The question, whether a construction consisting of two or more nouns can automatically be considered a compound has been subject to discussion amongst many linguists. The topic seems to be of particular importance because it sheds some light on the relationship between morphology and syntax in the English language.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines a compound as “a word that combines two or more different words“, which at first glance implies that a construction of two nouns can always be considered a compound. In fact, the matter linguists are discordant about is whether all noun-plus-noun (N+N) construction can be considered morphological compounds – or in other words – if all compounds are derived from the lexicon and not also from the syntax. The main criterion, which the articles trying to solve this issue use as a basis of argumentation, is stress. More precisely, it is examined whether the first or the final constituent of the construction is emphasized.
To further examine this topic, I want to put in contrast two texts which are each based on a different view. At first I will look at “Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax“ by Susan Olsen, which was published in the German linguistic journal Linguistische Berichte in 2000. The second text will be “Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion“ by Heinz J. Giegerich, an article first published in the international linguistic journal English Language and Linguistics in 2004. The purpose is to determine whether the two perceptions are completely dissenting or if some accordance can be found in certain arguments.
Table of Contents
- What is a compound?
- Stress in English noun-plus-noun constructions
- Olsen's perspective: All N+N constructions are morphological compounds
- Marchand, Liberman, and Sproat's perspective: Some N+N constructions are phrases
- Olsen's explanation of stress ambiguity
- Compound-internal vs. compound-external meaning
- Examples and further arguments
Objectives and Key Themes
This text aims to analyze the debate surrounding the classification of English noun-plus-noun (N+N) constructions as either morphological compounds or syntactic phrases. It examines the role of stress in distinguishing between these two categories, contrasting the perspectives of different linguists.
- The definition and characteristics of compounds in English.
- The role of stress in differentiating between compounds and phrases.
- Contrasting viewpoints on the classification of N+N constructions.
- The relationship between morphology and syntax in English.
- Semantic implications of stress placement in N+N compounds.
Chapter Summaries
What is a compound?: This introductory section establishes the central question of the text: whether all two-noun constructions in English should be considered compounds. It introduces the contrasting views of linguists regarding the relationship between morphology and syntax in determining compound status, highlighting stress as a key criterion for analysis.
Stress in English noun-plus-noun constructions: This chapter delves into the core issue of stress patterns in N+N constructions. It presents the Compound Stress Rule (CSR) and the Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR), contrasting stress placement in compounds versus phrases. The chapter lays the groundwork for subsequent analysis by establishing the significance of stress as a linguistic marker and introducing the key rules used to distinguish compounds from phrases.
Olsen's perspective: All N+N constructions are morphological compounds: This section presents Susan Olsen's argument that all N+N constructions are morphological compounds, contrasting with the views of Marchand, Liberman, and Sproat. Olsen's work, based on Chomsky and Halle's earlier research on stress patterns, forms a central point of reference throughout the text. This section lays out her key arguments, providing evidence for her stance.
Marchand, Liberman, and Sproat's perspective: Some N+N constructions are phrases: This section outlines the opposing view, arguing that some N+N combinations are syntactic phrases rather than lexical compounds, focusing on instances where the right-hand constituent is stressed. This opposing perspective establishes a clear counterargument, highlighting the nuances and complexities of the debate.
Olsen's explanation of stress ambiguity: Olsen's approach to explaining stress ambiguity in N+N compounds is examined in detail. Her distinction between compound-internal and compound-external meaning provides a framework for understanding why stress can vary in different compound types. The analysis of deverbal and primary compounds, along with examples of final-stressed compounds, clarifies her argument.
Compound-internal vs. compound-external meaning: This chapter elaborates on Olsen's differentiation between compound-internal and compound-external meaning, using examples to illustrate how different semantic relationships between the nouns in an N+N construction affect stress placement. This detailed exploration solidifies the link between semantics and stress patterns.
Examples and further arguments: This section provides additional examples and arguments to support the perspectives presented, further illustrating the complexities and subtle nuances within the debate over classifying N+N constructions. The examples solidify the arguments and highlight the difficulties involved in definitively categorizing all N+N combinations.
Keywords
Compound, phrase, noun-plus-noun constructions, stress, morphology, syntax, Compound Stress Rule (CSR), Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR), compound-internal meaning, compound-external meaning, English linguistics.
Frequently Asked Questions: Analysis of English Noun-Plus-Noun Constructions
What is the main topic of this text?
This text analyzes the ongoing debate in linguistics concerning the classification of English noun-plus-noun (N+N) constructions. The central question is whether all such constructions should be considered morphological compounds or if some are syntactic phrases. The text explores the role of stress in distinguishing between these two categories.
What are the key perspectives discussed?
The text contrasts two main perspectives. Susan Olsen argues that all N+N constructions are morphological compounds, basing her argument on stress patterns and building upon the work of Chomsky and Halle. Conversely, Marchand, Liberman, and Sproat argue that some N+N constructions are syntactic phrases, particularly those with stress on the right-hand constituent.
What is the significance of stress in this analysis?
Stress placement is a crucial criterion for distinguishing between compounds and phrases. The text discusses the Compound Stress Rule (CSR) and the Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) to explain how stress patterns can indicate the morphological or syntactic nature of N+N constructions. The contrasting stress patterns provide key evidence for each perspective.
How does Olsen explain stress ambiguity in N+N constructions?
Olsen addresses stress ambiguity by differentiating between compound-internal and compound-external meaning. She argues that the semantic relationship between the two nouns influences stress placement. This distinction helps to explain why stress patterns can vary within different types of N+N compounds, such as deverbal and primary compounds.
What are the key linguistic concepts explored?
The text explores several key linguistic concepts including morphology (the study of word formation), syntax (the study of sentence structure), semantics (the study of meaning), and the application of these concepts to the analysis of N+N constructions in English. It also delves into the rules governing stress placement in English compounds and phrases.
What are the chapter summaries provided?
The text offers chapter summaries outlining the key arguments and findings of each section. These summaries cover the definition of compounds, the role of stress, Olsen's perspective, the opposing perspective of Marchand, Liberman, and Sproat, Olsen's explanation of stress ambiguity, the distinction between compound-internal and compound-external meaning, and additional examples supporting each viewpoint.
What are the objectives and key themes of the text?
The primary objective is to analyze the classification debate of English N+N constructions. Key themes include defining compounds and phrases, the role of stress in classification, contrasting linguistic perspectives, the relationship between morphology and syntax, and the semantic implications of stress in N+N compounds.
What keywords are associated with this text?
Keywords include: compound, phrase, noun-plus-noun constructions, stress, morphology, syntax, Compound Stress Rule (CSR), Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR), compound-internal meaning, compound-external meaning, and English linguistics.
- Quote paper
- Sebastian Just (Author), 2020, What is a Compound? Stress in English Noun-Plus-Noun Constructions, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1335594
