The components are often stems of polysemantic words but there is no difficulty, as a rule, of defining which of the' multiple denotational meanings the stem retains in one or another compound word. Compound words with a common second component can serve as an illustration. Let us take words with a common second component, e.g. board-. Board- is the stem of a polysemantic word but it retains only one of its multiple denotational meanings in each compound word: in chess-board it retains the denotational meaning of 'a wooden slab', in pasteboard, cardboard it can be traced to the meaning of 'thick, stiff paper', in overboard to 'a ship's side', in notice-board, foot-board, key-board to 'a flat piece of wood square or oblong'; in school-board to 'an authorized body of men1, in side-board, above-board to the meaning of 'table'. The same can be observed in words with a common first component, e.g. foot-, in foot-high, foot-wide the stem foot- retains the lexical meaning of 'measure'; in foot-print, foot-pump, foot-hold--'the terminal part of the leg'; in foot-path, foot-race the meaning of 'the way of motion'; in foot-note, foot-lights, foot-stone--the meaning of 'the lower part, base'. It is obvious from these examples that the meanings of the sterns of compound words are interdependent and in each case the stems retain only one lexical meaning and that the choice of the particular lexical meaning of each component is delimited, as in free word-groups, by the nature of the other member of the word.1 Thus we may say that the combination of stems serves as a kind of minimal context distinguishing the particular individual lexical meaning of each component.

Both components, besides their denotational and co notational meanings possess distributional and differential types of meaning typical of morphemes2 the differential meaning, found in both components especially comes to the fore in a group of compound words containing identical stems. In compound nouns eye-tooth--'a canine tooth of the upper jaw', eye-lash--'the fringe of hair that edges the eyelid', eye-witness--'one who can bear witness from his own observation', eye-glasses--'a pair of lens used to assist defective sight', eye-sore--'an ugly or unpleasant thing to see', eye-strain--'weariness of the eye', etc, it is the differential meaning of the second components--tooth-, glasses-, witness-, etc. that brings forth -the different lexical meanings of the stem . eye- and serves as a distinguishing clue between these words. We observe a similar significance of the differential meaning for the choice of the lexical meaning of the other component in words with the identical second component. In compound words, e.g. wedding-ring, nose-ring, ear-ring, finger-ring, key-ring, circus-ring, prize-ring, etc., it is not only the denotational but mostly the differential meaning of nose-, ear-, finger-, etc. that distinguishes wedding-ring--'a ring worn constantly as a distinctive mark of a married woman' from ear-ring--'an ornament worn in the lobe of ear', key-ring -- 'a ring for keeping keys on', circus-ring--'an arena in a circus' and prize-ring--'an enclosed area for fighting'.

Structural Meaning of the Pattern.

The lexical meanings of the components alone, important as they are, do not make the meaning of the compound word. The meaning of the compound is derived not only from the combined lexical meanings of its components, but also from the meaning signaled by the pattern of the order and arrangement of the stems.

A mere change in the order of stems with the same lexical meanings brings about a radical change in the lexical meaning of the compound word. For illustration let us compare lifeboat-- 'a boat of special construction for saving lives front wrecks or along the coast' with boat-fife--'life on board the ship', a fruit-market -- 'market where fruit is sold' with market-fruit--'fruit designed for selling', etc. Thus the structural pattern or the distributional formula in compound words carries a certain meaning which is independent of the actual lexical meanings of their components. In other words the lexical meaning of a compound is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components and the structural meaning of the distributional formula.

The structural meaning of the distributional formulas of compounds may be abstracted and described through the interrelation of their components. In analyzing compound adjectives, e.g. duty-bound, wind-driven, tear-stained, we observe that the distributional formula they are built after, i.e. n+ved, conveys the generalized meaning of instrumental or agentive relations between the components which can be interpreted as 'done by' or 'with the help of something'; the denotational meanings of the stems supply the action itself and the actual doer of the action or objects with the help of which the action is done. Thus, duty-bound may be interpreted as 'bound by duty', wind-driven as 'driven by wind', smoke-filled as 'filled with smoke'. In this case the distributional formula is monosemantic, hence compound adjectives of this type would also be monosemantic and their lexical meanings would be derived from the structural meaning of the distributional formula and the combined meanings of the stems.

The distributional formula in compounds, however, is not always monosemantic; if we take compound adjectives like, e.g., age-long, world-wide, oil-rich, pleasure-tired, etc. built after n+a formula, we shall see that the generalized meaning of the structure itself may be interpreted in two ways: (a) through relations of comparison between the components as in world-wide--'wide as the world', snow-white, knee-high, etc. and (b) through various relations of adverbial type as in oil-rich that can be interpreted as 'rich in oil', pleasure-tired--'tired of pleasure', colour-blind--'blind to colors', etc. Compound nouns, consisting of two simple noun-stems (n+n) are most polysemantic in structure. The polisemy of the structure often leads to a certain freedom of interpretation of the semantic relations between the components. For example, it is equally correct to interpret the compound noun toy-man as 'a toy in the shape of a man' or 'a man who makes toys, a toy-maker'. The compound noun clock-tower may likewise be understood as 'a tower with a clock fitted in' or 'a tower that serves as a clock'. Other examples to illustrate the polisemy of the distributional formula and the variety of semantic relations that can be read into the same structure1 are pontoon-bridge which may be interpreted as 'a bridge supported by pontoons, a bridge made of pontoons, pontoons in the form of a bridge, bridge for pontoons'. Witch doctor may mean 'a doctor who is a witch', 'a person whose business it is to detect or smell out witches, a doctor who witches'. The illustrations may be easily multiplied, but the given examples are sufficient proof that the polisemy of compound words is the result of the polisemy of the structure and not the polysemantic character of individual components.

Chapter II

2.2.1 The Criteria of Compounds

What is the criterion of a compound? Many scholars have claimed that a compound is determined by the underlying concept, others have advocated stress, and some even seek the solution of the problem in spelling. H. Koziol holds that the criterion of a compound is a psychological unity of combination, adding that there “seems to be” a difference of intonation between a compound and a syntactic group which it is, however, difficult to describe.

Stress also has been advocated as a criterion. “Wherever we hear lesser or least stress upon a word which would always show high stress in a phrase, we describe it as a compound member ice - cream `ajs - krijm is a compound, but ice cream is a phrase, although there is no denotative difference of meaning. Uzbek “ош?озон” is a compound (the organ of body) but “ош ?озон” is a phrase which means “a pot for making a plov”. In German “hellgrun” is a compound which means “light - green”, but “hell grun” is a phrase with the meaning “light green” (ёру?лик яшил).

For a combination to be a compound there is one condition to be fulfilled: the compound must be morphologically isolated from a parallel syntactic group. Blackbird has the morpho - phonemic stress pattern of a compound, black market money by a post - office. These two stress patterns are the commonest among compound words and in many cases they acquire a contrasting force distinguishing compound words from word groups, especially when the arrangement and order of stems parallel the word - order and the distributional formula of the phrase, thus a `green - house' - "a glass - house for cultivating tender plants" is contrasted to a 'green 'house - "a house that is painted green", 'dancing - girl - "a dancer" to 'dancing 'girl - "a girl who is dancing", 'missing - lists - "lists of men and officers who are missing after a battle" to 'missing 'lists - "lists that are missing", 'mad - doctor - "a psychiatrist" to 'mad 'doctor - "a doctor who is mad".

3) It is not in frequent, however, for both components to have level stress as in, e.g. 'arm - 'chair, 'icy - 'cold, 'grass - 'green.

All substantial compounds show this pattern, with the exception of those first element is the pronouns all or self. such compounds have double stress (e.g. 'all 'soul, 'all - 'creator, 'self - 'respect, 'self - 'seeker) of adjectival compounds only two types have the stable stress pattern heave stress / middle stress: the type color - blind and heart - breaking.

All other adjectival types are basically double - stressed.

2.2.2 Inseparability of Compound Words

Structurally the inseparability of compounds manifests itself in the specific order and arrangement of stems which stand out most clearly in all asyntactic compounds. It is of interest to note that the difference between words and stems even when they coincide morphemically is especially evident in compound adjectives proper. Adjectives like long, wide, rich are characterized by grammatical forms of degrees of comparison longer, wider, richer. The corresponding stems lack grammatical independence and forms proper to the words and retain only the part - of - speech meaning, thus compound adjectives with adjective stems for their second components, e.g. age-long, oil-rich, do not form degrees of comparison the way words long, rich do. They conform to the general rule of polysyllabic adjectives having analytical forms of degrees of comparison. This difference between words and stems is not so noticeable in compound nouns with the noun stem for the second component, as the paradigm of the compound word coincides with the paradigm of the noun whose stem constitutes its structural centre.

Graphically most compounds have two types of spelling they are spelt either solidly or with a hyphen. Both types of spelling when accompanied by structural or phonetic peculiarities serve as a sufficient indication of inseparability of compound words in contradistinction to phrases. It is true that hyphenated spelling when not accompanied by some other indications of inseparability may be sometimes misleading, as it may be used in word-groups to underline the phraseological character of combination as in, e.g. daughter-in-law, father-in-law, man-of-war, brother-in-arms, etc. which are neither structurally, nor phonetically marked by inseparability.

The two types of spelling typical of compounds, however, are not rigidly observed and there are numerous fluctuations between solid or hyphenated spelling on the one hand and spelling with a space between the components on the other, especially in nominal compounds built on the n+n formula. The spelling of these compounds varies from author to and author from dictionary to dictionary. For example, words--war-path, war-time, money-lender--are spelt both with a hyphen or solidly; blood-poisoning, money-order, wave - length, blood-vessel, war-ship--with a hyphen end with a break;1 underfoot, insofar, underhand--solidly and with a break. This inconsistency of spelling in compounds, very often accompanied by a level stress pattern (equally typical of word groups) makes the outer indications of inseparability stand out less clearly and gives rise to the problem of distinguishing between compound words and word-groups.

The numerous borderline cases between compounds and word-groups are connected with one of the most controversial problems in word-composition, known in linguistic literature as "the stonewall problem", in other words the problem whether complexes like stone wall, peace movement, summer days regularly spelt with a break should he regarded as compound words or word-groups. The solution of the problem centers on the nature of the first member of such formations. There are two approaches to this problem and linguists, consequently, give different appraisals of the graphic and phonetic integrity of such complexes.

Some linguists class such complexes as a specific group of compound words on the ground that the connection between the members of such complexes cannot be regarded as syntactic, as the usual means of connection between two nouns typical of Modern English syntax is either the possessive cafe or various prepositions:" They consequently conclude that the connection in formation of the "stone wall" type is asyntactic hence the members of these complexes are not words but grammatically unshaped elements, i.e. stems. As a junction of two noun-stems they are referred to compound words. The asyntactic structure is taken for a sufficient proof of their inseparability and lack of graphic integrity is disregarded. The proponents of this point of view go on to stale that these complexes may also be interpreted as combinations of an adjective with a noun, the adjective being formed from the noun-stem by means of conversion for the given occasion, in which case a compound word would remain primary and a word-group secondary. This brings the linguists to the conclusion that these complexes make a specific group of compound words, often termed neutral.1 they are characterized by structural instability due to which they can be easily disintegrated into free word-groups under the influence of parallel attributive combinations, level stress and spelling with a break between the components.

The above-cited treatment of these nominal complexes and the disregard of the outer, formal manifestations of inseparability is open to grave doubts. On the one hand, the productivity of conversion in formation of adjectives does not seem convincing because there are very few adjectives' of the type in independent use in Modern English; on the other hand it is argued that Modern English nouns in the Common case, singular are used in the attributive function and a purely syntactic nature of the combination of two; full-fledged nouns has been almost universally recognized in the last few decades. If we share the opinion, we shall come-to the obvious conclusion that there exists a nominal type of free phrases built on the formula N+N and a group of nominal compounds built on the n+n formula which stands in correlative relations to each other. The recognition of nominal free phrases deprives "neutral compounds" of theoretical validity. Nominal compounds remain a specific class of compounds but in this case the distributional formula even in the most indisputable cases has only a weakened distinguishing force and can by no means be taken for an overall criterion of their inseparability. It is evident that the hyphenated spelling or at least fluctuations between hyphenated spelling and spelling with a break become most significant in distinguishing nominal compound words from word-groups. Consequently nominal complexes which are regularly spelt with a space between the components and are characterized by level stress pattern can hardly be regarded as inseparable vocabulary units. It is noteworthy that occasional compounds of this type which have become-registered vocabulary units tend to solid or hyphenated spelling.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5