Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:33:24.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The functions of novel word compounds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Jennifer Windsor
Jennifer Windsor*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
Department of Communication Disorders, 115 Shevlin Hall, 164 Pillsbury Dr. SE, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional assumptions that novel word compounds fill lexical gaps and allow speakers to convey an intended meaning more precisely were explored. Examples from spontaneous language demonstrated that some novel compounds occur in the absence of a lexical gap and that not all compounds serve a communicative function. The relation between communicative demands and novel noun–noun compound use was explored experimentally also. Twenty-eight five-year-old children and 16 adults participated in referential and non-referential communication tasks in which they were exposed to referents whose elements were inherently and non-inherently related. Both children and adults produced more compounds for inherent than for non-inherent referents. However, although the children demonstrated that they were sensitive to the need for greater communicative precision in the referential compared to the non-referential task, there was no difference in frequency of compound use across tasks. These results suggest that the functions ascribed to novel compounds warrant closer scrutiny.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 119 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This study is based on a dissertation completed under the direction of Laurence Leonard at Purdue University. His comments and suggestions directly influenced aspects of the study and are gratefully acknowledged. Also, grateful thanks are extended to Gwendolyn Pennington for drawing the stimulus materials and to Patricia Arndorfer, Barbara Drobes, and Lucia Mendez-Buckley for their help in running subjects. Helpful comments by Garth Holloway, George Allen, Mark McDaniel, Richard Schwartz, Gerald Siegel, and two anonymous reviewers are appreciated.

References

REFERENCES

Berman, R. A., & Clark, E. V. (1989). Learning to use compounds for contrast: data from Hebrew. First Language 9, 247–70.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982 a). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982 b). Starting to talk worse: clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In Strauss, S. (ed.), U-shaped behavioral growth. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1981). Lexical innovations: how children learn to create new words. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1982). The young word maker: a case study of innovation in the child's lexicon. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983 a). Convention and contrast in acquiring the lexicon. In Seiler, Th. B. & Wannenmacher, B. (eds), Cognitive development and the development of word meaning. New York and Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983 b). Meanings and concepts. In Mussen, P. H. (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology. Vol. 3 Cognitive development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: a constraint on acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1988). On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language 15, 317–35.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language 17, 417–31.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Barron, B. J. (1988). A thrower-button or a button-thrower? Children's judgments of grammatical and ungrammatical compound nouns. Linguistics, 26, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Berman, R. A. (1984). Structure and use in the acquisition of word formation. Language 60, 542–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A. & Lane, N. M. (1985). Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd edn) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53, 810–42.Google Scholar
Elbers, L. (1988). New names from old words: related aspects of children's metaphors and word compounds. Journal of Child Language 15, 591–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gathercole, V. M. (1987). The contrastive hypothesis for the acquisition of word meaning: a reconsideration of the theory. Journal of Child Language 14, 493–531.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. M. (1989). Contrast: a semantic constraint? Journal of Child Language 16, 685–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1983). Language acquisition as a problem-solving process. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 22, 1–22.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). Stage/structure versus phase/process in modelling linguistic and cognitive development. In Levin, I. (ed.), Stage and structure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Kohn, A. S. & Landau, B. (1990). A partial solution to the homonym problem: parents' linguistic input to young children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19, 71–89.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. (1976). -ing, -s, and -ed: A study of the acquisition of certain verb inflections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12, 271–96.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1973). Nonegocentric communication abilities in preschool children. Child Development 44, 697–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar