Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:35:21.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards an exemplar-based model of stress in English noun–noun compounds1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2011

SABINE ARNDT-LAPPE
SABINE ARNDT-LAPPE*
Affiliation:
Universität Siegen
*
Author's address: Universität Siegen, Philosophische Fakultät, Adolf-Reichwein-Str. 2, D-57068 Siegen, Germany[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well known that stress assignment in English noun–noun compounds is non-uniform (compare e.g. left-prominent ópera glasses and right-prominent steel brídge), and recent corpus-based studies (e.g. Plag et al. 2007, 2008) have shown that categorical, rule-based approaches that make use of argument structure (e.g. Giegerich 2004) or semantics (e.g. Fudge 1984) are not able to account satisfactorily for the existing variability. Using data from the corpus studies by Plag and collegues, I argue in this paper that an exemplar-based approach is better-suited to accounting for stress assignment in English noun–noun compounds than a traditional, rule-based paradigm. Specifically, it is shown that two current implementations of exemplar-based algorithms, TiMBL (Daelemans et al. 2007) and AM::Parallel (Skousen & Stanford 2007), clearly outperform comparable rule models in terms of how well they predict stress assignment in the corpora. Furthermore, systematic testing reveals that the reasons for the differences between exemplar and rule models mainly lie in their ability to incorporate detailed, non-abstract information (specifically, constituent family information). The present study therefore adds to the growing evidence in favour of the importance of constituent family information in compounding (e.g. Gagné 2001, Krott, Schreuder & Baayen 2002).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 549 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

[1]

This paper has benefitted greatly from comments and discussions from audiences at the Workshop on Exemplar-Based Models in Language Acquisition and Use, Dublin, ESSLLI 2007 (organised by Rens Bod and David Cochran), the International Morphology Meeting, Vienna 2008, and the ISLE conference, Freiburg 2008, where earlier versions were presented, as well as from helpful comments from two anonymous JL referees. Special thanks are due to Ingo Plag and Gero Kunter for comments, discussion and critical input, and to Kristina Kösling for helping me with the coding. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own. Finally, I thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant PL-151/5–3) for supporting this research.

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, Harald R., Piepenbrock, Richard & Guilkers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens & Cochran, David (eds.). 2007. Workshop on Exemplar-based Models in Language Acquisition and Use. Dublin: ESSLLI 2007.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Don & Skousen, Royal. 2005. Analogical modeling and morphological change: The case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9.2, 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Gillis, Steven & Durieux, Gert. 1994. The acquisition of stress: A data-oriented approach. Computational Linguistics 20.3, 421–451.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter & Bosch, Antal van den. 2005. Memory-based language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Zavrel, Jakub, Sloot, Ko van der & Bosch, Antal van den. 2007. TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 6.0, Reference Guide (LK Technical Report 04-02). Tilburg: ILK.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 2002. A comparison of two analogical models: Tilburg Memory-Based Learner versus analogical modeling. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik C. 1984. English word-stress. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina L. 2001. Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27, 236–254.Google ScholarPubMed
Gahl, Susanne & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.). 2006. Special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 23.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.). 1984. Intonation, accent and rhythm. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8.1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, Susan G., Clark, J. J., Harada, Tetsuo & Wayland, Ratree P.. 2003. Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words. Language and Speech 46.4, 403–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Broeders, Anton. 1981. English pronunciation for student teachers. Groningen: Wolters–Noordhoff–Longman.Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Baayen, Harald R. & Schreuder, Rob. 2001. Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39, 51–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Schreuder, Rob & Baayen, Harald R.. 2002. Analogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun–noun compounds. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunter, Gero. 2009. The phonetics and phonology of English compound stress. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Siegen.Google Scholar
Kunter, Gero. 2010. Perception of prominence patterns in English nominal compounds. Presented at Speech Prosody 2010, Satellite Workshop on Prosodic Prominence: Perceptual and Automatic Identification. 10 May 2010, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1984. English compound stress. In Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm, 253–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2000. Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte 181, 55–69.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2001. Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000, 279–320. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostendorf, Mari, Price, Patti & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie. 1996. Boston University Radio Speech Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Dilworth B. 2002. Running the Perl/C version of the Analogical Modeling Program. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 365–383.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137–157. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2006. The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical Factors. English Language and Linguistics 10.1, 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2010. Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29.2, 243–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 17), 349–382. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
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, 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Rodney 1980. Stress in English N+N phrases: A further complicating factor. English Studies 61, 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. 1971. A stress mess. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1, 52–65.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 2002a. An overview of Analogical Modeling. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 11–26.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 2002b. Issues in Analogical Modeling. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 27–48.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle & Parkinson, Dilworth B. (eds.). 2002. Analogical modeling. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skousen, Royal & Stanford, Thereon. 2007. AM: Parallel. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Does English have productive compounding? In Booij, Geert, DeCesaris, Janet, Ralli, Angela & Scalise, Sergio (eds.), Topics in Morphology: The Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, September 20–22, 2001), 329–341. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Applicada, Universtitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Forestress and afterstress. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 46–62. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar