Structure

Compound words like all other inseparable vocabulary units take shape in a definite system of grammatical forms, syntactic and semantic features. Compounds, on the one hand, are generally clearly distinguished from and often opposed to free word-groups, on the other hand they lie astride the border-line between words and word-groups and display close ties and correlation with the system of free word-groups. The structural inseparability of compound words finds expression in the unity of their specific distributional pattern and specific stress and spelling pattern. Structurally compound words are characterized by the specific order and arrangement in which bases follow one another. The order in which the two bases are placed within a compound is rigid- fixed in Modern English and it is the second IC that makes the head-member of the word, i.e. its structural and semantic centre. The head-member is of basic importance as it preconditions both the lexico-grammatical and semantic features of the first component. It is of interest to note that the difference between stems (that serve as bases in compound words) and word-forms they coincide with[135] is most obvious in some compounds, especially in compound adjectives. Adjectives like long, wide, rich are characterized by grammatical forms of degrees of, comparison longer, wider, richer. The corresponding stems functioning as bases in compound words lack grammatical independence and forms proper to the words and retain only the part-of-speech meaning; thus compound adjectives with adjectival stems for their second components, e.g. age-long, oil-rich, inch-wide, do not form degrees of comparison as the compound adjective oil-rich does not form them the way the word rich does, but conforms to the general rule of polysyllabic adjectives and has analytical forms of degrees of comparison. The same difference between words and stems is not so noticeable in compound nouns with the noun-stem for the second component.

Phonetically compounds are also marked by a specific structure of their own. No phonemic changes of bases occur in composition but the compound word acquires anew stress pattern, different from the stress in the motivating words, for example words key and hole or hot and house each possess their own stress but when the stems of these words are brought together to make up a new compound word, 'keyhole—'a hole in a lock into which a key fits', or 'hot-house—*a heated building for growing delicate plants', the latter is given a different stress pattern—a unity stress on the first component in our case. Compound words have three stress patterns:

a) a high or unity stress on the first component as in honeymoon, 'doorway, etc.

b) a double stress, with a primary stress on the first component and a weaker, secondary stress on the second component, e.g. b lood-vessel, mad-doctor —''a psychiatrist', 'washing-machine, etc. These two stress patterns are the commonest among compound words, and in many cases they acquire a contrasting force distinguishing compound words from word-groups, especially when the arrangement and order of ICs parallel the word-order and the distributional pattern of a phrase, thus a green-house—' aglass house for cultivating delicate plants' is contrasted to a green house —'a house that is painted green'; 'dancing-girl —'a dancer' to a 'dancing 'girl —'a girl who is dancing'; a 'mad-doctor— 'apsychiatrist' to 'mad 'doctor—'a doctor who is mad'. The significance of these stress patterns is nowhere so evident as in nominal compounds built on the n+nderivational pattern in which the arrangement and order of the stems fail to distinguish a compound word from a phrase.

c) It is not infrequent, however, for both ICs to have level stress as in, e.g., 'arm-'chair, 'icy-'cold, 'grass-'green, etc.

The significance of the stress pattern by itself should not be overestimated though, as it cannot be an overall criterion and cannot always serve as a sufficient clue to draw a line of distinction between compound words and phrases. This mostly refers to level stress pattern. In most cases the level stress pattern is accompanied by other structural and graphic indications of inseparability.

Graphically most compounds have two types of spelling-they are spelt either solidly or with a hyphen. Both types of spelling when accompanied by structural and phonetic peculiarities serve as a sufficient indication of inseparability of compound words in contradistinction to phrases. It is true that hyphenated spelling by itself may be sometimes misleading, as it may be used in word-groups to emphasize their phraseological character as in e.g. daughter-in-law, man-of-war, brother-in-arms or in longer combinations of words to indicate the se-mantic unity of a string of words used attributively as, e.g., I -know-what-you're-going-to-say expression, we-are-in- the-know jargon, the young-must-be-right attitude. The two types of spelling typical of compounds, however, are not rigidly observed and there are numerous fluctuations between solid or hyphenated spelling on the one hand and spelling with a break between the components on the other, especially in nominal compounds of the n+ntype. The spelling of these compounds varies from author to author and from dictionary to dictionary. For example, the words war-path, war-time, money-lender are spelt both with a hyphen and solidly; blood-poisoning, money-order, wave-length, war-ship— with a hyphen and with a break; underfoot, insofar, underhand —solidly and with a break.[136] It is noteworthy that new compounds of this type tend to solid or hyphenated spelling. This inconsistency of spelling in compounds, often accompanied by a level stress pattern (equally typical of word-groups) makes the' problem of distinguishing between compound

words (of the n+ntype in particular) and word-groups especially difficult.

In this connection it should be stressed that Modern English nouns (in the Common Case, Sg.) as has been universally recognized possess an attributive function in which they are regularly used to form numerous nominal phrases as, e.g. peace years, stone steps, government office, etc. Such variable nominal phrases are semantically fully derivable from the meanings of the two nouns and are based on the homogeneous attributive semantic relations unlike compound words. This system of nominal phrases exists side by side with the specific and numerous class of nominal compounds which as a rule carry an additional semantic component not found in phrases.

It is also important to stress that these two classed of vocabulary units—compound words and free phrases—are not only opposed, but also stand in close correlative relations to each other.[137]

§ 26. Meaning Semantically compound words are generally motivated units. The meaning of the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components. The semantic peculiarity of the derivational bases and the semantic difference between the base and the stem on which the latter is built is most obvious in compound words. Compound words with a common second or first component can serve as illustrations. The stem of the word board is polysemantic and its multiple meanings serve as different derivational bases, each with its own selective range for the semantic features of the other component, each forming a separate set of compound words, based on specific derivative relations. Thus the base board meaning a flat piece of wood square or oblong makes a set of compounds chess-board, notice-board, key-board, diving-board, foot-board, sign-board; compounds paste-board, car board are built on the base meaning thick, stiff paper; the base board -meaning an authorized body of men', forms compounds school-board, board-room. The same can be observed in words built on the polysemantic stem of the word foot. For example, the base foot- in foot-print, foot-pump, foothold, foot-bath, foot-wear has the meaning of the terminal part of the leg', in foot-note, foot-lights, foot-stone the base foot - has the meaning of the lower part', and in foot-high, foot-wide, foot rule—'measure of length'. It is obvious from the above-given examples that the meanings of the bases of compound words are interdependent and that the choice of each is delimited as in variable word-groups by the nature of the other IC of the word. It thus may well be said that the combination of bases serves as a kind of minimal inner context distinguishing the particular individual lexical meaning of each component. In this connection we should also remember the significance of the differential meaning found in both components which becomes especially obvious in a set of compounds containing identical bases.[138]

Поиск по сайту: