2008].Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In The structure of phonological representations, Part I (Lingustic models), ed. van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval, 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kirparsy, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:83–136.Google Scholar
Kirparsy, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17:351–366.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 2001. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus. 1991. The phonetics/phonology issue in the study of articulatory reduction. Phonetica 48:180–192.Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, and Nicoladis, Elena. 2005. Large constituent families help children parse compounds. Journal of Child Language 32:139–158.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. A course in phonetics. 4th ed. New York: Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
Lardiere, Donna. 1995. L2 acquisition of English synthetic compounding is not constrained by level-ordering (and neither, probably, is LI). Second Language Research 11:20–56.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, and Sproat, Richard. 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Lexical matters, ed. Sag, Ivan A. and Szabolcsi, Anna, 131–181. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Bjorn. 1983. Economy of speech gestures. In The production of speech, ed. MacNeilage, Peter, 217–245. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1960. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K.P. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Murphy, Victoria A. 2000. Compounding and the representation of L2 inflectional morphology. Language Learning 50:153–197.Google Scholar
Myers, James. 2001. Lexical phonology and the lexicon. Ms., National Chung-Chen University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, Elena. 2005. When level-ordering is not used in the formation of English compounds. First Language 25:331–346.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, Elena. 2003. Compounding is not contingent on level-ordering in acquisition. Cognitive Development 18:319–338.Google Scholar
Nicoladis, Elena, and Murphy, Victoria A.. 2004. Level-ordering does not constrain children’s ungrammatical compounds. Brain and Language 90:487–494.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior: Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Masek, Carrie, Hendrick, Robert, and Miller, Mary Frances, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993 Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical report RuCCS-TR-2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science and Computer Science Department. Available at http://roa.rutgers.edu/, ROA #537 [accessed November 2008].Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark, Haskell, Todd, and MacDonald, Maryellen. 1999. Constraints on plurals in compounds: Some implications of compounds research. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society 40:81.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1979. Topics in English morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Smith, Martha, and Nicoladis, Elena. 2000. The developing lexicon: Morphosyntactic knowledge in fifth grade children. In LACUS Forum XXVI: The Lexicon, ed. Melby, Alan K. and Lommel, Arle, 189–200. Fullerton, CA: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge, MA: Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1999. Alternatives to syllabic-based accounts of consonantal phonotactics. In Proceedings LP’98: Item order in language and speech, ed. Fujimura, Osamu, Joseph, Brian D., and Palek, Bohumil, 205–242. Prague: Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro. 1998. A typological investigation of dissimilation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard, Frisch, Stephan, and Pisoni, David B.. 1999. Speech perception. In Wiley encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering, vol. 20, ed. Webster, J.G., 175–195. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar