Download - Compounding and Lexical Ism
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 1/29
Compounding and lexicalism
Lexicon -syntax divide
The problem with English compounds
The syntax-lexicon continuum of attribution
Attribution and syntax-lexicon divide
Mismatches
Compounding and lexical stratification
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 2/29
Lexicalism = the lexicon produces members of lexical characters
Syntax = produces members of phrasal categories
N NP
There must be a divide betweeen the two modules
Both modules concatenate morphemes into complex linguistic forms.
It is not clear that morphology only takes place in the lexicon
Some have argued that inflectional morphology implies interaction with
the syntax ( Anderson ,1982) (Booij 1996)
Lexicon-syntax divide not beyond dispute
The Lexical-Syntax divide
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 3/29
Lexical integrity principle (LIP) (Lapointe 1980, di Sciullo and
Williams 1987; Scalise and Guevara 2005)
Syntactic process can manipulate lexical categories (words), but not
their morphology
Watchmaker (compound) cannot be modified as in , for instance,
expensive watchmaker and watch skilled maker .
Independant modification and the replacement of the head by the pro-
form one a watch maker and a clock one may serve as syntactic tests
for compound or phrasal status
The Lexical-syntax divide
The notion of lexical integrity in some way defines the lexicon-
syntax divide, expressing the view whereby words are the atoms of
syntactic structure.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 4/29
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 5/29
One criterion in Phrase/Compound distinction is stress:
compound stress (first element) phrasal stress (second element)
P roblem: applies to phrases, but compounds have both stress
patterns (dialectal differences)
e.g. Christmas púdding, Chrístmas cake.
Semantic: We have a compound If the meaning of the whole cannot belogically deduced by the meaning of the elements separately (Jespersen
1942)
P roblems:
1. All complex lexemes will need to opaque in this case.
2. How do you deduct logically from the meaning of the
statements?
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 6/29
The syntactic lexicon continuum of attribution
Occurring on both sides of the Lexicon-syntax divide:
Syntactic phrase (blue bóok) end stress
Lexical construction ( Christmas púdding) end-stress
-------- ``-------------- ( Chrístmas cake) random fore stress
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 7/29
beautiful picture
white board
black bird
Types of attribution:
Ascriptive attribution:
1
In all of these a prototypical adjective brings to the attribute (head)
an ascriptive nature in a NP
They denote ´property` which is valid for the entity represented by
the noun. Beautiful expresses the quality of the picture.
These also have a predicative usage (the picture is beautiful).Ascription is characterized by ´is` between the head and its
dependent.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 8/29
Ascription can also be performed by nouns.
2
However the compound phrase distinction is hard to draw here.
Copulative constructions singer-songwriter are generally treated as
compounds and some have fore-stress, e.g. manservant. Olive oil may
have end-stress while thistle oil may have fore-stress.
Stress variation can be random and dialect-specific
boy actor luxury flat
gentleman farmer metal bridge
singer-songwriter olive oil
manservant thistle oil
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 9/29
toy factory
woman doctor
glass case
Different stress patterns can also signal semantic differences
3.
Under end-stress, attribution is ascriptive, for example, a
f actory which is a toy; a doctor who is a woman.
Under fore-stress it becomes more complicated. This will be
discussed below
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 10/29
a. dental decay b. tooth decay
avian flu bird flu
rural policeman country policeman
Associative attribution
Here the adjectives are relational and express how entities are
associated with, each other
4.
Associative adjectives are noun-like but are not always transparent,
hence the phrases in b that are synonyms to those in a.
Associate adjectives are restricted in several waysThey cannot occur in the predicative position ( this decay is dental)
They are restricted to specific heads (vernal greenery). Are they?
They are neither gradable nor modifiable. (rural tall policeman)
These have straightforward semantic structures, but there are more
complicated structures.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 11/29
5A.
In (A.) papal murder and papal visit display argument-predicate
relationship, either agent or patient, that depends on real world or
encyclopedic knowledge.
Pope more likely to be a victim than culprit, but he does go visiting.
papal motorcade papal murder papal visit
presidential plane presidential election presidential lie
professional salary professional
appointment
professional
comment
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 12/29
5B.
(B.) depends entirely on encyclopedic knowledge.
Distribution restriction, non-predicative usage and failure to undergo
modification, should suggest that these constructions are lexical.
Moreover, such constructions often have fore-stress which is assumedto be unavailable in syntax.
symphonic overture operatic overture
electrical clock electrical generator
musical clock musical comedy
Overture in the first example means opening.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 13/29
mountain railway milk bottle
school dinner milkman
village shop milk-float
summer fruit milk-feveruniversity exam milk-tooth
garden path milkweed
Here are more examples of associated with compounds
6 A. B.
There are two differences here
(A) generally has end-stress while (B) general has fore-stress
(A) is transparent while (B) is opaque
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 14/29
beautiful dancer
heavy smoker
big eater
old friend
good chef
Intersective and subsective attribution found within
ascriptive attribution
Ascriptive attribution is in its basic form intersective.Beautiful picture denotes the intersection of the set of beautiful pictures
and the set of beautiful objects (this picture is beautiful ).
However these are ambiguous, they allow for both a intersective
reading (dancer who is a beautiful person) and a subsective reading
(someone who dances beautifully)
7.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 15/29
The intersective/subsective ambiguity arises in the head and not the
attribute.
Subsectiveness does not depend on morphological structure. Beautiful
modifies the semantic element dance and not the verb dance containedin dancer.
old friend; good chef
Heads are not morphosyntactically complex, but allow subsective
interpretations.
If morphological structure relevant, then under LIP, these would belexical, but they are probably not.
Subsective attribution = not lexical status
However, subsectiveness is found in synthetic compounds.
watchmaker; train-spotter.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 16/29
Attribution and the Syntax-Lexicon divide.
Lexical integrity principle (LIP) as a syntactic diagnosis for lexical-syntax
divide.There appear to be three syntactic operations:
1. Coordination within either the dependent or the head, e.g. red and
blue books; wooden bridges and fences.
2. Independent modification, e.g. a very tall man; a tall old man.
3. Pro-form one , e.g. a red book and a blue one
Coordination reaches too deep in the lexicon.
e.g. Affixes (which are lexical) in the 1st of two heads are deleted in
German.
Ebe- und entladen (to load and unload)
Ess- und trinkbar (edible and drinkable)
As the phonology is affected rather than the syntax this is irrelevant to
the (LIP)
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 17/29
Independent modification is a more reliable diagnosticy Forms such as un-very large and harm-totally-less are ungrammatical.
y A stress distinction can help distinguish between compounds and
phrases.
Compare for example, a brilliantly white board* and a brilliantly *whiteboard
There are limitations:
1. Associative adjectives are not modifiable ( obviously dental decay )
2. There is ambiguity in ascriptive attributes (young boy actor , doesyoung modify boy or actor or both?)
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 18/29
Pro-form one - a red book and a blue one
Pro-form is straightforwardly possible in most cases.
(a genuine trader or a rogue one ,a basic flat or a luxury one) However,
pro-one does require countability, so does not work in for example
with olive oil .
In attributive examples such as a full time director and an actor one
sound odd, probably because they have an agent noun as an attribute.
Genuine and rogue make better attributes than director and actor . If
so,
It could then be said that the lexicon-syntax divide runs through the
set of ascriptive noun plus noun forms in 2 (manservant/ boy actor).
And the through the set of associative noun in 6 ( mountain railway /
milk bottle
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 19/29
In associate attribution the following do not typically yield to pro-
form one:
Semantically opaque example likes milk-tooth and milkweed
Argument-predicate relationships like papal murder and papal visit
also resist proone form
In relationships where the interpretation requires significant
encyclopedic information, e.g. symphonic overture.
The lexical syntactic divide lies somewhere between the above and
straightforwardly associated with sets like dental decay and avian
flu.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 20/29
There are two syntactic tests which under LIP draw a distinction
between compounds and phrases.
However, to produce a sharp lexicon syntax divide such tests have
correlate with each other and other non-syntactic criteria.
Non-syntactic criteria like phonology (end-stress and fore-stress) and
semantic (noun phrases - transparent attributive while compounds -
more opaque and complex). However...
We can then say the following
1. The elements of a fore-stressed construction do not allow pro-one
or individual modification2. The elements of a semantically opaque construction do not allow
pro-one or individual modification
3. The elements of a construction allowing pro-one are amenable to
individual modification, and visa versa
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 21/29
Mismatches in stress
Pro-form one
However, fore-stress is not uncommon in some pro-form associative
examples,
Is this the medical building or the dental one?
Is this the Arts faculty or the Medical one?
Considered compounds because of their phonological behavior, but pro-
form one can replace their heads.
Lexical-syntax divide referred to by phonology and pro-form one are not
the same.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 22/29
Charles and Di syndrome open door policyFloor of a birdcage taste cold weather payment
Modification
9 A. B
These are compounds because
They have fore-stressDo not conform to the pre-head modification patterns known for NPs
Their second elements are not amenable to modification. E.g. a floor of
a birdcage salty taste.
Are the first constituents of these compounds syntactic phrases?
If so, there is no problem
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 23/29
Some argue that that the phrases in (A) have the status of quotations
(suggesting lexical storage)And that those in (B) are lexical phrases displaying figurative sense or
technical jargon.
However, these are counter examples of LIP
The problem here is where to draw the line between N and NP.
Consider hapaxes like it is our policy to not to fit wooden doors in areas
liable to flooding
Or newspaper headlines HOUSEBUILDERS SLAM WOODEN DOOR
POLICY
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 24/29
Green Woodpecker Eagle Owl
Grey-headed Woodpecker Sand Martin
Artic Tern Tree sparrow
Common Tern House Sparrow
Mismatches involving semantic opacity.
10 A. B
These forms usually have end-stress; however, others like Blackbird have
fore-stress.
appears to be phrasal but are compounds due to their naming
function.
They are less transparent than they appear. There are other
woodpeckers that are green and the Artic Tern is more common than
the Common Tern in Britain
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 25/29
In (A) the elements can only be modified in their entirety
a juvenile Green Woodpecker , a Common juvenile Tern
Pro-form one is partly effective
He logged five Artic Terns and two Common ones
Grey-headed Woodpeckers are hard to distinguish from Green ones
A Snowy Owl and an Eagle one.
Stress criterion and syntax produce occasional mismatches
The syntactic tests (pro-form one and modifiability) fail to correlate.
The form Common Tern is more phrase like than Eagle Owl is, and
sufficiently so to count as a phrase for the purposes of pro-one, but
not sufficiently so to allow individual modification.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 26/29
Compounding and lexical stratification
LIP is not as robust as previously claimed
Phonological, syntactical and sematical dividing lines are not quitecongruent
Lexical stratification:
Lexical stratum have there own characteristics
1- morphologically complex are irregular, opaque, and therefore listed ina specific way (Kiparsky 1982; Giegerich 1999:Chapter 3)
2- productive rules giving rise to transparent and regular forms
Uncontroversial that in English compounding part of the final stratum(Giegerich 1999)
Compounding viewed as a single phenomenon of word formation
Highly productive
Most syntax-like of all word formations
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 27/29
However, not all forms of compounding are equally productive
Among nominal compounds there are sub-types in english that are notthe outcome of productive processses.
Left head contructions: load words
P rincess Royal, court martial etc.
Exocentric compounds: deliberately/facetiously coined
Hatch-back, red-neck, shit-head
All must be stratum 1
These can be a part of stratum 2 compounds
Hatch-back driver, red-neck fanWhile they cannot have regular compounds or affixations.
Rearhatch-back, reddish-neck
Left headed and exocentric compounds are simply not productive.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 28/29
Stratum 1 and 2 can be said to be contiguous.
They can function alongside one another, with stratum 2
phenomenon having stratum 1 counter parts , i.e. Hatch- back driver.
However , stratum 1 cannot have stratum 2 counterpartsi.e. Reddish-neck
This is reminisent of LIP
Two examples of a modular divide, whereby the congruency of thephologology, the sematics and the morphosyntax is affected.
8/8/2019 Compounding and Lexical Ism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compounding-and-lexical-ism 29/29
Modules will overlap, it is the a matter of ones meta theoeticalpersuasions whether such overlap is itself amedable to
formalization.
Conclusion
Syntactic test under LIP draw a distinction between
compounds and phrase, but these only demarcate the lexicon
from the syntax , in certain instances.
They do not produce a sharp divide as they do not correlate
with other each other and non-syntactic criteria like end-stress
and fore-stress - phonology and transparency and opacity
semantic criteria.