“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
Research Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this academic paper is to examine the universal applicability of Elisabeth Selkirk’s account of word compounding, originally developed for the English language, by comparing it to the morphological structures found in Dutch.
- Examination of the "Right-Hand Head Rule" (RHR) in English and Dutch compounding.
- Analysis of feature percolation within compound word structures.
- Comparative study of the "First Order Projection Condition" (FOPC) and the "First Sister Principle" (FSP).
- Investigation of semantic and grammatical properties of verbal and nonverbal compounds.
- Evaluation of Selkirk's theory as a universal framework for cross-linguistic morphological analysis.
Excerpt from the Book
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).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter defines compounding as a central word-formation process and outlines the paper's goal of testing Selkirk's theoretical framework against the Dutch language.
Headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule, and Percolation in English: The author details Selkirk's definitions of English compounds, focusing on the Right-hand Head Rule, the distinction between endocentric and exocentric compounds, and the concept of feature percolation.
Headedness, Right-Hand Head Rule, and Percolation in Dutch: This section applies Selkirk's English-based rules to Dutch, concluding that the Right-hand Head Rule and percolation mechanisms are largely supported by Dutch morphological evidence.
First Order Projection Condition (FOPC) Vs. First Sister Principle (FSP): The chapter compares Selkirk's FOPC with the FSP, demonstrating how these models account for the well-formedness of complex compounds in both English and Dutch.
Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings, concluding that Selkirk’s account of compounding is broadly applicable to Dutch and holds potential for being considered universal in this context.
Keywords
Compounding, Word formation, Headedness, Right-hand Head Rule, Percolation, Syntax of Words, First Order Projection Condition, First Sister Principle, Morphology, Dutch, English, Endocentric, Exocentric, Verbal compounds, Nominal compounds
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
The paper explores whether Elisabeth Selkirk’s linguistic theory regarding compounding, which was primarily designed for English, can be applied universally, specifically using Dutch as a point of comparison.
What are the main topics addressed in the study?
The core topics include the definition of headedness in word structure, the Right-hand Head Rule (RHR), the mechanism of feature percolation, and the First Order Projection Condition (FOPC).
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if Selkirk's account of English compounding is valid for the Dutch language, thereby testing the universality of her theoretical framework.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a comparative linguistic analysis, contrasting theoretical concepts from English morphology with empirical examples and existing linguistic research in Dutch.
What content is covered in the main body?
The main body examines the structural rules of compounds, including how categories are assigned to words and how features are transferred from constituents to the final compound structure.
What are the characterizing keywords of this work?
Key terms include Compounding, Right-hand Head Rule, Percolation, FOPC, and comparative morphology between English and Dutch.
How does the author define the "Right-hand Head Rule"?
It is defined as the principle where the rightmost member of a morphologically complex word serves as the head, determining the grammatical properties of the entire word.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the universality of Selkirk's theory?
The author concludes that because Selkirk's main points, such as the Right-hand Head Rule and percolation, are applicable to Dutch, her theory of compounding can be considered valid for this language as well.
How does Dutch differ from English regarding category-changing prefixes?
The text notes that, unlike in English, prefixes in Dutch are generally unable to assign a Theta-role to the right, with only a small number of exceptions.
- 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
