Chapter published in:
Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy
Edited by Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno and Hae In Park
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 49] 2018
► pp. 237–265

Compounds and productivity in advanced L2 German writing

A constructional approach

| Georgetown University
The frequent formation of complex, hierarchically structured compounds is a striking property of German grammar to non-natives, to the point that German has been referred to as ‘compounding happy’ (Schlücker, 2012). This chapter asks how compounding works in second language (L2) German grammar, by exploring data from the error-annotated Falko corpus of native and advanced non-native German writing. Beyond differences in overall frequency and productivity of L2 compounding, I use a constructional approach based on compound paraphrases and partially filled prototypes to analyze differences between first language (L1) and L2 usage, as well as to identify frequent error types. Although errors are overall not very frequent (about 11% in total), the data show significant differences in compounding frequency based on learner native language, and some possible phonetic explanations are offered for morphological errors at the boundary between compound heads and modifiers. The results also reveal that productivity as evidenced by rare items in L2 output is a key factor in the native-like acquisition of compounding, and that proficiency as assessed by a C-Test correlates better with more complex productivity measures than with raw vocabulary size. Semantic errors are overall very rare but in many cases attributable to transfer effects, even from constructions that are not compounds in the underlying L1, or indeed from languages low in compounds. This suggests that both abstract and partially lexicalized compounding constructions are learned, and errors can affect either of these at the lexical level.
Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.11zel
References

References

de Angelis, G., & Selinker, L.
(2001) Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2001) Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–843. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barz, I.
(1995) Komposita im Großwörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In I. Pohl & H. Ehrhardt (Eds.), Wort und Wortschatz. Beiträge zur Lexikographie (pp. 13–24). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2003) Resultative constructions in English and German. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bohnet, B.
(2010) Very high accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010) (pp. 89–97). Beijing.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E.
(2009) Compounding and construction morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 201–216). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H.
(2008) Compounds: The view from Hebrew. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounds (pp. 491–511). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2012) Advanced language proficiency. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 506–520). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, P. A.
(1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810–842. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal Teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
(2014) Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(4), 405–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evert, S., & Baroni, M.
(2007) zipfR: Word frequency distributions in R. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Posters and Demonstrations Session (pp. 29–32). Prague.Google Scholar
Fandrych, C., & Tallowitz, U.
(2008) Klipp und Klar. Übungsgrammatik Grundstufe Deutsch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Fandrych, C., & Thurmair, M.
(1994) Ein Interpretationsmodell für Nominalkomposita: Linguistische und didaktische Überlegungen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 31, 34–45.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G.
(1981) Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition. Ein Versuch praktischer Anwendung der Montague-Grammatik auf die Wortbildung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1979) Innocence: A second idealization for linguistics. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 5, 63–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2006) Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick. In K. Fischer, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.) Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 3–17). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J.
(2002) Negotiation and oral acquisition of Spanish L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D.
(2006) Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Schlücker, B.
(Eds.) (2012) Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Zeldes, A.
(2012) Deutsche Komposita zwischen Syntax und Morphologie: Ein korpusbasierter Ansatz. In L. Gaeta, & B. Schlücker (Eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache: Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (pp. 197–217). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J. -M.
(2011) Frame semantics. In C. Maienborn, K. Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 664–687). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. M.
(2001) Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S.
(2002) A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.) Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
(2009) The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Hartkamp, S., & Schneider-Wiejowski, K.
(2010) Die Regelkonformität in der Distribution von Fugenelementen. Eine korpuslinguistische Untersuchung neologistischer Substantivkomposita mit nominalem Erstglied. Muttersprache, 3, 198–213.Google Scholar
Heidermann, W.
(1997) Grammatiktraining Grundstufe. Ismaning: Verlag für Deutsch.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, H., Lüdeling, A., Rehbein, I., Reznicek, M., & Zeldes, A.
(2013) Underuse of syntactic categories in Falko – A case study on modification. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.) 20 years of learner corpus research. Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 223–234). Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, R. H.
(2002) The Processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 555–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein-Braley, C., & Raatz, U.
(1982) Der C-Test: Ein neuer Ansatz zur Messung von allgemeiner Sprachbeherrschung. AKS Rundbrief, 4, 23–37.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C.
(1997) The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13, 301–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krause, T., & Zeldes, A.
(2016) ANNIS3: A New Architecture for Generic Corpus Query and Visualization. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(1), 118–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Schreuder, R., Baayen, R. H., & Dressler, W. U.
(2007) Analogical effects on linking elements in German compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 25–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krummes, C., & Ensslin, A.
(2014) What’s hard in German? WHiG: A British learner corpus of German. Corpora, 9(2), 191–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kürschner, S.
(2005) Verfugung-s-nutzung kontrastiv: Zur Funktion der Fugenelemente im Deutschen und Dänischen. TijdSchrift voor Skandinavistiek, 26(2), 101–125.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, J. N.
(1978) The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P.
(Eds.) (2008) The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lu, X.
(2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, A.
(2008) Mehrdeutigkeiten und Kategorisierung: Probleme bei der Annotation von Lernerkorpora. In M. Walter & P. Grommes (Eds.), Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten (pp. 119–140). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A., & Walter, M.
(2010) Korpuslinguistik. In H. -J. Krumm, C. Fandrych, B. Hufeisen, & C. Riemer (Eds.), Handbuch Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache (pp. 315–322). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2012) The logic of the unified model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michel, S.
(2009)  Schaden-0-ersatz vs. Schaden-s-ersatz. Ein Erklärungsansatz synchroner Schwankungsfälle bei der Fugenbildung von N+N-Komposita. Deutsche Sprache, 37, 334–351.Google Scholar
Milton, J.
(2009) Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Motsch, W.
(2004) Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. 2. überarbeitete Auflage. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, F. H.
(2004) Stylebook for the Tübingen Partially Parsed Corpus of Written German (TüPP-D/Z). Universität Tübingen, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Technical Report.Google Scholar
Nation, P.
(1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Neef, M.
(2009) IE, Germanic: German. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 386–399). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2003) The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2004) Validity evaluation in language assessment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, D., & Szczepaniak, R.
(2011)  Markmal(s?)analyse, Seminar(s?)arbeit und Essen(s?)ausgabe: Zweifelsfälle der Verfugung als Indikatoren für Sprachwandel. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 30(1), 45–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Linking elements in German origin, change, functionalization. Morphology, 23, 67–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F.
(1988) Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1988 (pp. 155–185). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rak, Z.
(1990) Substantivische Komposita im Deutschen – semantische Analyse und Beschreibung für die fachbezogene Fremdsprachenausbildung an polnischen Hochschulen. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Technische Universität Dresden.Google Scholar
Reznicek, M., Lüdeling, A., & Hirschmann, H.
(2013) Competing target hypotheses in the Falko corpus: A flexible multi-layer corpus architecture. In A. Díaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & P. Thompson (Eds.) Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reznicek, M., Lüdeling, A., Krummes, C., Schwantuschke, F., Walter, M., Schmidt, K., Hirschmann, H., & Andreas, T.
(2012) Das Falko-Handbuch. Korpusaufbau und Annotationen. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Technical Report Version 2.01, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H.
(1998) Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: A cross-linguistic approach. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 41–52). London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Schiller, A., Teufel, S., Stöckert, C., & Thielen, C.
(1999) Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textcorpora mit STTS. Universität Stuttgart, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung and Universität Tübingen, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Technical Report.Google Scholar
Schlücker, B.
(2012) Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung. In L. Gaeta, & B. Schlücker (Eds.), Das deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (pp. 1–25). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.
(1994) Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the Conference on New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 44–49). Manchester, UK. http://​www​.cis​.uni​-muenchen​.de​/~schmid​/tools​/TreeTagger​/data​/tree​-tagger1​.pdf
Schmid, H., Fitschen, A., & Heid, U.
(2004) SMOR: A German computational morphology covering derivation, composition, and inflection. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2004) (pp. 1263–1266). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1999) Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In G. Redeker & T. Janssen (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trynkler, A.
(2010) Deutsche Komposita und ihre Erlernungsmöglichkeiten in der Oberschule. Studia niemcoznawcze. Studien zur Deutschkunde, 44, 467–475.Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H., & Golcher, F.
(2015) Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 28–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A.
(2012) Productivity in argument selection. From morphology to syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 260.) Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Komposition als Konstruktionsnetzwerk im fortgeschrittenen L2-Deutsch. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 41(2), 240–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar