Linking elements in compounds - LOT publications

INTRODUCTION
differ in detail, they both consider derivational and inflectional processes of a
language to be organized at different levels. A simplified schema of these
theories (Pinker, 1999, p. 180) is presented in Figure 1.
Memorized
roots (incl.
irregulars)
Figure 1. A simplified schema of morphology based on Kiparsky (Pinker, 1999,
p. 180).
Pinker (1999) assumes that irregular forms are stored as a whole in the mental
lexicon, while regular forms are created by rules. The level-ordering hypothesis
(Kiparsky, 1982) and the words-and-rules theory (e.g., Berent & Pinker, 2007,
2008; Pinker, 1999) predict that irregular words like mice are available as input
for compounds (e.g., mice-eater), while regular forms like rats are not (*rats-eater,
see Figure 1). This thesis will present new data based on Dutch compounds
that may falsify the hypothesis that word formation is constrained by regular
inflection.
Complex
word
formation
1.2 Aims and outline of the thesis
Regular
inflection
Syntax
The main aim of this thesis is to investigate whether speakers of Dutch
interpret Dutch modifiers with linking en in spoken compounds as plural forms.
It elaborates on the influence of form variation on numerosity. A substantial
amount of variation can be found in the occurrence of a linking element in
Dutch compounds. Some compounds occur with and without a linking
element, like bloem+bak and bloem+en+bak (‗flower box‘). Form variation may
also occur in Dutch dialects, for example appel+e+boum (‗apple tree‘) with
linking [ǝ] in the Limburg dialect, versus appel+boom (‗apple tree‘) without
linking element in standard Dutch. Perceived numerosity of a compound‘s
19