Linguistics

Claims about the productivity of a given affix are generally made without differentiating productivity according to type of discourse, although it is commonly assumed that certain kinds of derivational suffixes are more pertinent in certain kinds of texts than in others. Conversely, studies in register variation have paid very little attention to the role derivational morphology may play in register variation.

This paper explores the relation between register variation and derivational morphology through a quantitative investigation of the productivity of a number of English derivational suffixes across three types of discourse in the British National Corpus (written language, context-governed spoken language, and everyday conversations). Three main points emerge from the analysis. First, within a single register, different suffixes may differ enormously in their productivity, even if structurally they are constrained to a similar extent. Second, across the three registers under investigation a given suffix may display vast differences in productivity. Third, the register variation of suffixes is not uniform, i.e. there are suffixes that show differences in productivity across registers while other suffixes do not, or do so to a lesser extent. We offer some tentative explanations for these findings and discuss the implications for morphological theory.

In this study we examine linguistic variation and its dependence on both social and geographic factors. We follow dialectometry in applying a quantitative methodology and focusing on dialect distances, and social dialectology in the choice of factors we examine in building a model to predict word pronunciation distances from the standard Dutch language to 424 Dutch dialects. We combine linear mixed-effects regression modeling with generalized additive modeling to predict the pronunciation distance of 559 words. Although geographical position is the dominant predictor, several other factors emerged as significant. The model predicts a greater distance from the standard for smaller communities, for communities with a higher average age, for nouns (as contrasted with verbs and adjectives), for more frequent words, and for words with relatively many vowels. The impact of the demographic variables, however, varied from word to word. For a majority of words, larger, richer and younger com...

This research exploits the English and Dutch CELEX lexical database to investigate the form similarity relations between words. Lexical statistics analyses replicate and extend the findings of Landauer and Streeter (1973) concerning the relation between a word′s frequency and the density and frequency of its similarity neighborhood. The results for both Dutch and English reveal only a weak tendency for high-frequency written and spoken words to have more neighbors than rare words and for these neighbors to be more frequent than those of rare words. However, the number of neighbors was found to correlate more highly with bigram frequency than with word frequency. To clarify the relations between these properties, a stochastic model is presented which captures the relevant effects of phonotactic structure on neighborhood similarities. The implications of these findings for models of language production and comprehension are considered.

This paper examines whether the selection of linking elements for novel German compounds can be better explained in terms of a single or a dual-route model. Previous studies had focused on the predictability of linking elements by rules. We investigate a single-route model by focusing on the paradigmatic analogical effect of the compounds sharing the left (right) constituent with the target compound, i.e., the left (right) constituent family. A production experiment reveals an effect of the left, but not of the right constituent family. Simulation studies of the responses, using a computational model of paradigmatic analogy, show that the left constituent and its phonological and morphological properties (rime, gender, and inflectional class) simultaneously codetermine the selection of linking elements. We show how these results can be accounted for by a single-route approach, and we outline a symbolic interactive activation model that merges the factors into one psycholinguistically motivated processing mechanism.

According to the widely accepted Lexical Category Prominence Rule (LCPR), prominence assignment to triconstituent compounds depends on the branching direction. Left-branching compounds, that is, compounds with a left-hand complex constituent, are held to have highest prominence on the left-most constituent, whereas right-branching compounds have highest prominence on the second of the three constituents. The LCPR is, however, only poorly empirically supported. The present paper tests a new hypothesis concerning the prominence of triconstituent compounds and suggests a new methodology for the empirical investigation of compound prominence. According to this hypothesis, the prominence pattern of the embedded compound has a decisive influence on the prominence of the whole compound. Using a mixed-effects generalized additive model for the analysis of the pitch movements, it is shown that all triconstituent compounds have an accent on the first constituent irrespective of branching, and that the placement of a second, or even a third, accent is dependent on the prominence pattern of the embedded compound. The LCPR is wrong.

The notion of productivity is one which is central to the study of morphology. It is a notion about which linguists frequently have intuitions. But it is a notion which still remains somewhat problematic in the literature on generative morphology some 15 years after Aronoff raised the issue in his (1976) monograph. In this paper we will review some of the definitions and measures of productivity discussed in the generative and pregenerative literature. We will adopt the definition of productivity suggested by Schultink (1961) and propose a number of statistical measures of productivity whose results, when applied to a fixed corpus, accord nicely with our intuitive estimates of productivity, and which shed light on the quantitative weight of linguistic restrictions on word-formation rules. Part of our purpose here is also a very simple one: to make available a substantial set of emperical data concerning the productivity of some of the major derivational affixes of English.