doubling of fanciful sound-clusters.
Coordinative compounds of both subgroups (a, b) are mostly restricted
to the colloquial layer, are marked by a heavy emotive charge and
possess a very small degree of productivity.
c) The bases of additive compounds such as a queen-bee, an actor-manager,
unlike the compound words of the first two subgroups, are built on
stems of the independently functioning words of the same part of
speech. These bases often semantically stand in the genus-species
relations. They denote a person or an object that is two things at the
same time. A secretary-stenographer is thus a person who is both a
stenographer and a secretary, a bed-sitting-room (a bed-sitter) is
both a bed-room and a sitting-room at the same time. Among additive
compounds there is a specific subgroup of compound adjectives one of
ICs of which is a bound root-morpheme. This group is limited to the
names of nationalities such as Sino-Japanese, Anglo-Saxon, Afro-Asian,
etc.
Additive compounds of this group are mostly fully motivated but have a
very limited degree of productivity.
However it must be stressed that though the distinction between
coordinative and subordinative compounds is generally made, it is open to
doubt and there is no hard and fast border-line between them. On the
contrary, the border-line is rather vague. It often happens that one and
the same compound may with equal right be interpreted either way — as a
coordinative or a subordinative compound, e. g. a woman-doctor may be
understood as ‘a woman who is at the same time a doctor’ or there can be
traced a difference of importance between the components and it may be
primarily felt to be ‘a doctor who happens to be a woman’ (also a mother-
goose, a clock-tower).
In subordinative compounds the components are neither structurally nor
semantically equal in importance but are based on the domination of the
head-member which is, as a rule, the second IC. The second IC thus is the
semantically and grammatically dominant part of the word, which
preconditions the part-of-speech meaning of the whole compound as in
stone-deaf, age-long which are obviously adjectives, a wrist-watch, road-
building, a baby-sitter which are nouns.
Functionally compounds are viewed as words of different parts of speech.
It is the head-member of the compound, i.e. its second IC that is
indicative of the grammatical and lexical category the compound word
belongs to.
Compound words are found in all parts of speech, but the bulk of
compounds are nouns and adjectives. Each part of speech is characterized
by its set of derivational patterns and their semantic variants. Compound
adverbs, pronouns and connectives are represented by an insignificant
number of words, e. g. somewhere, somebody, inside, upright, otherwise
moreover, elsewhere, by means of, etc. No new compounds are coined on
this pattern. Compound pronouns and adverbs built on the repeating first
and second IC like body, ever, thing make closed sets of words
|SOME |+ |BODY |
|ANY | |THING |
|EVERY | |ONE |
|NO | |WHERE |
On the whole composition is not productive either for adverbs, pronouns
or for connectives.
Verbs are of special interest. There is a small group of compound verbs
made up of the combination of verbal and adverbial stems that language
retains from earlier stages, e. g. to bypass, to inlay, to offset. This
type according to some authors, is no longer productive and is rarely
found in new compounds.
There are many polymorphic verbs that are represented by morphemic
sequences of two root-morphemes, like to weekend, to gooseflesh, to
spring-clean, but derivationally they are all words of secondary
derivation in which the existing compound nouns only serve as bases for
derivation. They are often termed pseudo-compound verbs. Such polymorphic
verbs are presented by two groups:
1) verbs formed by means of conversion from the stems of compound nouns
as in to spotlight from a spotlight, to sidetrack from a side-track,
to handcuff from handcuffs, to blacklist from a blacklist, to pinpoint
from a pin-point;
2) verbs formed by back-derivation from the stems of compound nouns, e.
g. to baby-sit from a baby-sitter, to playact from play-acting, to
housekeep from house-keeping, to spring-clean from spring-cleaning.
From the point of view of the means by which the components are joined
together, compound words may be classified into:
1) Words formed by merely placing one constituent after another in a
definite order which thus is indicative of both the semantic value and
the morphological unity of the compound, e. g. rain-driven, house-dog,
pot-pie (as opposed to dog-house, pie-pot). This means of linking the
components is typical of the majority of Modern English compounds in
all parts of speech.
As to the order of components, subordinative compounds are often
classified as:
a) asyntactic compounds in which the order of bases runs counter to
the order in which the motivating words can be brought together
under the rules of syntax of the language. For example, in
variable phrases adjectives cannot be modified by preceding
adjectives and noun modifiers are not placed before participles
or adjectives, yet this kind of asyntactic arrangement is
typical of compounds, e. g. red-hot, bluish-black, pale-blue,
rain-driven, oil-rich. The asyntactic order is typical of the
majority of Modern English compound words;
b) syntactic compounds whose components are placed in the order
that resembles the order of words in free phrases arranged
according to the rules of syntax of Modern English. The order of
the components in compounds like blue-bell, mad-doctor,
blacklist ( a + n ) reminds one of the order and arrangement of
the corresponding words in phrases a blue bell, a mad doctor, a
black list ( A + N ), the order of compounds of the type door-
handle, day-time, spring-lock ( n + n ) resembles the order of
words in nominal phrases with attributive function of the first
noun ( N + N ), e. g. spring time, stone steps, peace movement.
2) Compound words whose ICs are joined together with a special linking-
element — the linking vowels [ou] and occasionally [i] and the linking
consonant [s/z] — which is indicative of composition as in, for
example, speedometer, tragicomic, statesman. Compounds of this type
can be both nouns and adjectives, subordinative and additive but are
rather few in number since they are considerably restricted by the
nature of their components. The additive compound adjectives linked
with the help of the vowel [ou] are limited to the names of
nationalities and represent a specific group with a bound root for the
first component, e. g. Sino-Japanese, Afro-Asian, Anglo-Saxon.
In subordinative adjectives and nouns the productive linking element
is also [ou] and compound words of the type are most productive for
scientific terms. The main peculiarity of compounds of the type is
that their constituents are nonassimilated bound roots borrowed mainly
from classical languages, e. g. electro-dynamic, filmography,
technophobia, videophone, sociolinguistics, videodisc.
A small group of compound nouns may also be joined with the help of
linking consonant [s/z], as in sportsman, landsman, saleswoman,
bridesmaid. This small group of words is restricted by the second
component which is, as a rule, one of the three bases man–, woman–,
people–. The commonest of them is man–.
Compounds may be also classified according to the nature of the bases and
the interconnection with other ways of word-formation into the so-called
compounds proper and derivational compounds.
Compounds proper are formed by joining together bases built on the stems or
on the word-forms of independently functioning words with or without the
help of special linking element such as doorstep, age-long, baby-sitter,
looking-glass, street-fighting, handiwork, sportsman. Compounds proper
constitute the bulk of English compounds in all parts of speech, they
include both subordinative and coordinative classes, productive and non-
productive patterns.
Derivational compounds, e. g. long-legged, three-cornered, a break-down, a
pickpocket differ from compounds proper in the nature of bases and their
second IC. The two ICs of the compound long-legged — ‘having long legs’ —
are the suffix –ed meaning ‘having’ and the base built on a free word-group
long legs whose member words lose their grammatical independence, and are
reduced to a single component of the word, a derivational base. Any other
segmentation of such words, say into long– and legged– is impossible
because firstly, adjectives like *legged do not exist in Modern English and
secondly, because it would contradict the lexical meaning of these words.
The derivational adjectival suffix –ed converts this newly formed base into
a word. It can be graphically represented as long legs ( [ (long–leg) +
–ed] ( long–legged. The suffix –ed becomes the grammatically and
semantically dominant component of the word, its head-member. It imparts
its part-of-speech meaning and its lexical meaning thus making an adjective
that may be semantically interpreted as ‘with (or having) what is denoted
by the motivating word-group’. Comparison of the pattern of compounds
proper like baby-sitter, pen-holder
[ n + ( v + –er ) ] with the pattern of derivational compounds like long-
legged [ (a + n) + –ed ] reveals the difference: derivational compounds are
formed by a derivational means, a suffix in case if words of the long-
legged type, which is applied to a base that each time is formed anew on a
free word-group and is not recurrent in any other type if words. It follows
that strictly speaking words of this type should be treated as pseudo-
compounds or as a special group of derivatives. They are habitually
referred to derivational compounds because of the peculiarity of their
derivational bases which are felt as built by composition, i.e. by bringing
together the stems of the member-words of a phrase which lose their
independence in the process. The word itself, e. g. long-legged, is built
by the application of the suffix, i.e. by derivation and thus may be
described as a suffixal derivative.
Derivational compounds or pseudo-compounds are all subordinative and fall
into two groups according to the type of variable phrases that serve as
their bases and the derivational means used:
a) derivational compound adjectives formed with the help of the
highly-productive adjectival suffix –ed applied to bases built
on attributive phrases of the A + N, Num + N, N + N type, e. g.
long legs, three corners, doll face. Accordingly the
derivational adjectives under discussion are built after the
patterns [ (a + n ) + –ed], e. g. long-legged, flat-chested,
broad-minded; [ ( ïèò + n) + –ed], e. g. two-sided, three-
cornered; [ (n + n ) + –ed], e. g. doll-faced, heart-shaped.
b) derivational compound nouns formed mainly by conversion applied
to bases built on three types of variable phrases — verb-adverb
phrase, verbal-nominal and attributive phrases.
The commonest type of phrases that serves as derivational bases for this
group of derivational compounds is the V + Adv type of word-groups as in,
for instance, a breakdown, a breakthrough, a castaway, a layout.
Semantically derivational compound nouns form lexical groups typical of
conversion, such as an act or instance of the action, e. g. a holdup — ‘a
delay in traffic’' from to hold up — ‘delay, stop by use of force’; a
result of the action, e. g. a breakdown — ‘a failure in machinery that
causes work to stop’ from to break down — ‘become disabled’; an active
agent or recipient of the action, e. g. cast-offs — ‘clothes that he
owner will not wear again’ from to cast off — ‘throw away as unwanted’; a
show-off — ‘a person who shows off’ from to show off — ‘make a display of
one's abilities in order to impress people’. Derivational compounds of this
group are spelt generally solidly or with a hyphen and often retain a level
stress. Semantically they are motivated by transparent derivative relations
with the motivating base built on the so-called phrasal verb and are
typical of the colloquial layer of vocabulary. This type of derivational
compound nouns is highly productive due to the productivity of conversion.
The semantic subgroup of derivational compound nouns denoting agents calls
for special mention. There is a group of such substantives built on an
attributive and verbal-nominal type of phrases. These nouns are
semantically only partially motivated and are marked by a heavy emotive
charge or lack of motivation and often belong to terms as, for example, a
kill-joy, a wet-blanket — ‘one who kills enjoyment’; a turnkey — ‘keeper of
the keys in prison’; a sweet-tooth — ‘a person who likes sweet food’; a red-
breast — ‘a bird called the robin’. The analysis of these nouns easily
proves that they can only be understood as the result of conversion for
their second ICs cannot be understood as their structural or semantic
centres, these compounds belong to a grammatical and lexical groups
different from those their components do. These compounds are all animate
nouns whereas their second ICs belong to inanimate objects. The meaning of
the active agent is not found in either of the components but is imparted
as a result of conversion applied to the word-group which is thus turned
into a derivational base.
These compound nouns are often referred to in linguistic literature as
"bahuvrihi" compounds or exocentric compounds, i.e. words whose semantic
head is outside the combination. It seems more correct to refer them to the
same group of derivational or pseudo-compounds as the above cited groups.
This small group of derivational nouns is of a restricted productivity, its
heavy constraint lies in its idiomaticity and hence its stylistic and
emotive colouring.
The linguistic analysis of extensive language data proves that there exists
a regular correlation between the system of free phrases and all types of
subordinative (and additive) compounds[26]. Correlation embraces both the
structure and the meaning of compound words, it underlies the entire system
of productive present-day English composition conditioning the derivational
patterns and lexical types of compounds.
-----------------------
[1] Randolph Quirk, Ian Svortik. Investigating Linguistic Acceptability.
Walter de Gruyter. Inc., 1966. P. 127-128.
[2] Robins, R. H. A short history of linguistics. London: Longmans, 1967.
P. 183.
[3] Henry Sweet, History of Language. Folcroft Library Editions,1876. P.
471.
[4] Zellig S. Harris, Structural Linguistics. University of Chicago Press,
1951. P. 255.
[5] Leonard Bloomfield, Language. New York, 1933
[6] Noam Avram Chomsky, Syntactic Structures. Berlin, 1957.
[7] Ibidem, p. 15.
[8] Ibidem, p. 4.
[9] Ibidem, p. 11.
[10] Ibidem, p. 10.
[11] Jukka Pennanen, Aspects of Finnish Grammar. Pohjoinen, 1972. P. 293.
[12] K. Zimmer, Levels of Linguistic Description. Chicago, 1964. P. 18.
[13] A. Ross Eckler’s letters to Daria Abrossimova, 2001.
[14] Kucera, H. & Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-day
American English. University Press of New England, 1967.
[15] Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
Random House Value Pub. 1996.
[16] A. Ross Eckler’s letters to Daria Abrossimova, 2001.
[17] Dmitri Borgmann. Beyond Language. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1965.
[18] The Times Atlas of the World. Times Books. 1994.
[19] Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide. Rand McNally & Co.
2000.
[20] Prof. Smirnitsky calls them “potential words” in his book on English
Lexicology (p. 18).
[21] Ginzburg R. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. Moscow, 1979. P.
113.
[22] Ibidem. P. 114-115.
[23] Marchand H. Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Munich, 1974.
[24] Ginzburg R. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. Moscow, 1979. P.
115.
[25] The spelling is given according to Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1956 and H.C. Wyld. The Universal English Dictionary, 1952.
[26] Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky as far back as the late forties pointed out the
rigid parallelism existing between free word-groups and derivational
compound adjectives which he termed “grammatical compounds”.
