People recognize, differentiate, and understand, therefore, categorize ideas and objects in everyday life. Unsurprisingly, linguists classify words. Compounds, for instance, are a part of the human language, and an interesting process of word-formation. ‘Is this a compound?’ Sometimes linguists are unsure whether certain words are compounds or not.
The definition of compounds is important because defining compounds simply “as being lexeme[s] whose immediate constituents are representatives of lexemes” (Bauer 2005: 105) creates a wide array of borderline cases. Since neo-classical compounds and phrasal compounds, for example, do not consist of two words, it is incorrect to categorize these classes as forms of compounding, according to the definition. This problem can be solved, if one defines a compound as “a word that consists of two elements, the first of which is either a root, a word or a phrase, the second of which is either a root or a word” (Plag 2003: 135). This definition explains the compound status of the neo-classical compounds because the constituents in these items, such as bio-, are central meaningful elements (bio- has the meaning ‘life’), thus, can be considered as bound roots instead of affixes (see, e.g., Plag 2003: 73). Additionally, Plag’s definition demonstrates that phrasal compounds can be classified as compounds because a phrase and either a root or word are joined together to a word in these complex words.
Despite the advantages that this definition reveals, demarcation problems cannot be solved and borderline cases still arise regarding English compounds. “[W]e must emphasize that these [continuing, D.S.] classification difficulties are […] the inevitable result of the fact that phenomena in living languages can rarely be compartmentalized into clearly […] distinguishable categories” (Schmid 2011: 131).
Firstly, this seminar paper will focus on the distinction between compounds and syntagmas and phraseologisms; secondly, the differentiation of compounds compared to other word-formation models that seem to have similar formations (dealing with the classes synthetic and verbal compounds) will be addressed. It will be discussed whether there are criterions that help to provide a sharp boundary between the mentioned processes. Additionally, this seminar paper aims to find solutions for ongoing borderline cases.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Compounds vs. syntagmas and phraseologisms
3. Compounds vs. other word-formation patterns: problematic classes
3.1. Synthetic compounds
3.2. Verbal compounds
4. Practical analysis: compounds with categorization problems in a newspaper article
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to explore the linguistic challenges associated with the classification of English compounds, specifically focusing on borderline cases where the boundary between compounding and other word-formation processes remains fluid. The research aims to identify reliable criteria for distinguishing compounds from syntagmas, phraseologisms, and derived words, while analyzing why certain categories, such as synthetic and verbal compounds, resist clear-cut categorization.
- Demarcation criteria for distinguishing compounds from syntactic phrases (e.g., stress, orthography, meaning).
- Analysis of synthetic compounds and the intersection of derivation and compounding.
- Investigation into verbal compounds and their status as hybrid forms.
- Examination of idiomatic compounds and semantic non-compositionality.
- Practical application of theoretical definitions to contemporary media language.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Synthetic compounds
Chapter 2 of this seminar paper already presented a ‘hybrid-group’ of compounds – idiomatic compounds. Latter can neither be analyzed as compounds nor idioms (depending on the definition) – they are both. The same applies to synthetic compounds. They can be defined as items “which show traces of compounding as well as of derivation” (ten Hacken 2000: 356). At the first glance, one can note that they are neither typical compounds nor suffixations, thus, demarcation problems occur.
In principle, a synthetic compound can be analyzed as (a) a suffixation consisting of the compound and an attached suffix, or as (b) a compound of a left-hand word and the derived word from a verb and a suffix (see, e.g., Plag 2003: 149). Hence, the synthetic compound bus driver could be analyzed as (a) a suffixation of the compound of the elements bus and drive (adding –er to the compound) or as (b) a compound of bus and driver (drive + -er). In the first case, one could conclude that bus driver implies compounding inside derivation, thus, the process of compounding was followed by the process of suffixation; in the second case, one could define the example as an item involving derivation inside compounding. Therefore, the process of suffixation was followed by the process of compounding (see, e.g., Plag 2003: 149). Nevertheless, defining bus driver as (b) a complex word consisting of derivation inside compounding is the better option because the derivation of drive and –er to driver is possible, and creating a compound with the constituents bus and driver does not present a problem after that. Option (a) is not the right choice here because the noun-verb compound *to bus-drive does not exist, hence, the suffix –er cannot be attached to this impossible component.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the linguistic challenge of defining compounds and establishing clear boundaries for borderline cases in English word-formation.
2. Compounds vs. syntagmas and phraseologisms: Examines criteria such as orthography, stress, and meaning to distinguish compounds from syntactic groups and idiomatic phrases.
3. Compounds vs. other word-formation patterns: problematic classes: Analyzes the dual nature of synthetic and verbal compounds, highlighting the blurred lines between compounding and derivation.
4. Practical analysis: compounds with categorization problems in a newspaper article: Applies theoretical frameworks to analyze compounds found in a New York Times article, focusing on noun-noun patterns and synthetic/verbal structures.
5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that while criteria help, the 'hybridity' of many English compounds makes definitive classification impossible in all cases.
Key Words
Compounds, Word-formation, Synthetic compounds, Verbal compounds, Demarcation, Linguistics, Lexicalization, Derivation, Syntagmas, Phraseologisms, Idiomatic compounds, English morphology, Borderline cases, Non-compositionality, Orthography.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper focuses on the identification and classification of "borderline cases" in English compounding, where words are difficult to categorize because they share features of both compounds and other word-formation processes.
What are the central linguistic themes discussed?
The main themes include the distinction between compounds and syntactic phrases, the hybrid nature of synthetic and verbal compounds, and the role of semantic idiomaticity.
What is the primary goal of the research?
The primary goal is to examine if there are universal criteria to provide sharp boundaries between compounds and other structures, and to find solutions for the persistent demarcation problems in English morphology.
Which scientific methods are applied in the study?
The author uses a theoretical approach by reviewing current linguistic literature followed by a practical analysis of a contemporary newspaper article to test these theories against real-world language use.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body covers the comparison of compounds with syntagmas/phraseologisms, the detailed structural analysis of synthetic and verbal compounds, and a case study using a specific media text.
What are the defining keywords characterizing this research?
The work is characterized by terms like compounding, derivation, synthetic compounds, verbal compounds, demarcation, and semantic non-compositionality.
How does the author define a "synthetic compound"?
A synthetic compound is described as a complex word that shows traces of both compounding and derivation, often leading to debates on whether the word was formed via compounding or suffixation.
What role does the "replacement-test" play in this paper?
The replacement-test is discussed as a syntactic tool used to distinguish between compounds and phrases, though the author concludes it is not always a foolproof method for all cases.
Why are verbal compounds considered "problematic" by the author?
Verbal compounds are problematic because they often contain verbs as heads, and their formation is frequently intertwined with other processes like conversion or backformation, making them appear as "hybrids".
What does the practical analysis reveal about real-world usage?
The practical analysis shows that while most noun-noun compounds are straightforward, complex cases like "taxpayer" or "upgrade" confirm that even in professional journalism, word-formation can result in structurally ambiguous items.
- Arbeit zitieren
- MA Daniel Schroeder (Autor:in), 2013, Is this a compound?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/279072
