Inflectional morphology and compounding in English : a single route, associative memory based account
Author
Hayes, Jennifer Anne
Attention
2299/14138
Abstract
Native English speakers include irregular plurals in English compounds (e. g., mice
chaser) more frequently than regular plurals (e. g., *rats chaser) (Gordon, 1985).
This dissociation in inflectional morphology has been argued to stem from an
internal and innate morphological constraint as it is thought that the input to which
English speaking children are exposed is insufficient to signal that regular plurals are
prohibited in compounds but irregulars might be allowed (Marcus, Brinkmann,
Clahsen, Weise & Pinker, 1995). In addition, this dissociation in English compounds
has been invoked to support the idea that regular and irregular morphology are
mediated by separate cognitive systems (Pinker, 1999). It is argued in this thesis
however, that the constraint on English compounds can be derived from the general
frequencies and patterns in which the two types of plural (regular and irregular) and
the possessive morpheme occur in the input. In English both plurality (on regular
nouns) and possession are denoted by a [-s] morpheme. It is argued that the
constraint on the use of plurals in English compounds occurs because of competition
between these two identical morphemes. Regular plurals are excluded before a
second noun because the pattern -noun-[-sJ morpheme- noun- is reserved for
marking possession in English. Irregular plurals do not end in the [-s] morpheme and
as such do not compete with the possessive marker and consequently may be
optionally included in compounds. Interestingly, plurals are allowed in compounds
in other languages where this competitive relationship does not exist (e. g. Dutch
(Schreuder, Neijt, van der Weide & Baayen, 1998) and French (Murphy, 2000). As
well as not being in competition with the possessive structure irregular plurals also
occur relatively infrequently in the input compared to regular plurals. This
imbalance between the frequency of regular and irregular plurals in compounds also
affects the way the two types of plural are treated in compounds. Thus there is no
need for an innate mechanism to explain the treatment of plurals in English
compounds. There is enough evidence available in the input to constrain the
formation of compound words in English.
Publication date
2003Published version
https://doi.org/10.18745/th.14138https://doi.org/10.18745/th.14138