Cover not available
Part of
Nominal Compound Acquisition
Edited by Wolfgang U. Dressler, F. Nihan Ketrez and Marianne Kilani-Schoch
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 61] 2017
► pp. 275–286

Chapter 12
Contrastive lexical typology of German and Greek child speech and child-directed speech

| | University of Cologne
While both German and Greek are rich in compounding devices and nominal compounds represent the most frequent compounding type in both languages, the amount of nominal compounds occurring in early child speech is much more limited in Greek than in German. Since this difference cannot be explained by a mere comparison of the word formation potential of the two languages, an onomasiological approach to lexical typology has been taken, which is based on a sample list of nominal compounds occurring in German child language and their Greek translational equivalents. It has been found that while use of nominal compounds is common in colloquial German including child-centered situations, it is more typical of Greek formal than colloquial registers.
Keywords: contrastive lexical typology, compounding, German, Greek
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Frequency of nominal compounds in German and Greek child speech
  • 3.Contrastive lexical analysis of German and Greek
    • 3.1Distributional analysis
    • 3.2Qualitative analysis
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.61.13ste
References (17)
References
Berman, R. A. 2009. Children’s acquisition of compound constructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 298–322. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Christofidou, A., Afentoulidou, V., Karasimos, A. & Dimitropoulou, I.. 2013. Ilektroniko programma neologismon kai orologias NeoDEMIA: Prokliseis kai dhiktio-liseis (The electronic programme for neologisms and terminology NeoDEMIA: Challenges and internet solutions). In Dimiourgia kai morfi sti glossa. Deltio Epistimonikis Orologias kai Neologismon (Creation and Form in Language. Reports on Scientific Terminology and Neologisms), Vol. 12, A. Christofidou (ed.), 198–243. Athens: Academy of Athens.Google Scholar
Clairis, C. & Babiniotis, G.. (in cooperation with A. Moser, E. Bakakou-Orfanou & S. Skopeteas). 2005. Grammatiki tis Neas Ellinikis: domoleitourgiki-epikoinoniaki (A Grammar of Modern Greek: Structural-functional and communicative). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. 2006. Compound types. In The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, G. Libben & G. Jarema (eds), 23–44. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Eco, U.. 2003. Dire quasi la stessa cosa: Esperienze di traduzione (Saying Virtually the Same Thing: Experiences in Translation). Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Grzega, J.. 2009. Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 217–232. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Koch, P.. 2001. Lexical typology. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1142–1177. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koliopoulou, M.. 2013. Themata synthesis tis ellinikis kai tis germanikis: Sygritiki proseggisi (Aspects of Compounding in Greek and German: A Comparative Approach). PhD dissertation, University of Patras. <[URL]>
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.. 2012. New directions in lexical typology. Linguistics 50(3): 373–394.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A.. 1992. A theory of vocabulary structure: Retrospectives and prospectives. In Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, M. Pütz (ed.), 243–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G.. 1998. Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing and impairment. Brain and Language 61: 30–44.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A.. 2013. Compounding in Modern Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H.. 1975. Die Prinzipien der deskriptiven und der etikettierenden Benennung (The principles of naming by description and labeling). In Linguistic Workshop III: Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 1974 [Structura 9], H. Seiler (ed.), 2–57. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M.. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 452–463.Google Scholar
. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21(2): 121–137.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomadaki, E.. 2007. On the productivity of the diminutive suffixation in Greek child language. In Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 17th International Symposium (Festschrift for Prof. Stathis Efstathiadis), Vol. II, E. Agathopoulou, M. Dimitrakopoulou & D. Papadopoulou (eds), 486–497. Thessaloniki: Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Thomadaki, E. & Stephany, U.. 2007. Diminutives in Greek child language. In The Acquisition of Diminutives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 43], I. Savickienė & W. U. Dressler (eds), 89–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dressler, Wolfgang U., Veronika Mattes & Laila Kjærbæk
2021. Chapter 1. Introduction. In The Acquisition of Derivational Morphology [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 66], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.