Skip to main content

Towards an exemplar-based model of stress in English noun–noun compounds1


It is well known that stress assignment in English noun–noun compounds is non-uniform (compare e.g. left-prominent ópera glasses and right-prominent steel brídge), and recent corpus-based studies (e.g. Plag et al. 2007, 2008) have shown that categorical, rule-based approaches that make use of argument structure (e.g. Giegerich 2004) or semantics (e.g. Fudge 1984) are not able to account satisfactorily for the existing variability. Using data from the corpus studies by Plag and collegues, I argue in this paper that an exemplar-based approach is better-suited to accounting for stress assignment in English noun–noun compounds than a traditional, rule-based paradigm. Specifically, it is shown that two current implementations of exemplar-based algorithms, TiMBL (Daelemans et al. 2007) and AM::Parallel (Skousen & Stanford 2007), clearly outperform comparable rule models in terms of how well they predict stress assignment in the corpora. Furthermore, systematic testing reveals that the reasons for the differences between exemplar and rule models mainly lie in their ability to incorporate detailed, non-abstract information (specifically, constituent family information). The present study therefore adds to the growing evidence in favour of the importance of constituent family information in compounding (e.g. Gagné 2001, Krott, Schreuder & Baayen 2002).

Corresponding author
Author's address: Universität Siegen, Philosophische Fakultät, Adolf-Reichwein-Str. 2, D-57068 Siegen,
Hide All

This paper has benefitted greatly from comments and discussions from audiences at the Workshop on Exemplar-Based Models in Language Acquisition and Use, Dublin, ESSLLI 2007 (organised by Rens Bod and David Cochran), the International Morphology Meeting, Vienna 2008, and the ISLE conference, Freiburg 2008, where earlier versions were presented, as well as from helpful comments from two anonymous JL referees. Special thanks are due to Ingo Plag and Gero Kunter for comments, discussion and critical input, and to Kristina Kösling for helping me with the coding. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own. Finally, I thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant PL-151/5–3) for supporting this research.

Hide All
Baayen, Harald R., Piepenbrock, Richard & Guilkers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Bod, Rens & Cochran, David (eds.). 2007. Workshop on Exemplar-based Models in Language Acquisition and Use. Dublin: ESSLLI 2007.
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 4586.
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, Don & Skousen, Royal. 2005. Analogical modeling and morphological change: The case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9.2, 333357.
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Daelemans, Walter, Gillis, Steven & Durieux, Gert. 1994. The acquisition of stress: A data-oriented approach. Computational Linguistics 20.3, 421451.
Daelemans, Walter & Bosch, Antal van den. 2005. Memory-based language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daelemans, Walter, Zavrel, Jakub, Sloot, Ko van der & Bosch, Antal van den. 2007. TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 6.0, Reference Guide (LK Technical Report 04-02). Tilburg: ILK.
Eddington, David. 2002. A comparison of two analogical models: Tilburg Memory-Based Learner versus analogical modeling. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 141156.
Fudge, Erik C. 1984. English word-stress. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Gagné, Christina L. 2001. Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27, 236254.
Gahl, Susanne & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.). 2006. Special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 23.3.
Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.). 1984. Intonation, accent and rhythm. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giegerich, Heinz. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8.1, 124.
Guion, Susan G., Clark, J. J., Harada, Tetsuo & Wayland, Ratree P.. 2003. Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words. Language and Speech 46.4, 403427.
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Broeders, Anton. 1981. English pronunciation for student teachers. Groningen: Wolters–Noordhoff–Longman.
Krott, Andrea, Baayen, Harald R. & Schreuder, Rob. 2001. Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39, 5193.
Krott, Andrea, Schreuder, Rob & Baayen, Harald R.. 2002. Analogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun–noun compounds. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 181206.
Kunter, Gero. 2009. The phonetics and phonology of English compound stress. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Siegen.
Kunter, Gero. 2010. Perception of prominence patterns in English nominal compounds. Presented at Speech Prosody 2010, Satellite Workshop on Prosodic Prominence: Perceptual and Automatic Identification. 10 May 2010, Chicago.
Ladd, D. Robert. 1984. English compound stress. In Gibbon, Dafydd & Richter, Helmut (eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm, 253266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
Liberman, Mark & Sproat, Richard. 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 131181. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Olsen, Susan. 2000. Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte 181, 5569.
Olsen, Susan. 2001. Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000, 279320. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ostendorf, Mari, Price, Patti & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie. 1996. Boston University Radio Speech Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Parkinson, Dilworth B. 2002. Running the Perl/C version of the Analogical Modeling Program. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 365383.
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137157. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Plag, Ingo. 2006. The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical Factors. English Language and Linguistics 10.1, 143172.
Plag, Ingo. 2010. Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29.2, 243282.
Plag, Ingo & Kunter, Gero. 2010. Constituent family size and compound stress assignment in English. In Olsen, Susan (ed.), New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte 17), 349382. Hamburg: Buske.
Plag, Ingo, Kunter, Gero & Lappe, Sabine. 2007. Testing hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based investigation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3.2, 199233.
Plag, Ingo, Kunter, Gero, Lappe, Sabine & Braun, Maria. 2008. The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84.4, 760794.
Sampson, Rodney 1980. Stress in English N+N phrases: A further complicating factor. English Studies 61, 264270.
Schmerling, Susan F. 1971. A stress mess. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1, 5265.
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Skousen, Royal. 2002a. An overview of Analogical Modeling. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 1126.
Skousen, Royal. 2002b. Issues in Analogical Modeling. In Skousen, et al. (eds.), 2748.
Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle & Parkinson, Dilworth B. (eds.). 2002. Analogical modeling. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Skousen, Royal & Stanford, Thereon. 2007. AM: Parallel. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Does English have productive compounding? In Booij, Geert, DeCesaris, Janet, Ralli, Angela & Scalise, Sergio (eds.), Topics in Morphology: The Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, September 20–22, 2001), 329341. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Applicada, Universtitat Pompeu Fabra.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Forestress and afterstress. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 4662. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed