Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper is the final instalment in a series of studies investigating the modification patterns in complex noun phrases (NPs) in English. It particularly focuses on the modification of two-noun compounds by three attributive adjectives. An analysis of all such NPs from the BNC reveals a strong preference for head modification over modifier modification, similar rates of convergent and divergent modification and the non-occurrence of crossed modification. The single most important factor influencing the modification patterns is functional status. The larger the number of adjectives modifying the head of the compound, the higher the frequency of the modification type ( a proximity effect). The absence of crossed modification is expected under the no-crossing constraint, which is understood here not as a formal but as a functional principle ensuring successful communication. The various factors can be tied together under the rubric of accessibility. The probability of selecting a particular modification target is argued to be a function of the accessibility of the nouns in an NP.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman
    2004Beyond morphology. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alegre, María A. & Peter Gordon
    1996 Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition60. 65–82. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00703‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00703-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariel, Mira
    1988 Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics24. 65–87. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011567
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011567 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer, Laurie
    1978The grammar of nominal compounding. Odense: Odense University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Behaghel, Otto
    1932Deutsche Syntax: Band 4: Wortstellung. Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, Melanie J.
    2011 At the boundary of morphology and syntax: Noun noun constructions in English. In Alexandra Galeni , Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 137–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.178.08bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.178.08bel [Google Scholar]
  7. Belnap, R. Kirk
    1999 A new perspective on the history of Arabic variation in marking agreement with plural heads. Folia Linguistica33. 169–185. doi: 10.1515/flin.1999.33.1‑2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.169 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berg, Thomas
    2011 The modification of compounds by attributive adjectives. Language Sciences33. 725–737. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014 How nominal compounds are modified by two adjectives. Folia Linguistica48. 1–36. doi: 10.1515/flin.2014.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berg, Thomas , Sabine Helmer , Marion Neubauer & Arne Lohmann
    2012 Determinants of the extent of compound use: A contrastive analysis. Linguistics50. 269–303. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0010 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bock, Kathryn
    1987 An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language26. 119–137. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90120‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90120-3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carnie, Andrew
    2008Constituent structure. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carroll, John M.
    1979 Complex nominals: phrasal embedding in lexical structure. Linguistics17. 863–877. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.9‑10.863
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.9-10.863 [Google Scholar]
  14. Christianson, Kiel & Fernanda Ferreira
    2005 Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition98. 105–135. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Curzan, Anne
    2003Gender shifts in the history of English. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486913
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486913 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis, Matthew H. , William D. Marslen-Wilson & M. Gareth Gaskell
    2002 Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance28. 218–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gagné, Christina
    2001 Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27. 236–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibson, Edward
    1998 Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition68. 1–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00034‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldsmith, John
    1976 An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis2. 23–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hawkins, John A.
    1986A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Henson, Richard N. A. , Dennis G. Norris , Michael P. A. Page & Alan D. Baddeley
    1996 Unchained memory: Error patterns rule out chaining models of immediate serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49(A). 80–115. doi: 10.1080/713755612
    https://doi.org/10.1080/713755612 [Google Scholar]
  22. Isel, Frédéric , Thomas C. Gunter & Angela D. Friederici
    2003 Prosody-assisted head-driven access to spoken German compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29. 277–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8. 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Koester, Dirk , Thomas C. Gunter , Susanne Wagner & Angela D. Friederici
    2004 Morphosyntax, prosody, and linking elements: The auditory processing of German nominal compounds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience16. 1647–1668. doi: 10.1162/0898929042568541
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042568541 [Google Scholar]
  25. Larson, Richard K.
    1991Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry22. 103–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Libben, Gary , Martha Gibson , Yeo Bom Yoon & Dominiek Sandra
    2003 Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language84. 50–64. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
  27. Liberman, Mark & Richard Sproat
    1992 The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 131–181. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lieber, Rochelle
    1992Deconstructing morphology. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. MacDonald, Maryellen C. , Neal J. Perlmutter & Mark S. Seidenberg
    1994 The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review101. 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.4.676
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 [Google Scholar]
  30. Marelli, Marco , Davide Crepaldi & Claudio Luzzatti
    2009 Head position and the mental representation of nominal compounds. The Mental Lexicon4. 430–454. doi: 10.1075/ml.4.3.05mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.4.3.05mar [Google Scholar]
  31. Nakayama, Masataka & Satoru Saito
    2014 Within-word serial order control: Adjacent mora exchange and serial position effects in repeated single-word production. Cognition131. 415–430. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pickering, Martin J. & Matthew J. Traxler
    1998 Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27. 940–961.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Prat-Sala, Mercè & Holly P. Branigan
    2000 Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language42. 168–182. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2668
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2668 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ross, John Robert
    1973 The Penthouse Principle and the order of constituents. In Claudia Corum , T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), Papers from the 9th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 397–422. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Slattery, Timothy J. , Patrick Sturt , Kiel Christianson , Masaya Yoshida & Fernanda Ferreira
    2013 Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language69. 104–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ward, Gregory , Richard Sproat & Gail McKoon
    1991 A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language67. 439–474. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Zwitserlood, Pienie
    1994 The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes9. 341–368. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402123 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error