Advertisement

The processing of interfixed German compounds

  • Wolfgang U. Dressler
  • Gary Libben
  • Jacqueline Stark
  • Christiane Pons
  • Gonia Jarema
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Morphology book series (YOMO)

Abstract

This postulate by Goethe (*1749), the first protagonist of a new discipline of morphology (albeit first only within biology), confronts us with the main problem of processing studies of morphology: Are morphological constructions processed as wholes or with regard to their parts or, if both, under which conditions? This question has been of central concern in the psycholinguistic literature on lexical processing over the past quarter century. The debate in this area was initiated by the provocative claim put forward by Taft and Forster (1975; 1976) that multimorphemic words are represented in the mental lexicon in terms of their constituents and that multimorphemic word recognition routinely involves a morphological decomposition procedure. Subsequent experimentation, however, has pointed to the view that neither this strong position nor the strong contrary position advocated by Butterworth (1983) accounts for the performance of language users across languages, task types, and stimulus categories (see McQueen and Cutler (1998) for a recent review). Even within individual categories of morphological construction, experimental results have led to a rather complex view of the role of morphology in lexical processing. Compound word processing, for example, has been shown to provide evidence for both whole word representation and constituent activation. In general, semantically transparent compounds show constituent activation, whereas semantically opaque compounds show greater evidence of whole word activation (Libben 1998; Sandra 1990; Zwitserlood 1994). Recent work by Libben, Derwing and de Almeida (1999) has also suggested that the processing of compounds may involve the creation of multiple representations that are simultaneously computed and evaluated. Libben et al. (1999) claim that the processing of compounds is not guided by a principle of parsing efficiency but rather by a mechanism that uncovers the maximum number of morphemes within a multimorphemic string.

Keywords

Stimulus Category Inflectional Form Citation Form Simple Concatenation Feminine Noun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Augst, Gerhard. 1975. “Über das Fugenmorphem in Zusammensetzungen”. In G. Augst (ed.) Untersuchungen zum Morpheminventar der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen:Narr, 71–155.Google Scholar
  3. Baayen, Rolf Harald. 1992. “Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity”. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–149.Google Scholar
  4. Baayen, Rolf Harald, T. Dijkstra, and Robert Schreuder. 1997. “Singulars and Plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a Parallel Dual Route Model”. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, Thomas. 1992. “Compounding in German”. Rivista di Linguistica 4, 5–36.Google Scholar
  8. Bertinetto, Pier-Marco. 1995. “Compositionality and Non-compositionality in Morphology”.Google Scholar
  9. In W. Dressler and C. Burani (eds), Crosslinguistic Approaches to Morphology. Vienna:Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 9–36.Google Scholar
  10. Booij, Geert. 1992. “Compounding in Dutch”. Rivista di Linguistica 4, 37–59.Google Scholar
  11. Booij, Geert. 1993. “Against Split Morphology”. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 27–49.Google Scholar
  12. Booij, Geert. 1996. “Inherent versus Contextual Inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis”. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–16.Google Scholar
  13. Booij, Geert. 1997. “Allomorphy and the Autonomy of Morphology”. Folia Linguistica 31, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butterworth, Brian. 1983. “Lexical Representation”. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production 2. New York, Academic Press, 257–294.Google Scholar
  15. Cassell. 1984. Cassells Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch. Munich: Compact Verlag. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger Publ.Google Scholar
  16. Clahsen, Harald. 1999. “Lexical Entries and Rules of Language: a Multidisciplinary Study of German Inflection”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 6Google Scholar
  17. Clahsen, Harald, Gary Marcus, Susanne Bartke and Richard Wiese. 1996. “Compounding and Inflection in German Child Language”. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 115–142.Google Scholar
  18. Clahsen, Harald, Monika Rothweiler and Andreas Woest. 1990. “Lexikalische Ebenen und morphologische Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb des deutschen Pluralsystems im Rahmen der Lexikalischen Morphologie”. In M. Rothweiler (ed.)Google Scholar
  19. Spracherwerb und Grammatik: Linguistische Untersuchungen zum Erwerb von Syntaxund Morphologie,Sonderheft 3, Linguistische Berichte, 105–126.Google Scholar
  20. Clahsen, Harald, Monika Rothweiler, Andreas Woest and Gary F. Marcus. 1993. “Regular and Irregular Inflection in the Acquisition of German Noun Plurals”. Cognition 45, 225–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corbin, Danielle et al. 1997. (eds). Mots possibles et mots existants. Silexicales 1 (Université de Lille).Google Scholar
  22. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1975. “System, Norm und Rede”. In E. Coseriu, Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Munich: Fink, 11–101.Google Scholar
  23. Cutler, Anne. 1997. “The Comparative Perspective on Spoken-language Processing”. Speech Communication 21, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1984. “Zur Wertung der Interfixe in einer semiotischen Theorie der Natürlichen Morphologie”. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 13, 35–45.Google Scholar
  26. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1988. “Preferences vs. Strict Universals in Morphology: Word-based Rules”. In M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds), Theoretical Morphology. Orlando: Academic Press, 143–154.Google Scholar
  27. Dressler, W.U. 1989. “Prototypical Differences between Inflection and Derivation”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.Google Scholar
  28. Dressler, W.U. 1997. “On Productivity in Inflectional Morphology”. CLASNET Working Papers (Montréal) 7.Google Scholar
  29. Dressler, W.U. 1998. “What is the Core of Morphology”. In J. Niemi et al. (eds), Language Contact, Variation, and Change. University of Joensuu, 15–32.Google Scholar
  30. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Maria Ladanyi. 1998. “On Grammatical Productivity of Word Formation Rules”. Wiener linguistische Gazette 62–63, 29–55.Google Scholar
  31. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Maria Ladanyi. 2000. “Productivity in Word Formation: a Morphological Approach”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 703–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1991. “Interradical Interfixes: Contact and Contrast”. In V. Ivir and D. Kalogjera (eds), Languages in Contact and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 133–145.Google Scholar
  33. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1976. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  35. Fuhrhop, Nanna. 1996. “Fugenelemente”. In E. Lang and G. Zifonun (eds). Deutsch–typologisch. Berlin: de Gruyter, 525–550.Google Scholar
  36. Jarema, Gonia. 1998. “The Breakdown of Morphology in Aphasia: a Cross-language Perspective”. In B. Stemmer and H.A. Whitaker (eds), Handbook of Neurolinguistics. New York: Academic Press, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jarema, Gonia, Céline Busson, Rossitsa Nikolova, Kyrana Tsapkini, and Gary Libben. 1999. “Processing Compounds: a Cross-linguistic Study”. Brain and Language 68, 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kehayia, Eva, Gonia Jarema, Kyrana Tsapkini, Danuta Perlak, Angela Ralli and Danuta Kadzielawa. 1999. “The Role of Morphological Structure in the Processing of Compounds: the Interface between Linguistics and Psycholinguistics”, Brain and Language 68, 370–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kempcke, Günter. 1984. (ed.). Handwörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
  40. Kiparsky, Paul. 1975. “What are Phonological Theories About?” In D. Cohen and J.R. Wirth (eds), Testing Linguistic Hypotheses. New York: Wiley, 187–209.Google Scholar
  41. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology”. In J. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  42. Libben, Gary. 1994. “How is Morphological Decomposition Achieved?” Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Libben, Gary. 1998. Semantic Transparency in the Processing of Compounds: Consequences for Representation, Processing, and Impairment. Brain and Language 61, 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Libben, Gary, Derwing, Bruce, and de Almeida, Roberto. 1999. “Ambiguous NovelGoogle Scholar
  45. Compounds and Models of Morphological Parsing“. Brain and Language 68, 378–386. Malkiel, Yakov. 1958. ”Los interfijos hispbnicos“. Miscelknea homenaje a A. Martinet, H.Madrid: Gredos, 107–199.Google Scholar
  46. McQueen, James and Cutler, Anne 1998. “Morphology in Word Recognition.” In A. Spencer and A. Zwicky (eds), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 406–427Google Scholar
  47. Mel’cuk, Igor A. 1982. Towards a Language of Linguistics. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
  48. Motsch, Wolfgang. 1981. “Der kreative Aspekt in der Wortbildung”. In L. Lipka (ed.), Wortbildung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 94–118.Google Scholar
  49. Ortner, Lorelies and Elgin Müller-Bollhagen (eds), 1991. Substantivkomposita: Deutsche Wortbildung, IV. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince. 1994. “Regular and Irregular Morphology and the Psychological Status of Rules of Grammar”. In S. Lima et al. (eds), The Reality of Linguistic Rules. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 321–351.Google Scholar
  51. Rainer, Franz. 1988. “Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian and German Quality Nouns”. Yearbook of Morphology 1988. 155–185.Google Scholar
  52. Rainer, Franz. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rainer, Franz. 1996. “Inflection inside Derivation”. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 83–92.Google Scholar
  54. 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, 529–567.Google Scholar
  55. Scalise, Sergio. 1992. ed. “The Morphology of Compounding”. Rivista di Linguistica 4,1, 1–243.Google Scholar
  56. Schreuder, Robert, Anneke Neijt. Femke van der Weide and R. Harald Baayen. 1998. Regular Plurals in Dutch Compounds: Linking Graphemes or Morphemes“. Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 551–573.Google Scholar
  57. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Taft, Marcus and Forster, K.I. 1975. “Lexical Storage and Retrieval of Prefixed Words”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14, 630–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taft, Marcus and Forster, K. I. 1976. “Lexical Storage and Retrieval of Prefixed Words”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14, 630–647.Google Scholar
  60. Warren, Beatrice. 1990. “The Importance of Combining Forms”. In W. Dressler et al. (eds), Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter, 111–132.Google Scholar
  61. Wolff, Susanne. 1984. Lexical Entries and Word Formation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  62. Zepie, Stanko. 1970. Morphologie and Semantik der deutschen Nominalkomposita. Zagreb: Filozofski Fakultet Sveucilista.Google Scholar
  63. Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 1990. “Compounding and Inflection”. In W. Dressler et al. (eds), Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 133–138.Google Scholar
  64. Zwitserlood, P. 1994. “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing and Representation of Dutch Compounds”. Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang U. Dressler
    • 1
    • 5
  • Gary Libben
    • 2
    • 6
  • Jacqueline Stark
    • 3
    • 7
  • Christiane Pons
    • 4
    • 7
  • Gonia Jarema
    • 4
    • 8
  1. 1.University of Vienna and the Austrian AcademyAustria
  2. 2.University of AlbertaCanada
  3. 3.Austrian Academy of SciencesAustria
  4. 4.University of Montréal and Centre Universitaire of Sciences de Gériatrie de MontréalCanada
  5. 5.Institut für SprachwissenschaftUniversität WienWienAustria
  6. 6.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.Kommission für LinguistikAustrian Academy of SciencesWienAustria
  8. 8.Centre Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations