Modifying compounding

Of the four common types of noun–noun compounding,¹ only one, namely modifying compounding, clearly exhibits recursion in accordance with (1b), and we will be restricted here to this type of compounding.

Evidence for the hypothesis that modifying compounding has its origin in the combination of independent, non-recursive, nouns is of the following kind. First, this hypothesis is in accordance with the parameters of grammaticalization. The following processes can be observed: When a new noun–noun compound is formed, the modifying noun loses in referential and semantic properties: In the compound apple tree, the constituent apple no longer refers to a referential entity or to the semantics of an apple; an apple tree may be a tree that no longer has or—maybe— never had any apples on it (desemanticization). Furthermore, the modifying noun loses the ability to be itself modified, or to receive affixes such as plural markers (?apples tree), thus turning into an invariable form (decategorialization), and the modifying noun also tends to lose its individual stress or intonation pattern in favor of a suprasegmental pattern that is characteristic of the compound as a whole (erosion). Thus, compared to its use as an independent noun, the modifying noun lacks the salient morphosyntactic and phonological properties of a noun.

A second piece of evidence comes from historical observations. Noun-noun compounding typically arises via a process whereby free, referential nouns are combined in accordance with established conjoining patterns of the language concerned (condensation), which starts with loose combinations that are gradually transformed into tighter ones. And it is by and large a unidirectional process: The development from morphosyntactically loose combinings of nouns to tight compounds forming phonologically and semantically one single word is ubiquitous, while a development in the opposite direction is fairly rare.

Another strategy of forming modifying compounds is provided by attributive possession (‘‘genitive constructions’’), where specific attributive modifier combinations of free nouns (e.g. [[B’s] A]) turn into regularly used noun–noun compounds (e.g. [[B-]A]). This is the process that can be held responsible crosslinguistically for many instances of modifying compounds. Evidence for this process can be seen in the fact that in a number of languages, compounds exhibit morphosyntactic relics of possessive constructions, one such relic being genitive case markings that survive the process from possessive construction to compound. For ex ample, German compounds frequently contain the genitive case suffix-s which bears witness to their origin as possessive constructions, for example Kalb.s.braten (veal.GEN.roast) ‘roast veal’. However, since possessive constructions are already recursive (see “Attributive possession”), we are simply dealing with a process from one recursive structure to another recursive structure; hence, this process is not immediately relevant to the present discussion, which is concerned with the rise of recursion.

Another kind of evidence for the hypothesis that noun–noun compounds are historically derived from the combination of self-standing nouns comes from languages that already have a construction for modifying compounding and develop new instances of this construction: In a number of instances it is possible to establish that a given compound cannot be traced back to earlier phases of the history of the languages concerned while the nouns making up the compound can. Thus, the English alternative compound skyscraper presumably did not exist prior to the occurrence of the relevant buildings whereas its constituents were there earlier as independent words; a more recent area of such new coinages involving previously existing nouns involves the area of computing, for example website, laptop. Even in languages for which we have no historical records it is possible to show that independent nouns were combined into compounds, while a process in the opposite direction does not seem to occur. For example, in the West African language Ewe there is a wide range of compounds which must have arisen after Ewe speakers came into contact with Western civilization, e.g., ga-ŋku̒ı̒ (metal eye.is.it) ‘spectacles’, ga-sɔ̒ (metal-horse) ‘bicycle’, or ga-mɔ̒ (metal-way) ‘railway’, while the constituents of these compounds, ga ‘metal’, ŋku̒ ‘eye’, sɔ̒ ‘horse’, and mɔ̒ ‘way’, already existed as independent nouns prior to this contact situation.

A final piece of evidence comes from synchrony: In many languages, compounding forms a productive process, where independent nouns can be combined creatively into new nouns expressing new meanings. Accordingly, we witness how new compounds arise and evolve. This process can be observed in actual language use, in that novel compounds are constantly emerging. Conversely, a process whereby compounds regularly develop into simple nouns is uncommon. To be sure, it may happen that in the course of time some specific compound may be lexicalized to the extent that it is no longer conceived as a compound and is reinterpreted as a simple noun. But even in such cases, the earlier development was one where independent nouns were combined into compounds.

That the directionality is generally from noun to noun–noun com pound is also in accordance with findings made in language acquisition studies: Children learn first simple nouns before they proceed to acquire compounding, and hence recursion. Conversely, we are not aware of any convincing evidence to suggest that young children start out with com pound nouns before they learn nouns in isolation. It is only between age 2;0 and 2;6 that English-speaking children are able to produce com pounds (birthday cake), while they comprehend and use simple nouns (cake, birthday) clearly earlier, and Clark (2003: 298) observes: ‘‘The child coinages, Dalmatian-dog and boxer-dog, pick out subtypes of dogs; and, in each case, the modifier noun adds critical information for distinguishing which subtype is intended. The same goes for com pounds like car-smoke vs. house-smoke (for car exhaust vs. smoke from a chimney).’’

¹ The four types are modifying (e.g. apple tree), additive (whisky-soda), appositive (poet-doctor), and alternative (egg head) compounding.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تسدل الستار على الختمة القرآنية الرمضانية المركزية المرتّلة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تنظم برنامجًا ثقافيًّا لوفد من الطلبة العرب والأجانب في جامعة النهرين

شعبة الخطابة النسوية تختتم برنامجها الرمضاني (قوارير في ضيافة الله)

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تكرم الفائزين في مسابقات ملتقى النورين الخامس والمساهمين في إنجاح فعالياته

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

كوب قبل النوم.. مشروب طبيعي يحارب الأرق

دون أدوية.. طريقة طبيعية لخفض ضغط الدم بفعالية مذهلة

المعكرونة ليست عدوك.. كيف تصبح جزءا من وجبة صحية متوازنة؟

دراسة: تناول القهوة يوميا يخفض خطر الإصابة بالاضطرابات النفسية

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

علماء روس يخططون لبناء منشأة للكشف عن المادة المظلمة

ثاني أكسيد الكربون ليس تهديدا للمناخ فقط.. بل لصحة الإنسان أيضا!

ديدان الأرض تكشف تلوث التربة بالمعادن الثقيلة

خبير أرصاد جوية: ظاهرة النينيو القادمة قد تكون الأقوى خلال 10 سنوات

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Adjectival modification

Sample problems with solutions

Analytic principles

Introduction to Morphological Analysis Two basic approaches: analysis and synthesis

Background and Beliefs

Abstract morphological facts

Novel words and word play

Morphemes

What is Morphology?

Clitics Conclusion

Second position clitics

Clitics