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



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



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.





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?



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



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.



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



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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)



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?)



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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

Documents

Compounding and Lexical Ism