Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:10:41.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Semantics, Argument Structure, and Lexicalization in Compound Stress Assignment in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ingo Plag,
Gero Kunter,
Sabine Lappe and
Maria Braun
Ingo Plag*
Affiliation:
University of Siegen
Gero Kunter*
Affiliation:
University of Siegen
Sabine Lappe*
Affiliation:
University of Siegen
Maria Braun*
Affiliation:
University of Siegen
*
English Linguistics Fachbereich 3 Universität Siegen Adolf-Reichwein-Str. 2 D-57068 Siegen [plag@anglistik.uni-siegen.de]
[kunter@anglistik.uni-siegen.de]
[arndt-lappe@anglistik.uni-siegen.de]
[braun@anglistik.uni-siegen.de]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is generally assumed that noun-noun compounds in English are stressed on the left-hand member (e.g. cóurtroom, watchmaker). However, there is a large amount of variation in stress assignment (e.g. silk tíe, Madison Ávenue, singer-sóngwriter) whose significance and sources are largely unaccounted for in the literature. This article presents a study in which three kinds of factors held to play a role in compound stress assignment are tested: argument structure, lexicalization, and semantics. The analysis of 4,353 noun-noun compounds extracted from the Boston University Radio Speech Corpus shows that there is indeed a considerable amount of variation in stress assignment. Overall, semantics turns out to have the strongest effect on compound stress assignment, whereas an approach relying on argument structure is much less successful in predicting compound stress. The article presents for the first time large-scale empirical evidence for the assumption that lexicalization has an effect on compound stress assignment. The article also makes a methodological contribution to the debate in showing that (and how) corpus-based studies using acoustic measurements can shed new light on the issue of variable compound stress.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , December 2008, pp. 760 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Linguistic Society of America

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

References

Adams, Valerie. 1973. An introduction to Modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education/Longman.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983a. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983b. Stress in compounds: A rejoinder. English Studies 64.47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1998. When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics 2.65–86.10.1017/S1360674300000691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 2000. How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer; and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2005. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3.01). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Online: http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian. 1983. Lexical representation. Language production, vol. 2: Development, writing and other language processes, ed. by Butterworth, Brian, 257–94. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, Robert L. 1977. Roget's International Thesaurus. 4th edn. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6. 991–1060.10.1017/S0140525X99002228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, Michael J. 2005. Statistics: An introduction using R. Chichester: John Wiley.10.1002/9781119941750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vaan, Laura, Schreuder, Rob; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Regular morphologically complex neologisms leave detectable traces in the mental lexicon. Mental Lexicon 2.1. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnetani, Edda, and Cosi, Piero. 1988. English compound versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse: An acoustic and perceptual study. Language and Speech 31.157–80.10.1177/002383098803100204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fry, Dennis Butler. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1.126–52.10.1177/002383095800100207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik C. 1984. English word-stress. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina L. 2001. Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27.236–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Gagné, Christina L., and Shoben, Edward J.. 1997. Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 23.71–87.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8.1–24.10.1017/S1360674304001224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2005. Associative adjectives and the lexicon-syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics 41.571–91.10.1017/S0022226705003440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2006. Attribution in English and the distinction between phrases and compounds. Englisch in Zeit und Raum – English in time and space: Forschungsbericht für Klaus Faiss, ed. by Rösel, Petr. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, and Broeders, A.. 1981. English pronunciation for student teachers. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff-Longman.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9.7. 342–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Query Google. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. Online: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/QueryGoogle/.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, Sosa, Juan M.; and Fadden, Lorna. 2004. Meanings and configurations of questions in English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, Nara (Japan), 309–12.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 1993. Pitch accent in context: Predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence 63.305–40.10.1016/0004-3702(93)90020-CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, John, Anh, Thi Nguyen, Thu; and Pensalfini, Rob. 2003. An acoustic analysis of compound and phrasal stress patterns in Australian English. St. Lucia: University of Queensland, ms.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909 [1961]. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part 1: Sounds and spelling. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kingdon, Roger. 1958. The groundwork of English stress. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Baayen, R. Harald; and Schreuder, Robert. 2001. Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39.51–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Hagoort, Peter; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2004a. Sublexical units and supralexical combinatorics: The case of Dutch interfixes in visual processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 19.453–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Libben, Gary, Jarema, Gonia, Dressler, Wolfgang, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2004b. Probability in the grammar of German and Dutch: Interfixation in triconstituent compounds. Language and Speech 47.1. 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2002. Analogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. In Skousen et al., 181–206.Google Scholar
Kunter, Gero. 2007. Within-speaker and between-speaker variation in compound stress assignment. Paper presented at the second International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, Université de Toulouse II, July 4, 2007.Google Scholar
Kunter, Gero. 2009. The phonetics and phonology of compound stress in English. Siegen: Universität Siegen dissertation, to appear.Google Scholar
Kunter, Gero, and Plag, Ingo. 2007. What is compound stress? 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, University of Saarbrücken, 6–10 August 2007, ed. by Trouvain, Jürgen and Barry, William, 1005–8. Saarbrücken: Universität Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Kuperman, Victor, Schreuder, Robert, Bertram, Raymond; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, ms.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1984. English compound stress. Intonation, accent and rhythm, ed. by Gibbon, Dafydd and Richter, Helmut, 253–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2005. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lappe, Sabine, and Plag, Ingo. 2007. The variability of compound stress in English: Towards an exemplar-based alternative of the compound stress rule. Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on exemplar-based models of language acquisition and use. Dublin, Ireland, August 2007.Google Scholar
Lappe, Sabine, and Plag, Ingo. 2008. The variability of compound stress in English: Rules or exemplars? Paper presented at the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 3–6, 2008.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1963. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y., and Sproat, Richard. 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. Lexical matters (Lecture notes 24), ed. by Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna, 131–81. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1994. Lexicalization and institutionalization. The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 1st edn., ed. by Asher, Roland E., 2164–67. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lutstorf, Heinz Theo. 1960. The stressing of compounds in Modern English: A study in experimental phonetics. Bern: Walter Fischer.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd rev. edn. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Morgan, Terrell A., and Janda, Richard D.. 1989. Musically-conditioned stress shift in Spanish revisited: Empirical verification and nonlinear analysis. Studies in Romance linguistics: Selected proceedings from the 17th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Kirschner, Carl and DeCesaris, Janet Ann, 273–88. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2000. Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte 181.55–69.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2001. Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 2000.279–320.10.1007/978-94-017-3724-1_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostendorf, Mari, Price, Patti; and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1996. Boston University Radio Speech Corpus. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Payne, John, and Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. The Cambridge grammar of the English language, ed. by Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 323–524. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511841323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2006. The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics 10.1. 143–72.10.1017/S1360674306001821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Kunter, Gero; and Lappe, Sabine. 2007. Testing hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based investigation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3.2. 199–233.10.1515/CLLT.2007.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey Richard. 1980. Stress in English N + N phrases: A further complicating factor. English Studies 61.264–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. 1971. A stress mess. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1.52–65.Google Scholar
Sepp, Mary. 2006. Phonological constraints and free variation in compounding: A corpus study of English and Estonian noun compounds. New York: City University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. A., Beckman, Mary, Pitrelli, John F., Stendorf, M., Wightman, Colin, Price, Patti, Pierrehumbert, Janet; and Hirschberg, Julia. 1992. ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 867–70. 12–16 October, Banff, Alberta, Canada.10.21437/ICSLP.1992-260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle; and Parkinson, Dilworth S. (eds.) 2002. Analogical modeling: An exemplar-based approach to language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluijter, Agaath M. C., van Heuven, Vincent J. U.; and Pacilly, Jos J. A.. 1997. Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 101.503–13.10.1121/1.417994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1996. Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Does English have productive compounding? Topics in morphology: Selected papers from the third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, September 20–22, 2001), ed. by Booij, Geert E., DeCesaris, Janet, Ralli, Angela, and Scalise, Sergio, 329–41. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Applicada, Universtitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1994. English noun-phrase accent prediction for text-to-speech. Computer Speech and Language 8.79–94.10.1006/csla.1994.1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teschner, Richard, and Whitley, M. Stanley. 2004. Pronouncing English: A stress-based approach with CD-ROM. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Forestress and afterstress. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32.46–62.Google Scholar