* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *


LINGUIST List 25.528

Sat Feb 01 2014

Review: Psycholinguistics; Sociolinguistics; Dutch: Hanssen (2012)

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajivlinguistlist.org>

Date: 06-Nov-2013
From: Olufunmilayo Ogunkeye <fogunkeyeyahoo.com>
Subject: Linking Elements in Compounds
E-mail this message to a friend

Discuss this message

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-4907.html

AUTHOR: Esther Hanssen
TITLE: Linking Elements in Compounds
SUBTITLE: Regional Variation in Speech Production and Perception
SERIES TITLE: LOT dissertation series
PUBLISHER: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT)
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Olufunmilayo Mosunmola Ogunkeye, University of Jos

SUMMARY

The focus of this book is on linking elements in Dutch compounds and the
regional variations of these linking elements in speech perception and
production. The purpose of the book is to investigate the relation of the
linking element -en- in spoken Dutch compounds and the homophonous plural
affix -en in Dutch. Earlier works have shown that these two elements are
similar in written Dutch (Neijt et al, 2004). There are two questions central
to this work: the first is whether speakers of standard Dutch and speakers
from other regions of the Netherlands interpret the variants of the linking
-en- in noun-noun compounds as a plural marker; and the second is how rhythm
and the interpretation of written and spoken Dutch compounds influence the
linking -en-. The book is presented in seven chapters. Each chapter is
self-contained and a complete study, and each, except Chapter 7 has its own
abstract at the beginning of the chapter and references at the end.

Chapter 1 explains the aim and objective of the study, and gives a brief
history of the study of the homophonous plural -en and linking element-en-.
The author, Hanssen, sets out to investigate two things: the question of
whether the linking -en- in spoken Dutch causes a plural interpretation,
regardless of spelling; and the rhythmic function of the linking -en-.

Chapter 2: ‘The similarities of plural endings and linking elements in
regional speech variation in Dutch’

Here, Hanssen shows that speakers from different regions of the Netherlands
pronounce the Dutch plural suffix differently. However, in the study conducted
by the author, participants from 5 regions of the Netherlands showed
systematic relations between the pronunciation of the plural suffix -en and
the linking element -en-. The results of the study showed that Dutch speakers
in general often do not distinguish the plural form -en from the linking -en-
and that they regard both, possibly, as the same morpheme.

Chapter 3: ‘Morphological differences in Frisian-Dutch bilinguals:
(dis)similarity of linking elements and plural endings’

In this chapter, Hanssen shows the homography of the linking -en- and the
plural suffix -en in standard Dutch but states that this homography does not
exist in Frisian, which is closely related Dutch. The question of whether
Frisian-Dutch bilinguals keep these systems separate during speech production
was tested in two sets of bilinguals: Dutch-Frisian bilinguals and
Frisian-Dutch bilinguals. The Dutch-Frisian bilinguals were found to maintain
the homophony of the plural -en and the linking -en- when speaking Frisian.
However, the Frisian-Dutch bilinguals maintained the system lacking homophony
and kept the two separate. The conclusion is that most Frisian-Dutch
bilinguals distinguish the plural ending -en from the linking -en- when they
speak Frisian, but not when they speak Dutch. The author is able to show,
through these studies, that the linking -en- and plural -en are homophonous
for Dutch speakers but not always for Frisian-Dutch bilinguals.

Chapter 4: ‘Regular noun plurals as modifiers in spoken Dutch compounds’

This chapter investigates the interpretation of the linking -en- in Dutch
nominal compounds. So far, the relation between the plural -en and the linking
-en- has been investigated in writing. This chapter investigates the same
relation in speech. The study in this chapter was carried out using speakers
from four regions of the Netherlands: North, Northeast, Middle and South. The
study shows that, given the fact that plural formation is regular in Dutch and
the homophonous linking -en- shows the plural interpretation in written
compounds, speakers of Dutch from these four regions pronounce the -en in
phrases and in compounds identically. This gives rise to the plural
interpretation of the linking -en- by speakers of Dutch, leading to the
conclusion that regular plurals can occur as modifiers in Dutch compounds,
contrary to Kiparsky's (1982) and Pinker's (1999) theories that compound
formation is constrained by regular inflection.

Chapter 5: ‘Regional origin affects the interpretation of linking elements in
spoken Dutch compounds’

The author shows in this chapter that a speaker's regional origin affects the
interpretation of regional speech variants. The linking element -en- has the
regional variations [ә], [әn], and the syllabic velar nasal in spoken Dutch
compounds, which produce interference for speakers from the North, Northeast
and South of the Netherlands. This means that they invariably interpret all
regional speech variants of the Dutch linking element as a plural marker.
Speakers from the Middle region showed interference effects for the variants
[әn] and the syllabic velar nasal but not for the linking [әn], even though
they realize both plural -en and linking -en- as [ә]. According to the author,
this may be because, for this category of speakers, the linking [әn] in Dutch
compounds performs a rhythmic function within the compound, thereby creating
an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables. The greatest interference
effect was shown by speakers from the North, where Frisian is spoken and there
is no homophony of the plural -en and the linking -en-. Speakers from the
South showed the largest interference effects for the linking syllabic velar
nasal, as this is an unfamiliar speech variant for them. This shows that in
everyday speech, speakers of different but related linguistic backgrounds
often arrive at different interpretations, occasioned by regional differences.

Chapter 6: ‘Semantic and prosodic effects of Dutch linking elements’

Three studies were carried out in this chapter in order to establish the
semantic and prosodic effects of the Dutch linking element. The first study
investigated two types of compounds with linking -en-: pseudo-compounds and
novel compounds, that is, new combinations of existing words. The purpose was
to establish the role of rhythm on pseudo-compounds. The second test looked at
written existing compounds with and without linking -en-, with the aim of
finding out the role of plural semantics and rhythm in written existing
compounds. The third study investigated the role of plural semantics and
rhythm in spoken existing compounds with and without the linking -en-. There
are two views reported by Hanssen regarding the function the Dutch
linking-en-: as a marker of plurality and as having a phonological effect.
According to Krott (2001), the stress pattern of the left constituent does not
reliably predict the occurrence of the linking-en- in existing compounds. On
the other hand, Neijt and Schreuder (2007) state that rhythm does influence
the choice of linking -en-, i.e., linking -en- is used when this improves the
overall rhythmic pattern of the compound. In terms of conceptual plurality,
the results of the studies show that a linking-en- in existing compounds
increases estimated conceptual plurality, i.e., a compound with a linking -en-
is considered 'more plural' than one without a linking -en-. One major
problem of this conclusion is that the results violate the words-and-rules
theory of Pinker (1999), which predicts that irregular plurals like ‘mice’ and
‘men’ can serve as input for compounds but regular plurals like ‘boys,’ ‘cats’
and ‘dogs’ cannot ( mice-eater, but *rats-eater). Studies from Dutch and
German (Koester et al. 2007) show that plural modifiers can appear in a
compound. Finally, rhythmic effect was shown to be present in pseudo-compounds
but not in written novel and existing compounds. This is explained in terms of
processing. Phonology was not necessary to grasp the correct meaning of
written novel and existing compounds since there is a direct relationship
between the constituents of the compound. Rhythm is therefore not likely to
play a role as it does in spoken compounds and in pseudo-compounds. There is
no relationship between the constituents in pseudo-compounds, and thus, they
would have to rely on phonology for their interpretation.

Chapter 7: ‘Summary and conclusion’

In this chapter, the author summarises the purpose and the major findings of
the work. To test the (dis)similarity of the Dutch plural -en and linking
element -en- in Dutch compounds, various tests were carried out with
participants from five regions of the Netherlands regarding: (a) the
pronunciation of the homophonous -en-; (b) its perception (i.e. does -en-
induce a plural interpretation of the leftmost constituent of a compound);
and (c) the influence of rhythm on interpretation. The author then discuses
the results in the light of current research on morphology and proposes topics
for further research.

EVALUATION

In the author's own words, the book is a thesis. Each chapter between 2 and 6
represents an independent study and is self-contained such that it is possible
to read one chapter without reference to the others. Each has an abstract, an
introduction to and a description of the specific task in the chapter, along
with an impressive list of references at the end. What is commendable about
the work is how the author is able to tie the results of all the studies
together into a coherent whole, as demonstrated in Chapter 7.

This work has made a great contribution to the on-going debate about the
nature, production and interpretation of the plural suffix -en and the
linking element of noun-noun compounds. One of the major merits of the book is
that Hanssen extended the study of the linking elements in written compounds
to spoken compound words and then compared the production of these elements in
the speech of Dutch-Frisian and Frisian-Dutch bilinguals. Hanssen thus
elaborates on the study of linking elements in Dutch compounds from
psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives.

As a non-speaker of Dutch, I find many of the arguments in this work
fascinating. In Chapter 4, Hanssen showed that the plural-en and linking -en-
are homophonous for speakers of Dutch, which usually leads to the plural
interpretation of the linking -en- in compounds. On the other hand, Koester
et al. (2004) establish in their study that Dutch speakers do not process the
linking elements that are homophonous with plural morphemes as plural
morphemes. Prosodic cues differentiate single nouns and compounds, and are
used to disambiguate linking elements and plural morphemes. Neijt (2003) gives
a few examples of words which may or may not have a linker, and states that
the linker does not in fact solve stress clashes: gordijnwinkel /
gordijnenwinkel (‘curtain shop’), kamelenhaar – kameelhaar (‘camel hair’), and
oogpotlood – ogenpotlood (‘eye pencil’). Although I am hard-pressed to find an
explanation for why this should be, it seems to me that since both are
acceptable, the only reason to choose one rather than the other is whether or
not the left constituent is interpreted as plural or singular. Hanssen et
al.’s (2013) Dutch native speakers and second language learners of Dutch show
a preference for the linking -en- in compounds. However, whether or not they
interpret it as a plural marker or a linker is another matter. The implication
for level ordering is clear; a regular plural noun cannot serve as input to a
compound. In Dutch, however, it can. In this case, Dutch, (and perhaps German)
is an exception to this rule. On the other hand, the minimalist programme
allows each language to set its own parameters. Further research should go in
this direction.

The investigation into linking elements in Dutch has implications for
cross-linguistic studies of similar elements. In Yoruba, for example, a
language within the Niger/Congo family, there are linking elements whose
presence in a compound affects the semantics of the compound whether or not
the linker has a dictionary meaning.

ki= ? ilé 'house' ilékílé ' any house' ; omo 'child'
omokomo ' any/useless child'

In some cases, when a linking element is introduced into a compound, the
result is a phrase:

erú obinrin

'slave female/girl'

erú u obinrin

'slave POSS woman ' the woman's slave'

erúbinrin ' a female slave'

(Ogunkeye 2002, 2004)

Such linkers normally assume the shape of the preceding vowel and often retain
the original function as a genitive morpheme.

Compounding is a very productive word-formation process and is widely studied
cross-linguistically. The book presupposes familiarity with issues in
compounding, especially concerning noun-noun compounds in Dutch. The author
presents an impressive amount of data covering existing noun-noun compounds,
novel compounds and pseudo-compounds. I would have liked to see more examples
of noun-noun compounds where the first constituent is a mass or uncountable
noun (e.g. ‘waterpot’ or ‘skyscraper’) to see what implication that would have
for the choice of linking element. Nevertheless, the effort of the author in
this work is highly commendable. The book will appeal to linguists who are
interested in word-formation processes and are keen on adequate description of
derived words, psychologists and cognitive scientists who are interested in
language and thought as well as sociolinguists who are interested in regional
language variations.

REFERENCES

Hanssen. E., Neijte A., Schreuder, R. 2013. Preference for linking element
-en- in Dutch noun-noun compounds: native speakers and second language
learners of Dutch Morphology Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 33-56

Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In I. S. Yang (Ed.),
Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seoul: Hansin

Koester, D., Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. 2004.
Morphosyntax, prosody, and linking elements: The auditory processing of German
nominal compounds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(9), 1647-1668.

Krott, A. 2001. Analogy in morphology. The selection of linking elements in
Dutch compounds. Nijmegen: PhD Dissertation, MPI Series in Psycholinguistics

Krott A. 2002 Effects of rules and analogy on processing Dutch compound words
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X01925581

Neijt Annette 2003. Linking schwa in Dutch compounds: a phonomorpheme?
www.let.rug.nl/koster/DenBesten/Neijt.pdf‎” Retrieved 16 October 2013

Neijt, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. 2004. Seven years later. The effect
of spelling on interpretation. In L. Cornips & J. Doetjes (Eds.), Linguistics
in the Netherlands, 2004 (pp. 134-145). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

Neijt, A., & Schreuder, R. 2007. Rhythm versus Analogy: prosodic form
variation in Dutch compounds. Language and Speech, 50, 533–566.

Ogunkeye, O.M. 2002. A Lexicalist Approach to the Study of Aspects of Yorùbá
Morphology. PhD Thesis. University of Ibàdàn.

Ogunkeye, O. M. 2004 The Lexical Organisation of Yorùbá Compounds. Journal of
Nigerian Languages and Culture. Volume 6 No. 1 pp 88-99

Pinker, S.1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic
Books

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Olufunmilayo Mosunmola Ogunkeye received a M.A and a PhD in Linguistics
from the University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England, and the University of Ibadan,
Nigeria, respectively. Dr. Ogunkeye teaches linguistics at the University of Jos, Nigeria,
and researches areas such as generative morphology, lexicography and the
interfaces between morphology/syntax, and syntax/semantics. Dr. Ogunkeye has also
worked on aspects of the morphosyntax of Yoruba as well as intercultural communication.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 01-Feb-2014

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.