Plurals in Synthetic Compounds: ‎Evidence from Persian-Speaking Children

Document Type : Original Research

Author
Musa Nushi
Shahid Behehsti University
Abstract
This study investigates the morphological phenomenon known as plurals-in-compounds effect by analyzing responses given by 25 Persian-speaking children. The children, ranging in age from 3.5 to 13, were divided into six groups and asked questions like what do you call someone who verb-s [regular/irregular] plurals? that required them to form synthetic compounds such as car-stealer. Results indicated that when the nouns in the questions addressed to the children were regular plural, the non–heads in the compounds were predominately singular. Moreover, the children’s responses to questions containing irregular nouns showed that they preferred non–compound Agent (singular N) over compounds containing either singular or irregular plural nouns. The findings are in line with the specifications of Kiparsky's (1982) level-ordering model which bans plural morphology inside compounds. It was also revealed that the children’s compound construction relied on both structural and semantic constraints.

Keywords

Subjects

Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where is morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 571–612.
Anderson, S. R., & Lightfoot, D. W. (2002). The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bahrami-Khorshid, S. (2016). The efficacy of lexical morphology model: An analysis on the basis of Persian data. Language Related Research, 6(6), 47–73.
Berent, I., & Pinker, S. (2007). The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint? The Mental Lexicon, 2(2), 129–181.
Booij, G. (2012). The grammar of words. An introduction to morphology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyle, J. A. (1966). A grammar of modern Persian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and thought. London: Moyer Bell.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. doi:10.1162/0024389052993655
Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cunnings, I., & Clahsen, H. (2007). The time-course of morphological constraints: Evidence from eye-movements during reading. Cognition, 104, 476–494.
Don, J. (2014). Morphological theory and the morphology of English. (Edinburgh textbooks on the English language. Advanced). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Farshidvard, Kh. (2003). Today's comprehensive grammar. Tehran: Sokhan Publication.
Gholamalizadeh, Kh., & Pirani, F. (2011). Lexical stratum and layers in Persian affixes based on lexical morphology. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, 3(2), 65–84.
Goodluck, H. (1991). Language acquisition: A linguistic introduction. Blackwell: Oxford.
Gordon, P. (1985). Level ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 21, 73-93.
Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haskell, T. R., MacDonald M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 119–163.
Jaensch, C., Heyer, V., Gordon, P., & Clahsen, H. (2014). What plurals and compounds reveal about constraints in word formation. Language Acquisition, 21(4), 319–338. doi: 10.1080/10489223.2014.892949
Katamba, F., & Stonham, J. (2006). Morphology (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations, vol. 1, (pp.131–175). Foris, Dordrecht.
Kiparsky, P. (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp.3–22). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 85–138.
Kiparsky, P. (1998). Paradigm effects and opacity. Ms., Stanford University.
Kiparsky, P. (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. In N. A. Ritter (Ed.). A review of optimality theory (pp. 351–365). Special Issue of The Linguistic Review, 17, 2–4.
Lieber, R. (2015). Introducing morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lardiere, D. (1995). L2 acquisition of English synthetic compounding is not constrained by level-ordering (and neither, probably, is L1). Second Language Research, 11, 20–56.
Nicoladis, E. (2005). When level-ordering is not used in the formation of English compounds. First Language, 25, 331–346.
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Seidenberg, M. S., MacDonald, M. C., & Haskell, T. R. (2007). Semantics and phonology constrain compound formation. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 287–312.
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 7). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Senghas, A., Kim, J. J., Pinker, S., & Collins, C. (2005). The plurals-in-compounds effect (Unpublished manuscript). Department of Psychology, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York.
The International Journal of Humanities
Volume 27, Issue 3
Spring 2020
Pages 61-74