English compounding phenomena: morphological vs. syntactic - Essay Example

?To what extent are the compounding phenomena of English morphological and to what extent are they syntactic? Introduction: Compounding Phenomena in modern English – Morphology and syntactic elements are both integral parts of modern English language. 1.0 Types of Compounds in the English language. 1.1 Compound Nouns 1.2 Compound Verbs 2.0 Probabilistic Compounding Constraints in the English Language. * Memory based Compounding. 3.0 Creative Compounding 4.0 Compounding and Lexicalism. * Morphology * Do Speakers have general principles on Compounding? * Child speech and how lexicon plays a part 5.0 Summary/Conclusion English compounding phenomena: morphological vs. syntactic Introduction All living things communicate in some form. Communication does not mean spoken language, but can also include written, hand signs, or grunts and chirps. Although humans are born with the ability to learn multiple languages, the reality is that individuals know at least one language, and can understand that one language. The English language is considered one of the harder languages to learn later in life due to the structure of words and the usage of compounding terms. Based on our association with the English language, this exploration of the phenomenon of compounding plays a part in adding to the lexical library stored in our brain. By deriving the basic components in a language it would seem illogical to assume that the compounding phenomenon of words, phrases and sentences is either entirely morphological or entirely syntactical. By exploring in detail the various components involved in compounding, the differences between morphological adaption and syntactical adaption may become apparent. Also a discussion is needed regarding if both kinds of compounding can exist independently of each other. With any language there are rules and exceptions to rules, which will assist in speaking about the compounding phenomena. 1.0 Types of Compounds in the English language The English language is an analytical language and although originating from a Germanic base, the modern evolution differs from Germanic languages. The English language is known to have evolved from the Germanic influence of the settlers in the United Kingdom. However we have evidence that the language has evolved beyond its source in many ways. The main difference between the languages being that German is a stem based language and therefore we can assume that this influence is also seen in the compounding Phenomenon of the language. Although derived from or influenced by German, English also took its influences from Latin and Greek and has developed into a word-based language. We can therefore to an extent assume that this strong influence of words is also seen in its compounding. While English is not the only language that uses compounding words, for this analysis, English will be the primarily language studied. Compounding words can be traced to the archaic language of Sanskrit by ancient rules typically followed. The aspect of putting together or combining with respect to language is related to “Sankhara” in Sanskrit, which can be seen as the basis of some grammar rules. A compound for this study is a word that is a combination of two or more free standing words. For the sake of convenience we will take the dominant feature of compounding two words. To understand compounding further, a brief look at the four semantic classifications for compounds: * Endocentric Compounds: Laurie Bauer in her publication “English Exocentric Compounds” explains endocentric compounds are words that have one of its elements as the head of the construction. (Bauer, n.d:1) The example that she uses is “Traffic light” where the word light is the head of the compound and the word traffic is endocentric or tells us what kind of light is being spoken about. (Bauer, n.d:1) This type of compounding is believed to have originated from the Sanskrit word “tatpurusa”. Tatpurusa means they are dependent determinative compounds. According to Bauer and other academics, endocentric compounds are the classification most commonly used. * Exocentric Compounds: Again believed to be originating from Sanskrit, the “bahuvrihi” of Sanskrit in contrast to endocentric compounds; do not contribute to the meaning of the head. Nor are bahuvrihi hyponyms of the head, but rather hyponyms of an unexpressed semantic head. Simple examples would be words like “redhead”, where the word is a hyponym of hair and describes a man or woman with red hair. Most one word compound nouns are exocentric. * Copulative Compounds: As the name suggests is a compound formed by the copulation of the sum of two words. The Sanskrit version is the “dandva” compounds. A simple example of a copulative compound is “bagpipe” where the compound has two semantic heads. * Appositional Compounds: These kinds of compounds are formed by two words that provide different descriptions for the same referent. A simple example of an appositional compound is words like “maidservant” or “boy-king” where they are words independent of each other in meaning yet can refer to the same individual. Based on the above classifications, we will see that a compound can be formed as either as one word, such as “bedroom”; two words connected by a hyphen such as “dry-cleaning” or just two separate words such as “swimming pool”. Now that the classifications are known, it is now important to understand the syntactical or morphological dependency and/or both. 1.1 Compound Nouns Compound nouns are often seen versions of compounding. Compound Nouns are formed when a semantic noun head is modified by the use of nouns or adjectives. They can be classified as Noun-Noun compounds where the semantic head and the modifier are both nouns such as Chocolate Box whereas both chocolate and box are nouns. Verb-Noun compounds are also classified compounds nouns as the head is still a noun and the modifier is a verb. An example of verb-noun compounding is cutthroat, where cut being the verb, and throat the noun. From reviewing types of compounding, it is seen that most compound nouns are headed or have a semantic head. In the case of endocentric compounds the semantic head is also the syntactic head, therefore there is a syntactic dominancy of one of the words in endocentric compounds. To explain this, a look at examples of various kinds of compounding nouns such as: (i) One word Compounding: “schoolteacher” where the word “school” describes the kind of teacher and syntactically makes the word “schoolteacher” a noun. (ii) Hyphenated Compounding: “soft-hearted” where the word “soft” describes the kind of heart possesses by person “X” making “soft-hearted” a noun. (iii) Two Word Compounding: “can opener” where the word “can” is the type of object that can be opened. Making “Can opener’ a noun. Lets view compound nouns from the point of view of morphemes and therefore morphology. Mc Carthy explains morphology as “the area of grammar concerned with the structure of words and with relationships between words” (2002, p.16). We will speak more about morphology later in the article. The simple explanation given here should suffice with reference to the current topic addressed in this section. Lets look at the compounding phenomena of the nouns stated above from the basis of morphology. We can see that all the words mentioned above can be divided into morphemes each having significant meanings. It is possible to interchange the words, however when this is done, the tendencies stay the same, but the meaning changes. The words “school teach-er” cannot be interchanged as “teach-er school” (where the hyphen denotes the breakdown into morphemes”. Therefore the syntactic dominance is prevalent and can be proved. The importance of a syntactic-morphological or a morpho-syntactic alignment is evident. 1.2 Compound Verbs: Like compound nouns, compound verbs are multi-word compounds that can still be classified as a verb. They can be a verb words or verb phrases or more appropriately called phrasal verbs. Compound verbs can be Verb-Adverb, such as “look at” or Verb- preposition combinations, such as “to look up”. In words such as these we also see a syntactic domination. Compound or phrasal verbs however differ slightly in the sense that they can also compound morphologically and not lose their meaning. Examples such as “Switch on the light” and “switch the light off” where the smallest morphemes may not have meaning but can still be interchanged semantically and still maintain their meaning. The morpho-syntactic alignment is not an absolute necessity in this kind of compounding. 2.0 Probabilistic Compounding Constraints in the English Language. Psycholinguistic research has shown that English compound words with irregular plural nouns in first position (e.g. mice-eater) are produced far more frequently than compound words with regular plural nouns in first position (e.g. *rats-eater) (Gordon, 1985). The use of regular and irregular plurals also plays a part in semantics as well as compounding. When we look at regular plurals like “cat(s)” they are never followed by a noun and are definitive in nature. This affects how certain words are compounded versus others. We never see sentences like “My how expensive is that catsnip”. However whenever there is a usage of irregular plural a noun can follow it as illustrated in Gordon’s sentence above. In words such as these we know that “rats” and “mice” have the same meaning but the syntactic dominance is sought through memory based compounding. In the use of the possessive “s” morpheme also reveals memory based compounding with a morphological dominance. Therefore compounding phenomena in plurals shows equal syntactic and morphological dominance. 3.0 Creative Compounding We have so far only analyzed some of the common compounding phenomena. Modern English language is not restricted to just those common compounds. We see an extensive use of metaphors and metonymy in English compounding. This aspect of creative compounding cannot be ignored and we will try to analyse the compounding phenomena observed in this case. While the word “metaphor” requires less explanation we will use Richard Nordquist’s simplified explanation for the word metonymy, “A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated (such as "crown" for "royalty").” (2012, para.1). Going by this explanation, creative compounds such as “redneck” have no bearing on the colour of one’s neck, but rather to one’s attitude or racial preference. Words such as these do not necessarily serve to expand our vocabulary but are used more in a contextual sense and to add meaning and ease of use when referred to in a particular place or type. Words such as these will have different compounds based on the region the language is spoken. For example, English spoken in the United Kingdom will have words that make sense in the regional context as against words used in American English and so on. We can however see that these kinds of words have an exocentric quality about them. The word “redneck” refers to a person “X” who has a particular racial preference. Therefore it may not be inaccurate to say that creative compounding is exocentric in nature. There is no definitive syntactic dominance but there is a morpho-syntactic alignment that is more a result of memory based compounding or familiar usage. Rather we cannot ascertain dominance without analyzing the origin of the particular pattern of compounding. We can also attribute creative compounding to borrowed words. As the word suggests the reference is to words that have been borrowed from other languages and have become an aspect of the borrowing language due to its commonplace usage. Delahunt and Garvey in “Morphology and Word Formation”, explains some of the commonly used English words that have been borrowed from other languages, Many terms from Mexican cuisine, like taco and burrito, have become current in American English and are spreading to other English dialects. Borrowing requires that the borrowing language and the source language come in contact with each other. ... Over its 1500-year history English has borrowed from hundreds of languages, though the main ones are Latin (homicide), Greek (chorus), French (mutton), Italian (aria), Spanish (ranch), German (semester), and the Scandinavian languages (law). From Native American languages, American English has borrowed place names (Chicago), river names (Mississippi), animal names (opossum), and plant names (hickory). (n.d, 137) In words such these the syntactic or morphological dominance can only be analyzed by studying the properties of the parent language. Although the morpho-syntactic alignment in these is based on the parent language, it is phonologically altered to suit the borrower language, which in this case is English. In English language typically the root of words can stand alone when compounded. However in Greek and Latin they are bound together. Therefore compound words borrowed from this language maintain the rule of compounding of the borrowed language. An example of borrowed classical word would be “photograph” Therefore here compounding is comprised more of the phonological property of morphemes than their syntactic relevance. 4.0 Compounding and Lexicalism. The word “lexicon” lends its meaning to the word “lexicalism”. Chlomsky refers to lexicalism as the mental process that underlines our comprehension of a language. (1965) Lexicalism is more of a mental process that stores certain forms and formats of words and their relation to each other. When we speak we mentally grab many words from our brain, which have their own altruistic meaning and compounding rules. This lexical knowledge of a language is independent of individual mastery of a language. A man who is competent in the usage of English may be able to converse in grammatically acceptable sentences. This individual can not be compared to a man who has a superior mastery of the language and can use this mastery to compound words into sentences. Such comparison does not come under the branch of lexicalism. When we assess from this viewpoint, the lexical component of a language can be words or a group of words. Based on the above explanation of lexicalism, it is necessary however to address the subject of morphology to better understand how the compounding phenomena of compounding the English language is created. The meaning of the words “syntax” and “morpheme” has already been established in the beginning of the essay. We have stated simply that morphology is the structure of words. Morphology can be classified into 3 dominant types. They are 1.1 Morpheme based Morphology 1.2 Lexeme Based Morphology 1.3 Word based Morphology. * Morpheme based Morphology: We have established that a “morpheme” is the smallest possible unit that a word can be broken into. These units may or may not have direct meanings and therefore cannot function as stand-alone words. Examples of a morpheme is the “s” in the plural form of a word, which has no meaning if not connected to the root or the main word. Words such as “only” can be divided into morphemes such as “on-ly “where “on”, as a root can exist as a standalone word while “ly” is a derivative affix and therefore cannot. The joining of these two can be classified under morpheme-based morphology. The examples given above are for very simple and small words. Even the most complex words can be broken up into many morphemes and the root. These can be classified further as free morphemes and bound morphemes. Free morphemes such as “mud” can exist freely with lexemes in words such as “mud bath” while the derivative affixes, prefixes and suffices mentioned above are bound to other morphemes. * Lexeme based Morphology: Contrary to morpheme based example using the word “only” above, lexeme based morphology relies more on complete words instead of breaking up into morphemes. Examples such as “fly catcher” are examples of Lexeme based morphology. “Lexeme-base morphology assumes that only the lexeme is a true linguistic sign where 'lexeme' is defined exclusively and explicitly as any and all noun, verb, and adjective stems” (bucknell.edu, n.d. para. 3). Lexemes generally belong to particular syntactic categories therefore it may be accurate to say that lexeme-based morphology is syntactic dominant. * Word Based Morphology: Word based Morphology as the name suggests is based on complete words. Where a “new word is formed by applying a regular rule to a single already existing word.” (Aronoff, 1976). The word thus formed however possesses lexical properties and the morphology is influenced by lexicalism. Examples of word based morphology would be words such as “conceive” where the morpheme “ceive” has no meaning and derived more by association than by any known grammar rules, thus lending itself to lexicalism. This also applies to compound words as one is forming new words by applying already established rules to separate words which are then brought together. It is a known fact that all of us go through a language acquisition process that rationalizes the formation of words. It is believed in linguistic theory that a child picks up noun-noun compounds at its earliest stage of development. It is even argued by many that it this is possible only because words formed by the combination of two nouns are not really compounds and just words and therefore not complex enough for a child who is developing his or her linguistic ability. The next stage of development in language acquisition process of a child is believed to be the formation of compounds. This assumption is being made based on a child with normal cognitive power as otherwise we will need expound linguistic theories and detract from the main topic. There is still no definitive theory as to how compound words take form and are stored in the child’s lexicon and how these lexical words progressively grow in number as the child becomes an adult. We will try to examine this phenomenon of compounding in child speech using McDonald’s analysis of compounding. (Mc Donald. 1995) The compounding process in English language follows a linear pattern with specific stress points, which, differentiate, between the words. In order words the division of the compounds into derivative, inflective, root or stem acting as a single word syntactically. Compound nouns act as a single word syntactically: they can be preceded by determiners and adjectival modifiers and can take plural inflection. If a compound noun is in clausal subject position, verb agreement applies. Compound words have syntactic heads, which lends itself to the formation of phrases. Compounds are made of syntactic and semantic heads. Mc Donald says that the “notion of morphological head suffers from definitional problems, because syntactic head and semantic head are not necessarily marked by the same morpheme.”(1995, p. 7) * Child and Adult Speech: We will examine the above and further analyze how a child develops the complex structure of compounding. When it comes to the English language, as we have seen above, the understanding of the stress on words can help differentiate a word from a compound or a phrase. “Syntactic cues such as the presence of a preceding article or modifying adjective indicate that the complex constituent should be analysed as a morphological unit. Through exposure to speech input, children are able to perceive recurring word combinations and isolate, identify and store the combinatorial patterns” (Clark, 1993). Children learn compounds through association and through conventional usage or new word coinages of adults that they are exposed to. The productivity of a compounding pattern adopted by adults also plays a vital role in how quickly children develop the art of compounding. This aspect of language and word productivity in a child’s mind is analyzed outside of conventional lexicalism and more on the basis of novel coinages by adults. This demarcation makes it easier for them to understand the process. There is a supposition that children therefore recognize words first and the morphological relation of compounding later. We can understand this from the below passage from McDonald’s analysis of compounding patterns in children as compared to adults specifically with regards to the English language. Children’s early coinages often do not resemble those produced by adults in several ways. The most significant difference is stem order. English-speaking children often produce compounds with the head in leftmost position, such as cutter-grass (for ‘lawnmower’). They also have problems with affixation. The affix may be left off entirely, as in grate-cheese (for ‘cheese-grater’) or attached to the wrong stem. Both types of errors can occur simultaneously, as in dry-hairer (for ‘hair-dryer’). (1995, p. 15) While this article is not exploring the linguistic transition of language we can use this theory to understand lexicalism and its progression based on compounding. We have noticed this syntactic or the derived semantic head of both nouns and compound verbs has “cross-linguistic validity” (Mc Donald. 1995, p. 7) and therefore are more prominent in Child’s speech before they learn to rearrange the order the words. 5.0 Conclusion: In this article the phenomena compounding has been explored in various ways that words can compound to form words, phrases and sentences in the process. The patterns noticed throughout the various elements that make up the English language suggest an equal motivation of morphology and syntax in the phenomenon of compounding. After an observation of the compounding patterns of compound nouns and compound verbs, a realization that each pattern has varying motivations was made clear. When we look at the compounding of verbs the derivational suffix is most often the syntactic component. Borrowed words have a definitive pattern of compounding that is influenced by the source of the word. The morpho-syntactic influence in compounding phenomena is very strong. In this regard one can also assume that they are co-dependent on each other and very rarely function independently when compounding. At this juncture it is also important to note that the process of compounding is a much more complex process than what we have explored above. We have arrived at the above conclusion based on the limited examples and common usages that we are aware of. English, as a language has not stopped evolving. The strength of the English language remains unparalleled and can be equated to only a handful if not less number of languages spoken and developed in today’s world. Buddha in his interpretation of the word has taught that these things are susceptible to change, subject to a sudden rise to almost passing away into oblivion and are therefore impermanent. It is only wise to accept this change and understand the significance of this reality. With that in mind we can perhaps expect that it is only a matter of time before grammar rules also change as new methods of compounding emerge. Bibliography Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT-press, Cambridge, Mass. Bauer, Laurie. N.d. English Exocentric Compounds†. Retrieved on March 27, 2012. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/publications/Bauer-EnglishExocentric Compounds.pdf Benczes, Reka. 2010. Review of Creative compounding in English. Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. By . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reviewed by Karen Steffen Chung, National Taiwan University. May 18th, 2010. Retrieved on March 27,2012. Bisetto, Antonietta and Sergio Scalise. N.d. The classification of compounds. Retrieved on March 27, 2012. http://www.fflch.usp.br/dl/paulochagas/Bisetto%20%26%20 Scalise%20-%20Compounds.pdf Butterfield, Jeremy. 2008. Damp Squid: The English Language Laid Bare. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 978-0-19-923906. p. 142. Delahunty and Garvey. N.d. Chapter 5. Morphology and Word Formation. Retrieved on March 27,2012. wac.colostate.edu/books/sound/chapter5.pdf Gordon, P. 1985. Cognition, 21, 73. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2006. Morphology and Syntax of English. Linguistics Section, Department of English Studies. September 8, 2006. Retrieved on March 27, 2012. Hayes, Jenny et al. The /s/ morpheme and the compounding phenomenon in English. University of Hertfordshire. United Kingdom. Hayes, J.A., V.A. Murphy, N. Davey and P.M. Smith. How The Constraints On English Compound Production Might Be Learnt From The Linguistic Input: Evidence From 4 Connectionist Models. Retrieved on March 27,2012. Katamba, Francis. 2005. English words: structure, history, usage. Routledge, 2005. LMBM. N.d. March 27,2012. http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/homepage. html#lexmorph. McDonald, Scott.1995. Learning Compound Order: Towards a Functional Explanation. Centre For Cognitive Science. University of Edinburgh. September 1995. Mydans, Seth. 2007. Across cultures, English is the word. The New York Times. May 14, 2007. Retrieved on March 26,2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/world/asia /14iht-14englede.5705671.html?_r=1 Nordquis, Richard. 2012. Metonymy. Retrieved on March 27,2012. http://grammar.about. com/od/mo/g/metonymy.htm. Old English language – Latin influence". Spiritus-temporis.com. Retrieved 2 January 2010 Labov, William; Sharon Ash; & Charles Boberg. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. A national map of the regional dialects of American English. Linguistics Laboratory. University of Pennsylvania. [1]. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Peters, Pam. 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruixue, Bai. 2007. Motivation in English Compounds. 2007. Retrieved on March 27, 2012 http://kbs.cnki.net/forums/23375/ShowThread.aspx Walenski, Matthew and Michael T. Ullman. 2001.The science of language1. The Linguistic Review. Read More