Relations between the ICs of Compounds

From the point of view of degree of se^.mantic independence there are two types of relationship between the ICs of com-pound words that are generally recognized in linguistic literature: the relations of coordination and subordination, and accordingly compound words fall into two classes: coordinative compounds (often termed copulative or additive) and subordinative (often termed determinative).

In coordinative compounds the two ICs are semantically equally important as in fighter-bomber, oak-tree, girl-friend, Anglo-American. The constituent bases belong to the same Class and most often to the same semantic group. Coordinative compounds make up a comparatively small group of words. Coordinative compounds fall into three groups:

a) Reduplicative compounds which are made up by the repetition of the same base as in goody-goody, fifty-fifty, hush-hush, pooh-pooh. They are all only partially motivated

b) Compounds formed by joining the phonically variated rhythmic twin forms which either alliterate with the same initial consonant but vary the vowels as in chit-chat, zig-zag, sing-song, or rhyme by varying the initial consonants as in clap-trap, a walkie -talkie, helter-skelter. This subgroup stands very much apart. It is very often referred to pseudo-compounds and considered by some linguists irrelevant to productive word formation owing to the doubtful morphemic status of their components. The constituent members of compound words of this subgroup are in most cases unique, carry very vague or no lexical meaning of their own, are not found as stems of independently functioning words. They are motivated mainly through the rhythmic 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 a d d i t i v e 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, of. 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.

Subordinative compounds make the bulk of Modern English compound words, as to productivity most of the productive types are subordinative compcompounds Functionaly compounds are

31. Different Parts of Speech 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.

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] + -edl reveals the difference: derivational compounds are formed by a derivational means, a suffix in case of 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 of 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 l(a+«)"+ -ed\, e.g. long-legged, flat-chested, broad-minded; [(num + 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 + Ado type of word-groups as in, e.g., a breakdown, a break-through, a cast-away, a lay-out 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 the owner will not wear again from to cast off—throw away as unwant-
ed; 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, e.g., 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 robbin. 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.

Поиск по сайту: