Systematicity in the semantics of noun compounds: The role of artifacts vs. natural kinds
-
Beth Levin
,
Lelia Glass
Abstract
The nature of the relationship between the head and modifier in English noun compounds has long posed a challenge to semantic theories. We argue that the type of head-modifier relation in an English endocentric noun-headed compound depends on how its referent is categorized: specifically, on whether the referent is conceptualized as an artifact, made by humans for a purpose; or as a natural kind, existing independently of humans. We propose the Events vs. Essences Hypothesis: the modifier in an artifact-headed compound typically refers to an event of use or creation associated with that artifact, while the modifier in a natural kind-headed compound typically makes reference to inherent properties reflective of an abstract essence associated with the kind, such as its perceptual properties or native habitat. We present three studies substantiating this hypothesis. First, in a corpus of almost 1,700 attested compounds in two conceptual domains (food/cooking and precious minerals/jewelry), we find that as predicted, compound names referring to artifacts tend to evoke events, whereas compound names referring to natural kinds tend to evoke essential properties. Next, in a production experiment involving compound creation and a comprehension experiment involving compound interpretation, we find that the same tendencies also extend to novel compounds.
Acknowledgements
We thank Harald Baayen and two reviewers for their detailed comments on an earlier version of this paper. We have presented this material in a number of venues and we have benefited from the questions and comments of the audiences. We are very grateful to Simon J. Todd for guidance on statistics and Katherine Hilton for assistance with coding the data.
Appendix
A Head-modifier relations used in the corpus study
Meta-relation and relations associated with events (i.e. artifacts)
| Meta-relation: Event | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subtype: Event of Creation | ||||
| Made of | The modifier describes a salient material or component of the head; note that the head does not need to be entirely made of this material/component for this relation to apply | Almond biscotti, [brown sugar] cookies, cocoa brownies, chrome tourmaline, leather bracelet, rubber spatula &% updated sept2016 Method | The modifier evokes the method by which the item is created | Skillet cookies, minute cake, refrigerator cake, cultured pearl, engraved toe ring, split pea |
| Subtype: Event of Use | ||||
| Purpose | The modifier is a purpose for which the head is used (but if object-nom applies, it is to be used instead) | Feeding pea, chili bean, avocado tool, promise ring, candy thermometer, statement necklace | ||
| Time | The modifier describes a time at which the head is used, harvested, needed, etc | Christmas cookies, tea cake, anniversary ring, winter purslane, cocktail ring | ||
| Used-by | The modifier describes an individual who typically uses the head | Baby bangle, mom necklace, navy bean, cow pea, horse bean, cow cabbage | ||
| Object-nom | The head noun is a zero or -er derived deverbal noun and the modifier is understood as the object of that verb | Herb snips, tomato press, apple corer, bagel cutter, citrus zester, turkey baster | ||
Note: In this table we have separated the head-modifier relations according to whether they involve an event of creation or an event of use, although we subsume all of them under the event meta-relation.
Meta-relations and relations associated with essences (i.e. natural kinds)
| Meta-relation:Borrowed | ||
| Borrowed | The modifier is borrowed from another language | Pignoli cookies, bundt cake, keshi pearl, trapiche emerald, civet bean, palmier bracelet |
| Meta-relation: Environmental | ||
| Location | The modifier describes a physical location associated with the head (but if social/political applies, it is to be used instead) | Freshwater pearl, toe ring, garden pea, water spinach, upland cress, kitchen shears |
| Social/political | The modifier describes a social or political entity associated with the head | Moravian [sugar cookies], Greek cookies, Russian [tea cake], [Turquoise Mountain] turquoise, Australian opal, Carolina bean |
| Meta-relation: Perceptual | ||
| Color | The modifier describes the color of the head | White cake, black amber, champagne pearl, brown lentil, rainbow chard, cranberry bean |
| Dimension | The modifier describes a physical dimension of the head | Long bean, deep spoon, narrow spatula, monster cookies |
| Distinctive part | The modifier names a distinctive part of the head | Charm bracelet, anchor earrings, [red eye] bean, red-leafed chicory, stem lettuce, [blunt end] spoon |
| Taste/smell | The modifier describes the taste and/or the smell of the head | Sweet bean, sugar pea, pepper cress, sour dock, butter lettuce, [pi na colada] cake |
| Visual | The modifier describes some visual feature of the head, such as shape or pattern (but if color applies, it is to be used instead) | Lace cookies, [stained glass] cookies, coin pearl, dalmatian jasper, bubble necklace, kidney bean |
The other meta-relation and the head-modifier relations it subsumes
| Meta-relation: Other | ||
| Named after | The modifier is the name of a person or brand that the head is named after; if the head is named after a person or group of people who eat it, used by is used instead | Lady Baltimore cake, Queen Elizabeth cake, Oreo cookies (resemble Oreos), Sleeping Beauty turquoise, Picasso jasper |
| Other property | The modifier describes a property of the head but the property does not fit into any other category | Adjustable bangle, reversible [heart locket], itchy bean, stringless snowpea, slippery vegetable, collapsible funnel |
| Meta-relation: Other | ||
| Whole–part | The modifier describes a whole of which the head is a part (not to be confused with distinctive part) | Elephant ivory, walrus ivory, beet green, pumpkin green, taro leaf, turnip top |
| Value | The modifier describes a subjective value judgment associated with the head | Dream bar, wacky cake, fancy jasper, precious coral, wonder bean, ultimate [citrus tool] |
Note: This table brings together the remaining head-modifier relations that we coded; none of them is uniformly associated with events (and, hence, artifacts) or essences (and, hence, natural kinds).
B Experimental stimuli
Experiment 1
The order of the three descriptors (place of origin, appearance, use) was randomized.
Natural kind descriptions. You subscribe to a service that sends you new food items every month.
This month, you receive a new type of bean. {It comes from Peru. It is brown in color. You use it to make soup.}
This month, you receive a new type of chickpea. {It comes from Istanbul. It is green in color. You use it to make hummus.}
This month, you receive a new type of cabbage. {It comes from Guatemala. Its leaves are shaped like hearts. You use it to make coleslaw.}
This month, you receive a new type of chard. {It comes from Zurich. Its leaves are shaped like triangles. You use it to make quiche.}
Artifact descriptions. You subscribe to a service that sends you new household tools every month.
This month, you receive a new type of pan. {It comes from Naples. It is shaped like a diamond. You use it to bake pizza.}
This month, you receive a new type of ladle. {It comes from Texas. It is black in color. You use it to serve chili.}
This month, you receive a new type of spoon. {It comes from Berlin. It is blue in color. You use it to mold cookies.}
This month, you receive a new type of rack. {It comes from Iran. It is shaped like a V. You use it to roast meat.}
Experiment 2
Artifact modifier. In each pair, the item on the left has a natural kind head, while the item on the right has an artifact head.
beer bean / beer towel
brandy olive / brandy spoon
butter lentil / butter pick
jam apple / jam pan
spaghetti lettuce / spaghetti scissors
stew chickpea / stew skillet
vinegar chard / vinegar colander
salad weed / salad glove
champagne herb / champagne jar
panini leaf / panini tool
Natural kind modifier. In each pair, the item on the left has a natural kind head, while the item on the right has an artifact head.
duck potato / duck screen
sand mushroom / sand hammer
stream vegetable / stream wheel
swamp squash / swamp thermometer
field sprout / field tongs
water endive / water spatula
stick broccoli / stick whisk
shrimp kale / shrimp rack
oyster radish / oyster ladle
desert pea/ desert shield (pair excluded since Desert Shield has an established use)
References
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (Release 2). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor], Philadelphia, PA.Suche in Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278.10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & Harald Baayen. 2015. Parsimonious mixed models. University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Potsdam and University of Tübingen, ms.Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas & Deepayan Sarkar. 2007. The lme4 package. R package.Suche in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander & Emma Tobin. 2017. Natural kinds. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/ (accessed 6 August 2017).Suche in Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 1996. Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition 60(1). 1–29.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil H. 1995. Lexical acculturation and ethnobiology: Utilitarianism versus intellectualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 5(1). 51–64.10.1525/jlin.1995.5.1.51Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Cecil H. 1999. Lexical acculturation in Native American languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195121612.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Bücking, Sebastian. 2009. How do phrasal and lexical modification differ? Contrasting adjective-noun combinations in German. Word Structure 2(2). 184–204.10.3366/E1750124509000403Suche in Google Scholar
Chaigneau, Sergio E., Lawrence W. Barsalou & Mojdeh Zamani. 2009. Situational information contributes to object categorization and inference. Acta Psychologica 130(1). 81–94.10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.10.004Suche in Google Scholar
Costello, Fintan J. & Mark T. Keane. 1997. Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In Nineteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 137–142. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Costello, Fintan J. & Mark T. Keane. 2000. Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science 24(2). 299–349.10.1207/s15516709cog2402_4Suche in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1(1). 19–80.10.1075/sl.1.1.04dixSuche in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199270934.003.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53(4). 810–842.10.2307/412913Suche in Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Suche in Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1986. Explanation in natural morphology, illustrated with comparative and agent-noun formation. Linguistics 24(3). 519–548.10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.519Suche in Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina L. 2009. Psycholinguistic perspectives. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 255–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina L. & Edward J. Shoben. 1997. Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23(1). 71–87.10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.71Suche in Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina L., Thomas L. Spalding & Melissa C. Gorrie. 2005. Sentential context and the interpretation of familiar open-compounds and novel modifier-noun phrases. Language and Speech 48(2). 203–221.10.1177/00238309050480020401Suche in Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Robert Shaw & John Bransford (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology, 67–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott. 2012. Number and individuation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Psycholinguistic perspectives. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 35–54. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110218442.35Suche in Google Scholar
Hilpinen, Risto. 2011. Artifact. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/ (accessed 6 August 2017).Suche in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Karl Zimmer. 1990. On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 239–246. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Keane, Mark T. & Fintan J. Costello. 1996. Where do ‘soccer moms’ come from?: Cognitive constraints on noun-noun compounding in English. In TCD-CS-96-18, Dublin: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College. https://www.cs.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.96/TCD-CS-96-18.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C. 1989. Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2065.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Kiddle, Lawrence B. 1978. American Indian borrowings of Spanish caballo. In Vladimir Honsa & M. J. Hardman de Bautista (eds.), Papers on linguistics and child language: Ruth Hirsch Weir memorial volume, 151–167. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110802283-010Suche in Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Pavol štekauer & Július Zimmermann. 2015. Word-formation strategies: Semantic transparency vs. formal economy. In Lívia Körtvélyessy, Pavol štekauer & Július Zimmermann (eds.), Semantics of complex words, 85–113. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_6Suche in Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. 1972. Naming and necessity. In Donald Davidson & Gilbert H. Harman (eds.), Semantics of natural language, 253–355. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9Suche in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport. 1988. Non-event -er nominals: A probe into argument structure. Linguistics 26(6). 1067–1084.10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067Suche in Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 2010. Compound words, semantic transparency, and morphological transcendence. In Susan Olsen (ed.), New impulses in word formation, 212–232. Hamburg: Buske.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Malt, Barbara C. & Steven A. Sloman. 2004. Conversation and convention: Enduring influences on name choice for common objects. Memory & Cognition 32(8). 1346–1354.10.3758/BF03206325Suche in Google Scholar
Malt, Barbara C., Steven A. Sloman & Silvia P. Gennari. 2003. Universality and language specificity in object naming. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1). 20–42.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00021-4Suche in Google Scholar
Margolis, Eric & Stephen Laurence (eds.). 2007. Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199250981.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1988. Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science 12(4). 529–562.10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2Suche in Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1990. Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 29(3). 259–288.10.1016/0749-596X(90)90001-GSuche in Google Scholar
Nichols, Lynn. 2008. Lexical semantic constraints on noun roots and noun borrowability. Studies in Language 32(3). 683–700.10.1075/bct.25.09nicSuche in Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2012. The semantics of compounds. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 2120–2151. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1995. Lexical semantics and compositionality. In Lila R. Gleitman & Mark Liberman (eds.), Invitation to cognitive science, vol. 1: Language, 2nd edn., 311–360. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4). 409–441.Suche in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7. 215–271.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014Suche in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeannette. 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Yaron Matras & Jeannette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 15–29. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199192.15Suche in Google Scholar
Sloman, Steven A., Barbara Malt & Arthur Fridman. 2001. Categorization versus similarity: The case of container names. In Ulrike Hahn & Michael Ramscar (eds.), Similarity and categorization, 73–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198506287.003.0005Suche in Google Scholar
Spalding, Thomas L. & Christina L. Gagné. 2007. Semantic property activation during the interpretation of combined concepts. The Mental Lexicon 2(1). 25–47.10.1037/e537052012-713Suche in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2007. Seedless grapes: Nature and culture. In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation, 124–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199250981.003.0007Suche in Google Scholar
štekauer, Pavol. 2005. Meaning predictability in word formation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sfsl.54Suche in Google Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J. & Bradley C. Love. 1998. Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 38(2). 177–202.10.1006/jmla.1997.2550Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1971. Some general observations about nominal compounds. In Working papers on language universals, no. 5, C1–C21. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1972. Appropriateness conditions for nominal compounds. In Working papers on language universals, no. 8, 3–20. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Systematicity in the semantics of noun compounds: The role of artifacts vs. natural kinds
- Verb-based vs. schema-based constructions and their variability: On the Spanish transitive directed-motion construction in a contrastive perspective
- The semantics of Scandinavian pancake constructions
- Beyond motion: ‘Come’ and ‘go’ in Persian oral narratives
- Why Monday is not in front of Tuesday: On the uses of English and Finnish front adpositions in sequence metaphors of time
- Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages
- Bilingual children as “laboratories” for studying contact outcomes: Development of perfective aspect
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Systematicity in the semantics of noun compounds: The role of artifacts vs. natural kinds
- Verb-based vs. schema-based constructions and their variability: On the Spanish transitive directed-motion construction in a contrastive perspective
- The semantics of Scandinavian pancake constructions
- Beyond motion: ‘Come’ and ‘go’ in Persian oral narratives
- Why Monday is not in front of Tuesday: On the uses of English and Finnish front adpositions in sequence metaphors of time
- Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages
- Bilingual children as “laboratories” for studying contact outcomes: Development of perfective aspect
