Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-mvngg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-17T10:19:15.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How the parts relate to the whole: Frequency effects on children's interpretations of novel compounds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2008

ANDREA KROTT ,
CHRISTINA L. GAGNÉ  and
ELENA NICOLADIS
ANDREA KROTT*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
CHRISTINA L. GAGNÉ
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Canada
ELENA NICOLADIS
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: Andrea Krott, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom. tel: +44 (0)121 414 4903. fax: +44 (0)121 4144897. e-mail a.krott@bham.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores different frequency effects on children's interpretations of novel noun–noun compounds (e.g. egg bag as ‘bag FOR eggs’). We investigated whether four- to five-year-olds and adults use their knowledge of related compounds and their modifier–head relations (e.g. sandwich bag (FOR) or egg white (PART-OF)) when explaining the meaning of novel compounds and/or whether they are affected by overall frequency of modifier–head relations in their vocabulary. Children's interpretations were affected by their experience with relations in compounds with the same head, but not by overall relation frequency. Adults' interpretations were affected by their experience with relations in compounds with the same modifier, suggesting that children and adults use similar but different knowledge to interpret compounds. Furthermore, only children's interpretations revealed an overuse of visually perceivable relations.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 85 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

[*]

We would like to thank Helen Breadmore for her help in conducting the experiment and transcribing participants' responses and Harald Baayen for his help with the statistical analysis. This research was supported by a British Academy Joint Activities Grant, NSERC Discovery Grant 203054 and NSERC Discovery Grant 245058.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S. E. M. & Crago, M. B. (1996). Early passive acquisition in Inuktitut. Journal of Child Language 23, 129–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gullikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA: Linguistics Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Berko, S. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1987). A developmental route: learning about the form and use of complex nominals in Hebrew. Linguistics 25, 1057–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1981). Lexical innovations: How children learn to create new words. In Deutsch, W. (eds) The child's construction of language, 299–328. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983). Meaning and concepts. In Mussen, P. H., Flavell, L. H. & Markman, E. M. (eds) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 Cognitive development, 787–840. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1998). Lexical creativity in French-speaking children. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 17, 513–30.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Berman, R. A. (1987). Types of linguistic knowledge: Interpreting and producing compound nouns. Journal of Child Language 14, 547–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A. & Lane, N. M. (1985). Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In Flores d'Arcais, G. B. & Jarvella, R. J. (eds) The process of language understanding, 297–331. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M. & Baayen, R. H. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language 81, 555–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53(4), 810–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology – Learning, Memory and Cognition 27(1), 236–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagné, C. L. & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology – Learning, Memory and Cognition 23(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. & Shoben, E. J. (2002). Priming relations in ambiguous noun–noun combinations. Memory and Cognition 30(4), 637–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2004 a). Effect of discourse context and modifier relation frequency on conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 50(4), 444–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2004 b). Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun–noun compounds. Brain and Language 90, 478–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (1982). A study of early word meaning using artificial objects: What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo? In Gardner, J. (ed.) Readings in developmental psychology, 137–42. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. & Murphy, G. L. (1992). Contextual influences on the comprehension of complex concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes 7(3–4), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M. & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M., Barrett, M., Jones, D. & Brookes, S. (1988). Linguistic input and early word meaning. Journal of Child Language 15(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kay, P. & Zimmer, K. (1976). On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. In Sixth California Linguistics Association Proceedings, 29–35. San Diego, CA: Campile Press.Google Scholar
Klibanoff, R. S. & Waxman, S. R. (2000). Basic level object categories support the acquisition of novel adjectives: Evidence from preschool-aged children. Child Development 71 (3), 649–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krott, A., Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R. (2001). Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39(1), 51–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, A. & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Large constituent families help children parse compounds. Journal of Child Language 32(1), 139–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuczaj, S. A. (1977). The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, B., Smith, L. B. & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development 3(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2), 251–86.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30(2), 333–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. (1997). Children's productivity in the English past tense: The role of frequency, phonology, and neighbourhood structure. Cognitive Science 21, 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellenius, I. (1997). The acquisition of nominal compounding in Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Neijt, A., Krebbers, L. & Fikkert, P. (2002). Rythm and semantics in the selection of linking elements. In Broekhuis, H. & Fikkert, P. (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002, Vol. 19, 117–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: AVT Publications.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. G. K., Russell, R., Duke, N. & Jones, K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. Child Development 71(5), 1271–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoladis, E. (2002). What's the difference between ‘toilet paper’ and ‘paper toilet’? French–English bilingual children's crosslinguistic transfer in compound nouns. Journal of Child Language 29, 843–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoladis, E. (2003). What compound nouns mean to preschool children. Brain and Language 84, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoladis, E. & Krott, A. (2007). Family size and French-speaking children's segmentation of existing compounds. Language Learning 57(2), 201–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parault, S. J., Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Haverback, H. R. (2005). The development of interpretations for novel noun–noun conceptual combinations during the early school years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 91(1), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, J. C. & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics 10, 143–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. & Siegel, M. E. A. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2), 199–260.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005). Meaning predictability in word formation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun–noun compounds. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar