Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:04:36.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stress properties of Greek compounds: Psycholinguistic considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

Athanasios Tsiamas ,
Gonia Jarema ,
Eva Kehayia  and
Gevorg Chilingaryan
Athanasios Tsiamas
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal and Research Center, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal (IUGM)
Gonia Jarema
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal and Research Center, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal (IUGM)
Eva Kehayia
Affiliation:
McGill University and Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabiliation (CRIR)
Gevorg Chilingaryan
Affiliation:
Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabiliation (CRIR) and Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theoretical accounts of Greek compounds argue for a close relation between their stress properties and their underlying structure. Compounds that preserve and receive stress at the same position as their second constituent are analyzed as stem-word constructions, while those that receive antepenultimate stress are viewed as belonging to the stem-stem category. Using an auditory lexical decision task, we examine the effect of stress change on the processing of compounds in the light of existing theoretical linguistic accounts. Although our experimental results do not reach statistical significance, we believe that they are informative of the cognitive status and role of stress in compound processing. Finally, they relate to existing theories of compounding in Greek and reflect the complex interaction of the psycholinguistic effects of stress and the structural properties of these constructions.

Résumé

Résumé

Les explications théoriques des mots composés grecs affirment qu'il existe une relation étroite entre l'accent et la structure sous-jacente de ces mots. Les composés qui préservent et reçoivent l'accent à la même position que leur deuxième constituant sont analysés en mot-racine, alors que ceux qui portent l'accent à la position antépénultième appartiennent à la catégorie racine-racine. À l'aide d'une tâche de décision lexicale auditoire, nous examinons l'effet qu'a le changement de la position de l'accent sur le traitement des composés, étant donné les explications théoriques actuelles. Même si nos résultats expérimentaux ne sont pas statistiquement significatifs, nous les croyons informatifs pour P'étude du statut cognitif et du rôle de l'accent dans le traitement des mots composés. Enfin, nos résultats sont liés aux théories actuelles de la composition en grec et ils reflètent 1'interaction complexe entre les effets psycholinguistiques de l'accent et les propriétés structurales des composés.

Keywords

compoundingstressmorphologyphonologylexical processingcompositionaccentmorphologiephonologietraitement lexical
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 25 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association. 2015

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.)

References

Baayen, Harald. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9:447–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald and Schreuder, Rob. 1999. War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a noninteractive activation parallel dual-route model. Brain and Language 68:27–32.Google Scholar
Besner, Derek and McCann, Robert S.. 1987. Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, ed. Coltheart, Max, 201–219. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Béland, Renée, Caplan, David, and Nespoulous, Jean-Luc. 1990. The role of abstract phonological representations in word production: Evidence from phonemic paraphasias. Journal of Neurolinguistics 5:125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. 1978. Tip of the tongue and slip of the ear: Implications for language processing. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 42:1–149.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger and McNeil, David. 1966. The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5:325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, Brian. 1992. Disorders of phonological encoding. Cognition 42:261–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Diachronic and typological properties of morphology and their implications for representation. In Morphological aspects of language processing, ed. Feldman, Laurie Beth, 225–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan, MacWhinney, Brian, Flatt, Matthew, and Provost, Jefferson. 1993. PsyScope: An interactive graphical system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Methods, Research, Instruments, and Computers 25:257–271.Google Scholar
Cooper, Nicole, Cutler, Anne, and Wales, Roger. 2002. Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and nonnative listeners. Language and Speech 45:207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corina, David. 1982. Syllable priming and lexical representations: Evidence from experiments and simulations. In the Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Corina, David P., 779–784. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 1986. “Forbear” is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29:201–220.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne and Foss, Donald J.. 1977. On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech 20:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, Anne and van Doselaar, Wilma. 2001. Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech 44:171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drachman, Gaberell and Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki. 1996. Greek accentuation. In Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, ed. van der Hulst, Harry, 897–946. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen D. 1989. Auditory morphological priming in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 4:73–92.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47:27–52.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D., Luce, Paul A., Pisoni, David B., and Marcario, Joanne K.. 1992. Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18:1210–1238.Google ScholarPubMed
Grainger, Jonathan. 1990. Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language 29:228–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39:1041–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Patrick T.W. and Bergman, Marjike W.. 1985. Lexical knowledge in word recognition: Word length and word frequency in naming and lexical decision tasks. Journal of Memory and Language 24:46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarmulowicz, Linda, Taran, Valentina L., and Hay, Sarah E.. 2008. Lexical frequency and third-graders' stress accuracy in derived English word production. Applied Psycholinguistics 29:213–235.Google Scholar
Kohn, Susan E. and Smith, Katherine L.. 1994. Distinctions between two phonological output deficits. Applied Psycholinguistics 15:75–95.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 2006. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In The representation and processing of compound words, ed. Libben, Gary and Jarema, Gonia, 1–22. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary and Jarema, Gonia, eds. 2006. The representation and processing of compound words. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Derwing, Bruce L., and de Almeida, Roberto G.. 1999. Ambiguous novel compounds and models of morphological parsing. Brain and Language 68:378–386.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Gibson, Martha, Yoon, Yeo Bom, and Sandra, Dominiek. 1997. Semantic transparency and compound fracture. CLASNET Working Papers 9:1–13.Google Scholar
Lorch, Robert F., Balota, David A., and Stamm, Edward E.. 1986. Locus of inhibition effects inthe priming of lexical decisions: Pre- or post-lexical access? Memory and Cognition 14:95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukyanchenko, Anna, Idsardi, William J., and Jiang, Nan. 2012. Opening your ears: The role of L1 in processing of non-native prosodic contrasts. In Selected Proceedings of the Second Language Research Forum 2010, ed. Granena, Gisela, Koeth, Joel, Lee-Ellis, Sunyoung, Lukyanchenko, Anna, Botana, Goretti Prieto, and Rhoades, Elizabeth, 50–62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki and Gaberell, Drachman. 1989. Tonismós sta elliniká [Stress in Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 9:127–143.Google Scholar
Manouilidou, Christina. 2004. Morfologiki epeksergasia kai thematiki roloi se paragoges leksis: I periptosi tis ikanopiisis thematiku rolu ki eksoterikefsis orismatos. [Theta role saturation in derived words: Evidence from Modern Greek], In Studies in Greek Language — Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Margariti-Rogka, Marianna, Papanastasiou, Georgios, and Liosis, Nikos, 429–440. Thessalonika: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, Tyler, Lorraine K., Waksler, Rachelle, and Older, Lianne. 1994. Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review 101:3–33.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, Zhou, Xiaolin, and Ford, Mike. 1997. Morphology, modality andlexical architecture. In Yearbook of morphology, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 117–134. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Nakatani, Lloyd H. and Shaffer, Judith A.. 1978. Hearing “words” without words: Prosodic cues for word perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 63:234–245.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Ralli, Angela. 1994. Stress domains in Greek compounds: A case of morphology-phonology interaction. In Themes of Greek linguistics, ed. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, Nikolaidis, Katerina, and Sifianou, Maria, 201–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Ralli, Angela. 1996. Morphology-phonology interface: Phonological domains in Greek compounds. The Linguistic Review 13:357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2002. A typological study of stress “deafness”. In Laboratory phonology 7, ed. Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 203–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paap, Kenneth R., McDonald, James E., Schvaneveldt, Roger W., and Noel, Ronald W.. 1987. Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical decision tasks. In Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, ed. Coltheart, Max, 221–243. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petrounias, Evaggelos V. 2002. Neoellinikí grammatikikaí sigkritikí análisi, tómos A: Fonitikí kai eisagogí sti fonología [Modern Greek grammar and comparative analysis, vol. A: Phonetics and introduction to phonology]. Thessalonika: Ziti.Google Scholar
Prince, Allan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Protopapas, Athanasios, Gerakaki, Svetlana, and Alexandri, Stella. 2006. Lexical and default stress assignment in reading Greek. Journal of Research in Reading 29:418–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Protopapas, Athanassios, Tzakosta, Marina, Chalamandaris, Aimilios, and Tsiakoulis, Pirros. 2012. IPLR: An online resource for Greek word-level and sublexical information. Language Resources and Evaluation 46:449–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radeau, Monique, Morais, José, and Segui, Juan. 1995. Phonological priming between monosyllabic spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21:1297–1311.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2000. A feature-based analysis of Greek nominal inflection. Glossologia 11–12: 201–228.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2002. The role of morphology in gender determination: Evidence from Modern Greek. Linguistics 40:519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2007. I sinthesi ton lekseon [Compounding of Words]: Athens: Pattakis.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1995. Stress patterns and morphological structures in Greek nominal pre-fixation. Studies in Greek Linguistics. Thessalonika: Kiriakides.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1997. Prosodic domains in Greek compounding. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Greek Linguistics, ed. Drachman, Gaberell, Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki, Celia Klidi, , and Fykias, John, 107–116. Graz: Neubauer Verlag.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost accent wins. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden/HIL.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi, Lengeris, Angelos, and Ioannou, Dimitra. 2013. In search of the default stress in Greek: Evidence from perception. Paper read at the 10th Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP), Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Schreuder, Rob and Baayen, Harald R.. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In Morphological aspects of language processing, ed. Feldman, Laurie Beth, 131–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sekiguchi, Takahiro. 2006. Effects of lexical prosody and word familiarity on lexical access of spoken Japanese words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35:369–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slowiaczek, Louisa M. 1990. Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Language and Speech 33:47–68.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, Louisa M. 1994. Semantic priming in a single-word shadowing task. American Journal of Psychology 107:245–260.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, Louisa M. and Pisoni, David B.. 1986. Effects of phonological similarity on priming in auditory lexical decision. Memory and Cognition 14:230–237.Google Scholar
Soto-Faraco, Salvador, Sebastián-Gallés, Núria, and Cutler, Anne. 2001. Segmental and supra-segmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language 45:412–432.Google Scholar
Tsakpini, Kyrana, Kehayia, Eva, and Jarema, Gonia. 1999. Does phonological change play a role in the recognition of derived words across modalities? Brain and Language 68:318–323.Google Scholar
Tsiamas, Athanasios, Jarema, Gonia, Kehayia, Eva, and Chilingaryan, Gevorg. 2015. Stress matters! Investigating stress priming effects in Greek compounds. Ms., Université de Montréal and Research Center, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal (IUGM); McGill University and Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabiliation (CRIR); Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabiliation (CRIR) and Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital.Google Scholar
Tzakosta, Marina. 2009. Perceptual ambiguities in the formation of Greek compounds by native speakers. In E-Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, ed. Giannakis, Georgios K., Baltazani, Mary, Xydopoulos, Georgios I., and Tsangalidis, Tassos, 547–557. Ioannina: Department of Philology, University of Ioannina.Google Scholar
Tzakosta, Marina. 2011. L1 transfer in L2 learning: Compound forms in the speech of Turkish learners of Greek. In Selected Papers from the 19th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, ed. Kitis, Eliza, Lavidas, Nikolaos, Topintzi, Nina, and Tsangalidis, Tassos, 459–468. Thessalonika: Department of English Studies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Tzakosta, Marina and Mamadaki, Maria. 2013. Compound formation in L2 learning: The case of Bulgarian, Romanian and Russian learners of Greek. In The E-Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, ed. Gavriilidou, Zoe, Efthymiou, Angeliki, Thomadaki, Evangelia, and Kambakis-Vougiouklis, Penelope, 578–583. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.Google Scholar