“Apart from derivation, compounding is the most important event within the process of word formation, i.e. the combination of two or more freely distributed morphemes or morpheme sequences (words) to a compound, whereby - as a rule - the last constituent determines both word of speech, as well as inflectional class” (BUßMANN 2002: 360). This definition of compounding is based on several linguistic works and theories, one of which Elisabeth Selkirk’s Syntax of Words is one of. This work will focus on Selkirk’s account of compounding and make a comparison between the English and Dutch language. Thereby, I will summarize Selkirk’s main points and contrast them to comparable qualities of the Dutch language. My aim is to examine whether or not and in what way Selkirk’s account of compounding in English is universally applicable. This examination will comprise the main topics Headedness, Right-hand Head Rule, Percolation, and First Order Projection Condition. Headedness, Right-hand Head Rule, and Percolation in English In her work The Syntax of Words, Selkirk defines English compounds to be “a type of word structure made up of two constituents, each belonging to one of the categories Noun, Adjective, Verb, or Preposition” (1982: 13). She suggests a context-free grammar for generating compound word structures – consisting of a set of context-free rewriting rules – (cf. 1982: 13 – 16). and furthermore differentiates endocentric compounds from exocentric (nonheaded) compounds. The first kind shows a head customary on the right and is predominant in English (cf. 1982: 19) (such as in snowflake, songwriter, starlight, and underground), while the second, rather exceptional kind has no head at all (cf. 1982: 19) (such as in hunchback, pickpocket, lazybones, cutthroat, and redskin). However, the denotation of a head is controversial. Williams proposed the so-called “Right-hand Head Rule” (RHR), which says that “the righthand member of a morphologically complex word is the head of that word”, what entails that the rightmost constituent determines all the properties of the whole (cf. 1981a: 245 – 274). Such would be the case in the following examples: [...]
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule, and Percolation in English
- Headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule, and Percolation in Dutch
- First Order Projection Condition (FOPC) Vs. First Sister Principle (FSP)
- Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
This work examines the universal validity of Elisabeth Selkirk's account of compounding in English, comparing it to Dutch. It summarizes Selkirk's main points and contrasts them with comparable aspects of Dutch. The primary aim is to determine the applicability of Selkirk's theory across languages.
- Headedness in English and Dutch compounds
- The Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR) and its limitations
- The concept of Percolation in compound word formation
- Comparison of English and Dutch compounding structures
- Evaluation of the universality of Selkirk's model
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This chapter introduces the concept of compounding in word formation, defining it as the combination of morphemes to create new words. It establishes Selkirk's "Syntax of Words" as a key theoretical framework and outlines the study's objective: to evaluate the universality of Selkirk's account of English compounding by comparing it to Dutch. The chapter highlights the core topics of the analysis: headedness, the right-hand head rule, percolation, and the First Order Projection Condition.
Headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule, and Percolation in English: This chapter delves into Selkirk's analysis of English compounds, categorizing them as endocentric (headed) or exocentric (non-headed). It focuses on the Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR), which posits that the rightmost constituent determines the properties of the compound. However, the chapter acknowledges the RHR's limitations and presents Selkirk's revised rule, which addresses exceptions where the rightmost element doesn't determine the overall category. The concept of percolation—the copying of features from lower to higher levels of constituency—is introduced as a mechanism to ensure consistency in feature assignment within compounds. The chapter distinguishes between verbal and non-verbal compounds, highlighting the differences in semantic interpretations and constituent relationships.
Headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule, and Percolation in Dutch: This chapter extends the analysis to Dutch compounding, examining the applicability of Selkirk's model, particularly the RHR. While Selkirk notes the RHR is language-specific, the chapter discusses how Booij & van Santen adapt it to Dutch, noting that Dutch provides additional evidence due to gender determination by nominalizing suffixes. The chapter implicitly suggests a comparative analysis between the English and Dutch systems, setting the stage for evaluating the universality of Selkirk's claims.
Keywords
Compounding, word formation, headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR), percolation, English, Dutch, Selkirk's theory, cross-linguistic comparison, endocentric, exocentric.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview
What is the main topic of this language preview?
This preview summarizes a work examining the applicability of Elisabeth Selkirk's theory of English compounding to the Dutch language. It focuses on comparing and contrasting the processes of compounding in both languages, specifically analyzing headedness, the Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR), and percolation.
What are the key themes explored in this work?
The key themes include: headedness in English and Dutch compounds; the limitations of the Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR); the role of percolation in compound word formation; a comparative analysis of English and Dutch compounding structures; and an evaluation of the universality of Selkirk's model for compound word formation.
What is the objective of this study?
The primary aim is to determine the extent to which Selkirk's account of English compounding, which relies heavily on the Right-Hand Head Rule and percolation, can be generalized to other languages, using Dutch as a case study. The study seeks to evaluate the universality of Selkirk's theoretical framework.
What is the Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR), and how does it relate to this study?
The RHR is a principle in linguistics that states the rightmost constituent in a compound determines the properties of the compound word. This study examines the validity of the RHR in both English and Dutch compounds, acknowledging its limitations and exploring exceptions.
What is percolation, and what is its role in compound word formation?
Percolation is the process where features from a lower level of constituency "copy" up to higher levels, ensuring consistency in feature assignment within compound words. The study examines how percolation functions in both English and Dutch compounds in relation to the RHR.
How does the study compare English and Dutch compounding?
The study provides a detailed comparison of headedness, the RHR, and percolation in both English and Dutch compounds. It contrasts Selkirk's analysis of English with adaptations of the theory applied to Dutch, highlighting similarities and differences in the compounding processes.
What are the chapter summaries provided in the preview?
The preview includes summaries outlining the introduction of compounding and Selkirk's theory; a detailed look at headedness, the RHR, and percolation in English compounds; a similar analysis for Dutch compounds, focusing on the applicability of Selkirk's model; and concluding remarks.
What are the keywords associated with this work?
Key terms include: compounding, word formation, headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule (RHR), percolation, English, Dutch, Selkirk's theory, cross-linguistic comparison, endocentric, and exocentric.
What is the overall conclusion implied by the preview?
While the preview doesn't explicitly state a conclusion, it strongly implies that the study will analyze the limitations of applying Selkirk's theory, specifically the RHR, to languages other than English. The comparison with Dutch aims to determine the cross-linguistic validity of the proposed rules.
- Quote paper
- Christian Hensgens (Author), 2005, About the universal Validity of Selkirk's Account of Compounding: A Comparison between English and Dutch., Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/37655
