<< Пред.           стр. 5 (из 11)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу

 opinion there is a very considerable confusion in English linguistic literature concerning the problem of the part played by foreign affixes in English word-building. This author lays particular stress on the distinction between morphemes that can be separated from the rest of the stem and those that cannot. Among the latter she mentions the following prefixes listed by H. Sweet: amphi-, ana-, apo-, cata-, exo-, en-, hypo-, meta-, sina- (Greek) and ab-, ad-, amb- (Latin). The list is rather a mixed one. Thus, amphi- is even productive in terminology and is with good reason considered by dictionaries a combining form. Ana- in such words as anachronism, anagram, anaphora is easily distinguished, because the words readily lend themselves for analysis into immediate constituents. The prefix ad- derived from Latin differs very much from these two, being in fact quite a cluster of allomorphs assimilated with the first sound of the stem: ad-/ac-/af-/ag-/al-/ap-/as-/at-/. E. g. adapt, accumulation, affirm, aggravation, etc.
  On the synchronic level this differentiation suggested by N.N. Amosova is irrelevant and the principle of analysis into immediate constituents depends only on the existence of other similar cases as it was shown in § 5.3 for the suffixes.
 § 5.9 COMBINING FORMS
  It has already been mentioned in the beginning of this chapter that there exist linguistic forms which in modern languages are used as bound forms although in Greek and Latin from which they are borrowed they functioned as independent words.
  The question at once arises whether being bound forms, they should be treated like affixes and be referred to the set of derivatives, or whether they are nearer to the elements of compounds, because in languages from which they come they had the status of words. In fact we have a fuzzy set whose elements overlap with the set of affixes on the one hand and with that of words on the other. Different lexicographers have treated them differently but now it is almost universally recognised that they constitute a specific type of linguistic units.
  Combining forms are particularly frequent in the specialised vocabularies of arts and sciences. They have long become familiar in the international scientific terminology. Many of them attain widespread currency in everyday language.
  To illustrate the basic meaning and productivity of these forms we give below a short list of Greek words most frequently used in producing combining forms together with words containing them.
  Astron 'star' - astronomy, autos 'self' - automatic; bios 'life' - biology, electron 'amber' - electronics;1 ge 'earth' - geology, graph-ein 'to write' - typography, hydor 'water' -hydroelectric; logos 'speech' - physiology, oikos 'house', 'habitat' - 1) economics, 2) ecological system', philein 'love' -philology, phone 'sound', 'voice' - telephone;
  1 Electricity was first observed in amber. 104
 
 photos 'light' - photograph; skopein 'to view' - microscope; tele 'far' - telescope.
  It is obvious from the above list that combining forms mostly occur together with other combining forms and not with native roots. Lexicological analysis meets with difficulties here if we try to separate diachronic and synchronic approach and distinguish between the words that came into English as borrowings and those coined on this model on the English soil. From the synchronic point of view, which coincides with that of an educated English speaking person, it is immaterial whether the morphological motivation one recognises in the word аиtopilot originated in modern times or is due to its remote ancestry in Latin and Greek. One possible criterion is that the word in question could not have existed in Greek or Latin for the simple reason that the thing it names was invented, discovered or developed only much later.
  Almost all of the above examples are international words, each entering a considerable word-family. A few of these word-families we shall now describe though briefly, in order to give an idea of the rich possibilities this source of word-building provides.
  Auto- comes from the Greek word autos 'self' and like bio-, eco-, hydro- and many others is mostly used initially. One of the first English words containing this element was automaton borrowed from late Latin in the 16th century. OED dates the corresponding adjective automatic as appearing in 1586.
  The word autograph belonging to this word-family is a good example of how combining forms originate. It was borrowed from French in the 17th century. Its etymology is: Fr autograph   In English as well as in Russian and other languages word coining with the form auto- is especially intense in the 19th century and goes on in the 20th. Cf. autobiography, autodiagnosis, autonomy, autogenic (training).
  There are also many technical terms beginning with auto- and denoting devices, machines and systems, the chief basis of nomination being 'self-acting', 'automatic'. E. g. autopilot, autoloader, auto-starter or auto-changer 'apparatus on a record-player for changing the records'.
  The word automobile was coined not in the English but in the French language and borrowed from French. The word itself is more often used in America, in Britain they prefer its synonym motor-car or simply car, it proved productive in giving a new homonym - a free-standing word auto, a clipping of the word automobile. This in its turn produces such compounds as: autobus, autocross 'an automobile competition', auto-drome. It is thus possible for a combining form to be homonymous to words. One might also consider such pairs as auto- and auto or -graph and graph as doublets (see § 13.3) because of their common origin.
 105
 
  The Greek word bios 'life', long known to us in the internationalism biography, helps to name many branches of learning dealing with living organisms: bio-astronautics, biochemistry, bio-ecology, biology, bionics, biophysics. Of these bio-astronautics, bio-ecology and bionics are the newest, and therefore need explanation. Bio-astronautics (note also the combining forms astro- and -naut-) is the study of man's physical capabilities and needs, and the means of meeting those in outer space. Bio-ecology is also an interesting example because the third combining form is so often used in naming branches of study. Cf. geology, lexicology, philology, phonology. The form eco- is also very interesting. This is again a case of doublets. One of these is found in economics, economist, economise, etc. The other, connoting environment, receives now the meaning of 'dealing with ecology'. The general concern over the growing pollution of the environment gave rise to many new words with this element: eco-climate, eco-activist, eco-type, eco-catastrophe, eco-development 'development which balances economic and ecological factors'. Bionics is a new science, its name is formed by bio-+-onics. Now -onics is not a combining form properly speaking but what the Barnhart Dictionary of New English calls abstracted form which is defined as the use of a part of the word in what seems to be the meaning it contributes. The term here is well motivated, because bionics is the study of how man and other living beings perform certain tasks and solve certain problems, and the application of the findings to the design of computers and other electronic equipment.
  The combining form geo- not only produced many scientific terms in the 19th century but had been productive much earlier: geodesy and geography come down from the 16th century, geometry was known in the 14th century and geology in the 18th.
  In describing words containing the forms auto-, bio-, and geo- we have already come across the form graph meaning 'something written'. One can also quote some other familiar examples: hydrography, phonograph, photograph, telegraph.
  Words beginning with hydro- are also quite familiar to everybody: hydrodynamic, hydroelectric, hydromechanic, hydroponic, hydrotherapeutic.
 § 5.10 HYBRIDS
  Words that are made up of elements derived from two or more different languages are called hybrids. English contains thousands of hybrid words, the vast majority of which show various combinations of morphemes coming from Latin, French and Greek and those of native origin.
  Thus, readable has an English root and a suffix that is derived from the Latin -abilis and borrowed through French. Moreover, it is not an isolated case, but rather an established pattern that could be represented as English stem+-able. Cf. answerable, eatable, likable, usable. Its variant with the native negative prefix un- is also worthy of note: un-+English stem+-able. The examples for this are: unanswerable, unbearable, unforeseeable, unsayable, unbelievable. An even more
 106
 
 frequent pattern is un-+Romanic stem + -able, which is also a hybrid: unallowable, uncontrollable, unmoveable, unquestionable, unreasonable and many others. A curious example is the word unmistakable, the ultimate constituents of which are: un-(Engl)+mis-(Engl)+-tak-(Scand) +-able (Fr). The very high valency of the suffix -able [эbl] seems to be accounted for by the presence of the homographic adjective able [eibl ] with the same meaning.
  The suffix of personal nouns -ist derived from the Greek agent suffix -istes forms part of many hybrids. Sometimes (like in artist, dentist) it was borrowed as a hybrid already (Fr dentiste   When a borrowed word becomes firmly established in English this creates the possibility of using it as a stem combined with a native affix. The phenomenon may be illustrated by the following series of adjectives with the native suffix -less: blameless, cheerless, colourless, countless, doubtless, faceless, joyless, noiseless, pitiless, senseless. These are built on the pattern that had been established in the English language and even in Old English long before the corresponding French loans were taken up. Prof. B.A. Ilyish mentions the following adjectives formed from noun and verbal stems: sl?pleas 'sleepless'; zeliefleas 'unbelieving'; arleas 'dishonest'; recceleas 'reckless'. It goes without saying that there are many adjectives in which -less is combined with native stems: endless, harmless, hopeless, speechless, thankless.
  The same phenomenon occurs in prefixation and inflection. The noun bicycle has a Latin prefix (bi-), a Greek root (cycle   Observation of the English vocabulary, which is probably richer in hybrids than that of any other European language, shows a great variety of patterns. In some cases it is the borrowed affixes that are used with native stems, or vice versa. A word can simultaneously contain borrowed and native affixes.
 
 Chapter 6 COMPOUND WORDS
 § 6.1 DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
  Compound words are words consisting of at least two stems which occur in the language as free forms. In a compound word the immediate constituents obtain integrity and structural cohesion that make them function in a sentence as a separate lexical unit. E. g.: I'd rather read a time-table than nothing at all.
  The structural cohesion of a compound may depend upon unity of stress, solid or hyphenated spelling, semantic unity, unity of morphological and syntactic functioning, or, more often, upon the combined effect of several of these or similar phonetic, graphic, semantic, morphological or syntactic factors.
  The integrity of a compound is manifest in its indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility of inserting another word or word-group between its elements. If, for example, speaking about a sunbeam, we can insert some other word between the article and the noun, e. g. a bright sunbeam, a bright and unexpected sunbeam, because the article a is a separate word, no such insertion is possible between the stems sun and beam, for they are not words but morphemes here. (See p. 28.)
  In describing the structure of a compound one should examine three types of relations, namely the relations of the members to each other, the relation of the whole to its members, and correlation with equivalent free phrases.
  Some compounds are made up of a determining and a determined part, which may be called the determinant and the determinatum.1 The second stem, in our case beam, is the basic part, the determinatum. The determinant sun serves to differentiate it from other beams. The determinatum is the grammatically most important part which undergoes inflection, cf. sunbeams, brothers-in-law, passers-by.
  There are non-idiomatic compounds with a perfectly clear motivation. Here the meanings of the constituents add up in creating the meaning of the whole and name the referent either directly or figuratively.
  1 For a more complete treatment see: Marchand H. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. Wiesbaden, 1960. P. 11. Useful 'material on English compounds and their correlation with free phrases will be found in: Vesnik D. and Khidekel S. Exercises in Modern English Word-building, p.p. 95-100, 119, 120. Exhaustive tables are presented in: Quirk R. et al. A Grammar of Contemporary English, p.p. 1021-1030.
 108
 
 Thus, when the combination seaman was first used it was not difficult to understand that it meant 'a man professionally connected with the sea'. The word differentiated in this way a sailor from the rest of mankind. When aviation came into being the same formula with the same kind of motivation was used to coin the compound airman, and also aircraft and airship to name the machines designed for air-travel, differentiating them from sea-going craft. Spaceman, spacecraft and spaceship, built on the model of airman, aircraft and airship, are readily understood even when heard for the first time. The semantic unity of the compounds seaman, airman, spaceman, aircraft, spacecraft, airship and spaceship is based on the fact that as the conquest of the sea, air and outer space advanced, new notions were created, notions possessing enough relevant distinctive features to ensure their separate existence. The logical integrity of the new combinations is supported by solid spelling and by the unity of stress. When the meaning is not only related to the meaning of the parts but can be inferred from it, the compound is said to be transparent or non-idiomatic. The non-idiomatic compounds can be easily transformed into free phrases: air mail > 'mail conveyed by air', night flight > 'flying at night'. Such compounds are like regularly derived words in that their meaning is readily understood, and so they need not be listed in dictionaries.
  On the other hand, a compound may be very different in meaning from the corresponding free phrase. These compounds are called idiomatic. Thus, a blackboard is very different from a black board. Its essential feature is being a teaching aid: not every board of a black colour is a blackboard. A blackboard may be not a board at all but a piece of linoleum or some other suitable material. Its colour is not necessarily black: it may be brown or something else. Thus, blackboard - 'a board which is black'.
  G. Leech calls this not idiomatic but petrified meaning; the expression in his opinion is suggestive of solidifying and shrinking of the denotation, i.e. of the word becoming more restricted in sense. His examples are: a trouser-suit which is not just a 'suit with trousers' but 'suit with trousers for women'. He also compared wheel-chair and push-chair, i.e. 'chair which has wheels' and 'chair which one pushes'. They look interchangeable since all push-chairs have wheels and almost all wheelchairs are pushed, and yet wheel chairs are for invalids and push-chairs - for infants.1
  A compound may lose its motivation and become idiomatic because one of its elements is at present not used in the language in the same meaning. The word blackmail has nothing to do with mail 'post'. Its second element, now obsolete except in Scottish, was used in the 16th century meaning 'payment' or 'tax'. Blackmail was the payment exacted by freebooting chiefs in return for immunity from plunder. This motivation is now forgotten and the compound is idiomatic. We shall call idiomatic such compounds the meaning of which is not a simple sum of the meanings of the determinant and determinatum.
 See: Leech, Geoffrey. Semantics. Penguin books, 1974, p.p. 226-228.
 109
 
  The analysis of semantic relationships existing between the constituents of a compound present many difficulties. Some authors have attempted a purely logical interpretation. They distinguish copulative, existential, spatial and some other types of connection. Others, like H. Marchand,1 think that the most important factor is that the under lying concept may be grammatical. He illustrates the verb/object relation by such compounds as skyscraper or housekeeping and subject/verb relation in rattlesnake and crybaby. The first element in well-being or shortcoming is equivalent to the predicate complement.
  N.G. Guterman pointed out that syntactic ties are ties between words, whereas in dealing with a compound one studies relations within a word, the relations between its constituents, the morphemes. In the compound spacecraft space is not attribute, it is the determinant restricting the meaning of the determinatum by expressing the purpose for which craft is designed or the medium in which it will travel.
  Phrases correlated with compounds by means of transformational analysis may show objective, subject/predicative, attributive and adverbial relations. E. g. house-keeping : : to keep house, well-being : : to be well. In the majority of cases compounds manifest some restrictive relationship between the constituents; the types of restrictions show great variety.
  Some examples of determinative compound nouns with restrictive qualitative relations are given below. The list is not meant to be exhaustive and serves only to illustrate the manifold possibilities.
  Purpose or functional relations underlie such compounds as bathrobe, raincoat, classroom, notice-board, suitcase, identity-card, textbook. Different place or local relations are expressed in dockland, garden-party, sea-front. Comparison is the basis of blockhead, butter-fingers, floodlight, goldfish. The material or elements the thing is made of is pointed out in silverware, tin-hat, waxwork, clay-pipe, gold-foil. Temporal relations underlie such compounds as night-club, night-duty, summer-house, day-train, season-ticket. Sex-denoting compounds are rather numerous: she-dog, he-goat, jack-ass, Jenny-ass, tom-cat, pea-hen. When characterising some process, the first element will point out the agent (cock-crowing), the instrument (pin-prick), etc.
  Many compounds defy this kind of analysis or may be explained in different ways: thus spacecraft may be analysed as 'a craft travelling in space' (local) or 'a craft designed for travelling in space' (purpose). There are also some tautological compounds such as pathway, roadway and the French translation loan courtyard. They are especially numerous in uneducated speech which is generally given to producing redundant forms: tumbler-glass, trout-fish, engineerman.
  Often different relations are expressed by the same determinant: ear-ache (local) 'an ache in the ear', earmark (comparison) 'a mark like an ear', ear-lobe (part) 'a lobe of the ear', eardrop (purpose) 'a drop for the ear', ear-ring (local or purpose). Compare also: lip-reading (instrumental
  1 Marchand H. The Categories and Types .... P. 30. See also: Potter S. Modern Linguistics. P. 91.
 110
 
 relations) 'interpretation of the motion of the lips'; lip-service (comparison) 'superficial service from the lips only'; lipstick (purpose) 'a stick of cosmetics for rouging lips'.
  In the beginning of the present chapter it has been mentioned that in describing the structure of a compound one has to examine three types of relations. We have discussed the relations of the elements to each other, and the relations of the whole compound to its members. The third approach is comparing compounds with phrases containing the same morphemes, e.g. an ashtray > 'a tray for ashes'.
 The corresponding structural correlations take the following form:
  ashtray __ hairbrush __ paperknife a tray for ashes a brush for hair a knife for paper
  Such correlations are very helpful in showing similarity and difference of meaning in morphologically similar pairs. Consider, for example, the following:
 bookselling _ bookbinding bookmaking sell books bind books make books
  A bookmaker is not one who makes books but a person who makes a living by taking bets on horse-races. The method may be used to distinguish unmotivated compounds.
  Compounds that conform to grammatical patterns current in present-day English are termed syntactic compounds, e. g. seashore. If they fail to do so, they may be called asyntactic, e. g. baby-sitting.
  In the first type the functional meaning and distribution coincide with those of the elements of a free phrase, no matter how different their lexical meaning may be. This may be shown by substituting a corresponding compound for a free phrase.
 Compare: A slow coach moves slowly. A slow-coach moves slowly.
  Though different in meaning, both sentences are grammatically correct.
  In these compounds the two constituent elements are clearly the determinant and the determinatum. Such compounds receive the name of endocentric compounds.
  There are, however, other compounds where the determinatum is not expressed but implied. A killjoy 'a person who throws gloom over social enjoyment' is neither 'joy' nor 'kill' and the case is different from the slow-coach above, as in the corresponding free phrase 'kill' is a verb in the Imperative Mood and 'joy' is a noun on which the action of this verb is directed. A phrase of this type cannot be used predicatively, whereas the predicative function is typical of the compound killjoy. The essential part of the determinatum is obviously missing, it is implied and understood but not formally expressed. H. Marchand considers these words as having a zero determinatum stem and calls such compounds exocentric, e. g. cut-throat, dare-devil, scarecrow because their determinatum lies outside as opposed to the endocentric: sun-beam, blackboard, slow-coach, wall-flower.
 111
 
  The absence of formal determinatum results in the tendency to append the inflectional ending to the element that happens to be final. Thus, brothers-in-law, but in-laws. E. g.: Laws banning unofficial strikes, go-slows and slow-downs ("Morning Star").
 § 6.2.1 THE CRITERIA OF COMPOUNDS
  As English compounds consist of free forms, it is difficult to distinguish them from phrases. The combination top dog 'a person occupying foremost place', for instance, though formally broken up, is neither more nor less analysable semantically than the combination underdog 'a person who has the worst of an encounter', and yet we count the first (top dog) as a phrase and the second (underdog) as a word. How far is this justified? In reality the problem is even more complex than this isolated example suggests. Separating compounds from phrases and also from derivatives is no easy task, and scholars are not agreed upon the question of relevant criteria. The following is a brief review of various solutions and various combinations of criteria that have been offered.
  The problem is naturally reducible to the problem of defining word boundaries in the language. It seems appropriate to quote E. Nida who writes that "the criteria for determining the word-units in a language are of three types: (1) phonological, (2) morphological, (3) syntactic. No one type of criteria is normally sufficient for establishing the word-unit. Rather the combination of two or three types is essential."1
  E. Nida does not mention the graphic criterion of solid or hyphenated spelling. This underestimation of written language seems to be a mistake. For the present-day literary language, the written form is as important as the oral. If we accept the definition of a written word as the part of the text from blank to blank, we shall have to accept the graphic criterion as a logical consequence. It may be argued, however, that there is no consistency in English spelling in this respect. With different dictionaries and different authors and sometimes even with the same author the spelling varies, so that the same unit may exist in a solid spelling: headmaster, loudspeaker, with a hyphen: head-master, loud-speaker and with a break between the components: head master, loud speaker. Compare also: airline, air-line, air line', matchbox, matchbox, match box', break-up, breakup. Moreover, compounds that appear to be constructed on the same pattern and have similar semantic relations between the constituents may be spelt differently: textbook, phrase-book and reference book. Yet if we take into consideration the comparative frequency of solid or hyphenated spelling of the combinations in question, the criterion is fairly reliable. These three types of spelling need not indicate different degrees of semantic fusion. Sometimes hyphenation may serve aesthetic purposes, helping to avoid words that will look too long, or purposes of convenience, making syntactic components clearer to the eye: peace-loving nations, old-fashioned ideas.
  1 Nida E. Morphology. P. 147; Quirk R. et al. A Grammar of Contemporary English. P. 1019.
 112
 
  This lack of uniformity in spelling is the chief reason why many authors consider this criterion insufficient. Some combine it with the phonic criterion of stress. There is a marked tendency in English to give compounds a heavy stress on the first element. Many scholars consider this unity of stress to be of primary importance. Thus L. Bloomfield writes: "Wherever we hear lesser or least stress upon a word which would always show a high stress in a phrase, we describe it as a compound member: ice-cream ['ajs-krijm] is a compound but ice cream ['ajs'krijm] is a phrase, although there is no denotative difference in meaning."1
  It is true that all compound nouns, with very few exceptions, are stressed on this pattern. Cf. 'blackboard : : 'blackboard', 'blackbird : : 'black'bird; 'bluebottle : : 'blue'bottle. In all these cases the determinant has a heavy stress, the determinatum has the middle stress. The only exception as far as compound nouns are concerned is found in nouns whose first elements are all- and self-, e. g. 'All-'Fools-Day, 'self-con'trol. These show double even stress.
  The rule does not hold with adjectives. Compound adjectives are double stressed like 'gray-'green, 'easy-'going, 'new-'born. Only compound adjectives expressing emphatic comparison are heavily stressed on the first element: 'snow-white, 'dog-cheap.
  Moreover, stress can be of no help in solving this problem because word-stress may depend upon phrasal stress or upon the syntactic function of the compound. Thus, light-headed and similar adjectives have a single stress when used attributively, in other cases the stress is even. Very often the stress is structurally determined by opposition to other combinations with an identical second element, e. g. 'dining table : : 'writing table. The forestress here is due to an implicit contrast that aims at distinguishing the given combination from all the other similar cases in the same series, as in 'passenger train, ' freight train, ex'press train. Notwithstanding the unity stress, these are not words but phrases.
  Besides, the stress may be phonological and help to differentiate the meaning of compounds:
 'overwork 'extra work'
 'over'work 'hard work injuring one's health'
 'bookcase 'a piece of furniture with shelves for books'
 'book'case 'a paper cover for books'
 'man'kind 'the human race'
 'mankind 'men' (contrasted with women)
 'toy,factory 'factory that produces toys'
 'toy'factory 'factory that is a toy'.
  It thus follows that phonological criterion holds for certain types of words only.2
  1 Bloomfield L. Language. P. 228. Transcription is given] as L. Bloomfield has it.
  2 For details see: Quirk R. et al. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Appendix 2, p.p. 1039-1042.
 8 И. B. Apнольд 113
 
  H. Paul, O. Jespersen, E. Kruisinga1 and many others, each in his own way, advocate the semantic criterion, and define a compound as a combination forming a unit expressing a single idea which is not identical in meaning to the sum of the meanings of its components in a free phrase. From this point of view dirty work with the figurative meaning 'dishonorable proceedings' is a compound, while clean work or dry work are phrases. Сf. fusspot, slow-coach. The insufficiency of this criterion will be readily understood if one realises how difficult it is to decide whether the combination in question expresses a single integrated idea. Besides, between a clearly motivated compound and an idiomatic one there are a great number of intermediate cases. Finally, what is, perhaps, more important than all the rest, as the semantic features and properties of set expressions are similar to those of idiomatic compounds, we shall be forced to include all idiomatic phrases into the class of compounds. Idiomatic phrases are also susceptible to what H. Paul calls isolation, since the meaning of an idiomatic phrase cannot be inferred from the meaning of components. For instance, one must be specially explained the meaning of the expressions (to rain) cats and dogs, to pay through the nose, etc. It cannot be inferred from the meaning of the elements.
  As to morphological criteria of compounds, they are manifold. Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky introduced the criterion of formal integrity.2 He compares the compound shipwreck and the phrase (the) wreck of (a) ship comprising the same morphemes, and points out that although they do not differ either in meaning or reference, they stand in very different relation to the grammatical system of the language. It follows from his example that a word is characterised by structural integrity non-existent in a phrase. Unfortunately, however, in the English language the number of cases when this criterion is relevant is limited due to the scarcity of morphological means.
  "A Grammar of Contemporary English" lists a considerable number of patterns in which plural number present in the correlated phrase is neutralised in a compound. Taxpayer is one who pays taxes, cigar smoker is one who smokes cigars, window-cleaner is one who cleans windows, lip-read is to read the lips. The plural of still-life (a term of painting) is still-lifes and not still lives. But such examples are few. It cannot be overemphasised that giving a mere description of some lexicological phenomenon is not enough; one must state the position of the linguistic form discussed in the system of the language, i.e. the relative importance of the type. Therefore the criterion of structural integrity is also insufficient.
  The same is true as regards connective elements which ensure the integrity. The presence of such an element leaves no doubt that the combination
  1 Paul H. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 3 Aufl., Halle, 1898. S. 302; Kruisinga E. A Handbook of Present-Day English. Groningen, 1932. Pt. II. P. 72; Jespersen O. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London, 1946. Pt. VI. P. 137.
 2 See: Cмирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. M., 1956. С. 33.
 114
 
 is a compound but the number of compounds containing connective elements is relatively insignificant. These elements are few even in languages morphologically richer than English. In our case they are -s- (craftsman), -o- (Anglo-Saxon), -i- (handiwork.)
  Diachronically speaking, the type craftsman is due either to the old Genitive (guardsman, kinsman, kinswoman, sportsman, statesman, tradesman, tradeswoman, tradesfolk, tradespeople) or to the plural form.
  The Genitive group is kept intact in the name of the butterfly death's head and also in some metaphorical plant names: lion's snout, bear's ear, heart's ease, etc.
  The plural form as the origin of the connective -s- is rarer: beeswax, woodsman, salesman, saleswoman. This type should be distinguished from clothes-basket, goods-train or savings-bank, where the singular form of the word does not occur in the same meaning.
  It has already been pointed out that the additive (copulative) compounds of the type Anglo-Saxon are rare, except in special political or technical literature.
  Sometimes it is the structural formula of the combination that shows it to be a word and not a phrase. E. g. starlit cannot be a phrase because its second element is the stem of a participle and a participle cannot be syntactically modified by a noun. Besides the meaning of the first element implies plurality which should have been expressed in a phrase. Thus, the word starlit is equivalent to the phrase lit by stars.
  It should be noted that lit sounds somewhat, if a very little, obsolete: the form lighted is more frequent in present-day English. This survival of obsolete forms in fixed contexts or under conditions of fixed distribution occurs both in phraseology and composition.
  To some authors the syntactical criterion based on comparing the compound and the phrase comprising the same morphemes seems to ,be the most promising. L. Bloomfield points out that "the word black in the phrase black birds can be modified by very (very black birds) but not so the compound-member black in blackbirds."1 This argument, however, does not permit the distinguishing of compounds from set expressions any more than in the case of the semantic criterion: the first element of black market or black list (of persons under suspicion) cannot be modified by very either.2
  This objection holds true for the argument of indivisibility advanced by B. Bloch and G. Trager who point out that we cannot insert any word between the elements of the compound blackbird.3 The same example black market serves H. Marchand to prove the insufficiency of this criterion.4 Black market is indivisible and yet the stress pattern shows it is a phrase.
 1 Bloomfield L. Language. P. 232.
  2 Prof. R. Lord in his letter to the author expressed the opinion that black market and black list could be modified by very in order to produce an ironically humorous effect, although admittedly this kind of thing would not occur in normal speech. The effect of the deviation therefore proves the existence of the norm.
 3 Bloch B. and Trager G. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. P. 66.
 4 Marchand H. The Categories and Types .... P. 14.
 115
 
  Some transformational procedures that have been offered may also prove helpful. The gist of these is as follows. A phrase like a stone wall can be transformed into the phrase a wall of stone, whereas a toothpick cannot be replaced by a pick for teeth. It is true that this impossibility of transformation proves the structural integrity of the word as compared with the phrase, yet the procedure works only for idiomatic compounds, whereas those that are distinctly motivated permit the transformation readily enough:
 a toothpick - a pick for teeth tooth-powder > powder for teeth a tooth-brush > a brush for teeth
  In most cases, especially if the transformation is done within the frame of context, this test holds good and the transformation, even if it is permissible, brings about a change of meaning. For instance, ...the wall-papers and the upholstery recalled ... the refinements of another epoch (Huxley) cannot be transformed without ambiguity into the papers on the wall and the upholstery recalled the refinements of another epoch.
  That is why we shall repeat with E. Nida that no one type of criteria is normally sufficient for establishing whether the unit is a compound or a phrase, and for ensuring isolation of word from phrase. In the majority of cases we have to depend on the combination of two or more types of criteria (phonological, morphological, syntactic or graphical). But even then the ground is not very safe and the path of investigation inevitably leads us to the intricate labyrinth of "the stone wall problem" that has received so much attention in linguistic literature. (See p. 118.)
 § 6.2.2 SEMI-AFFIXES
  Having discussed the difficulties of distinguishing compounds from phrases, we turn to the problem of telling compounds from derivatives.
  The problem of distinguishing a compound from a derivative is actually equivalent to distinguishing a stem from an affix. In most cases the task is simple enough: the immediate constituents of a compound are free forms, likely to occur in the same phonic character as independent words, whereas a combination containing bound forms as its immediate constituents, is a derivative.
  There are, however, some borderline cases that do not fit in, and so present difficulties. Some elements of the English vocabulary occurring as independent nouns, such as man, berry, land, have been very frequent as second elements of words for a long time. They seem to have acquired valency similar to that of affixes. They are unstressed, and the vowel sound has been reduced to [mэn], although the reduction is not quite regular: for instance, when the concept "man" is clearly present in the word, there is no reduction. As to land, the pronunciation [l?nd] occurs only in ethnic names Scotland, Finland and the like, but not in homeland or fatherland. As these elements seem to come somewhere in between the stems and affixes, the term semi-affix has been offered to designate them. Though not universally accepted, it can be kept for convenience's sake.
 116
 
  As man is by far the most frequent of semi-affixes it seems worth while to dwell upon it at some length. Its combining activity is very great. In addition to seaman, airman and spaceman one might compile a very long list: chairman, clergyman, countryman, fireman, fisherman, gentleman, horseman, policeman, postman, workman, yes-man (one that agrees with everything that is said to him) and many others. It is interesting to note that seaman and workman go back to the Old English period, but the model is still as productive as ever, which is testified by the neologism spaceman.
  The second element, -man is considerably generalised semantically and approaches in meaning a mere suffix of the doer like -er. The fading of the lexical meaning is especially evident when the words containing this element are used about women, as in the following: The chairman, Miss Ellen McGullough, a member of the TUC, said ... ("Daily Worker").
  In cases when a woman chairs a sitting, the official form of addressing her is madam Chairman. Chairwoman is also sometimes found unofficially and also chairperson.
  The evolution of the element -man in the 70s provides an interesting example of the extra-linguistic factors influencing the development of the language. Concern with eliminating discriminatory attitudes towards women in various professions led to many attempts to degender, i.e. to remove reference to gender in the names of professions. Thus, cameraman is substituted by camera operator, fireman by firefighter, policeman by police officer or police person. Person is increasingly used in replacing the semi-affix -man to avoid reference to gender: houseperson, businessperson. The fact that the generic sense of 'human being' is present only in the word man 'adult male' but not in the word woman which is only 'adult female', is felt as a symptom of implicitly favouring the male sex.1
  A great combining capacity characterises the elements -like, -proof and -worthy, so that they may be also referred to semi-affixes, i.e. elements that stand midway between roots and affixes: godlike, gentlemanlike, ladylike, unladylike, manlike, childlike, unbusinesslike, suchlike. H. Marchand2 points out that -like as a semi-affix is isolated from the word like because we can form compounds of the type unmanlike which would be impossible for a free form entering into combination with another free form. The same argument holds good for the semi-affix -worthy and the word worthy. Cf. worthy of note and noteworthy, praiseworthy, seaworthy, trustworthy, and unseaworthy, untrustworthy, unpraiseworthy.
  H. Marchand chooses to include among the semi-affixes also the element -wise traditionally referred to adverb-forming suffixes: otherwise, likewise, clockwise, crosswise, etc.
 1 See: The Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English. N.Y., 1980.
 2 Marchand H. The Categories and Types .... P. 290.
 117
 
  Alongside with these, he analyses combinations with -way and -way(s) representing the Genitive: anyway(s), otherways, always, likeways, side-way(s), crossways, etc. The analysis given by H. Marchand is very convincing. "Way and wise are full words, so it might be objected that combinations with them are compounds. But the combinations are never substantival compounds as their substantival basis would require. Moreover, wise is being used less and less as an independent word and may one day come to reach the state of French -meat (and its equivalents in other Romance languages), which went a somewhat similar way, being developed from the Latin mente, Ablative of mens ('spirit', 'character', later 'manner')."
  Two elements, very productive in combinations, are completely dead as independent words. These are -monger and -wright.1 The existing combinations with the element -monger have a strongly disparaging character, e . g . : If any passages of the present tale should startle the reader's faith, I must be content to bear the stigma of a fictionmonger (Waugh). Cf. fashionmonger, newsmonger, scandalmonger, warmonger. Only the words that existed in the language from before 1500 are emotionally neutral: fishmonger, ironmonger, -wright occurs in playwright, shipwright, wheelwright.
  As -proof is also very uncommon in independent use except in the expression proof against, and extremely productive in combinations, it seems right to include it among the semi-affixes: damp-proof, fire-proof, bomb-proof, waterproof, shockproof, kissproof (said about a lipstick), foolproof (said about rules, mechanisms, etc., so simple as to be safe even when applied by fools).
  Semi-affixes may be also used in preposition like prefixes. Thus, anything that is smaller or shorter than others of its kind may be preceded by mini-: mini-budget, mini-bus, mini-car, mini-crisis, mini-planet, mini-skirt, etc.
  Other productive semi-affixes used in pre-position are midi-, maxi-, self- and others: midi-coat, maxi-coat, self-starter, self-help.
  The factors conducing to transition of free forms into semi-affixes are high semantic productivity, adaptability, combinatorial capacity (high valency), and brevity.
 § 6.2.3 "THE STONE WALL PROBLEM"
  The so-called stone wall problem concerns the status of the complexes like stone wall, cannon ball or rose garden. Noun premodifiers of other nouns often become so closely fused together with what they modify that it is difficult to say whether the result is a compound or a syntactical free phrase. Even if this difficulty is solved and we agree that these are phrases and not words, the status of the first element remains to be determined. Is it a noun used as an attribute or is it to be treated as an adjective?
  1 -monger < OE mangere 'a tradesman', -wright < OE wyrhta 'a worker'. 118
 
 The first point to be noted is that lexicographers differ in their treatment. Thus, "The Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" combines in one entry the noun stone and the adjective stone pertaining to or made of stone' and gives as an example this very combination stone wall. In his dictionary A.S. Hornby, on the other hand, when beginning the entry - stone as an uncountable noun, adds that it is often used attributively and illustrates this statement with the same example - stone wall.
  R. Quirk and his colleagues in their fundamental work on the grammar of contemporary English when describing premodification of nouns by nouns emphasise the fact that they become so closely associated as to be regarded as compounds. The meaning of noun premodification may correspond to an of-phrase as in the following the story of his life - his life story, or correlate with some other prepositional phrase as in a war story - a story about war, an arm chair - a chair with arms, a dish cloth - a cloth for dishes.
  There is no consistency in spelling, so that in the A.S. Hornby's Dictionary both arm-chair and dish-cloth are hyphenated.
  R. Quirk finds orthographic criteria unreliable, as there are no hard and fast rules according to which one may choose solid, hyphenated or open spelling. Some examples of complexes with open spelling that he treats as compound words are: book review, crime report, office management, steel production, language teacher. They are placed in different structural groups according to the grammatical process they reflect. Thus, book review, crime report and haircut are all compound count nouns formed on the model object+deverbal noun: X reviews books > the reviewing of books > book review. We could reasonably take all the above examples as free syntactic phrases, because the substitution of some equonym for the first element would leave the meaning of the second intact. We could speak about nickel production or a geography teacher. The first elements may be modified by an adjective - an English language teacher especially because the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the meaning of the parts.
 H. Marchand also mentions the fact that 'stone 'wall is a two-stressed combination, and the two-stressed pattern never shows the intimate permanent semantic relationship between the two components that is characteristic of compound words. This stress pattern stands explained if we interpret the premodifying element as an adjective or at least emphasise its attributive function. The same explanation may be used to account for the singularisation that takes place, i.e. the compound is an arm-chair not *an arms-chair. Singularisation is observed even with otherwise invariable plural forms. Thus, the game is called billiards but a table for it is a billiard table and it stands in a billiard-room. A similar example is a scissor sharpener that is a sharpener for scissors. One further theoretical point may be emphasised, this is the necessity of taking into account the context in which these complexes are used. If the complex is used attributively before a third noun, this attributive function joins them more intimately. For example: I telephoned: no air-hostess trainees had been kept late (J. Fowles).
 119
 
 It is especially important in case a compound of this type is an author's neologism. E. g. : The train was full of soldiers. I once again felt the great current of war, the European death-wish (J. Fowles).
  It should, perhaps, be added that an increasing number of linguists are now agreed - and the evidence at present available seems to suggest they are right - that the majority of English nouns are regularly used to form nominal phrases that are semantically derivable from their components but in most cases develop some unity of referential meaning. This set of nominal phrases exists alongside the set of nominal compounds. The boundaries between the two sets are by no means rigid, they are correlated and many compounds originated as free phrases.
 § 6.2.4 VERBAL COLLOCATIONS OF THE 'GIVE UP' TYPE
  The lexicological aspects of the stone wall problem have been mentioned in connection with compound words. Phrasal verbs of the give up type deserve a more detailed study from the phraseological viewpoint.
  An almost unlimited number of such units may be formed by the use of the simpler, generally monosyllabic verbs combined with elements that have been variously treated as "adverbs", "preposition-like adverbs", "postpositions of adverbial origin", "postpositives" or even "postpositive prefixes".1
  The verbs most frequent in these units are: bear, blow, break, bring, call, carry, cast, catch, come, cut, do, draw, drive, eat, fall, fly, get, give, go, hurry, hold, keep, lay, let, look, make, move, play, pull, put, ride, run, sell, set, shake, show, shut, sit, speak, stand, strike, take, throw, turn, walk, etc. To these the adverbs: about, across, along, around, away, back, by, down, forth, in, off, on, out, over, past, round, through, to, under, and the particularly frequent up are added.
  The pattern is especially common with the verbs denoting motion. Some of the examples possible with the verb go are: go ahead 'to proceed without hesitation'; go away 'to leave'; go back 'to return'; go by 'to pass'; go down (a) 'to sink' (for a ship); (b) 'to set' (of the sun, moon, etc.); (c) 'to be remembered' (of people or events); (d) 'to become quiet' (of the sea, wind, etc.) and many other combinations. The list of meanings for go down could be increased. Units of this type are remarkable for their multiple meaning. Cf. bring up which may mean not only 'to rear from childhood, educate' but also 'to cause to stop', 'to introduce to notice', 'to make prominent', etc.
  Only combinations forming integral wholes, the meaning of which is not readily derived from the meaning of the components, so that the lexical meaning of one of the components is strongly influenced by the presence of the other, are referred to set expressions or compounds. E. g. come off 'to take place', fall out 'to quarrel', give in 'to surrender', leave off 'to cease'. Alongside with these combinations showing idiomatic
  1 The problem on the whole is a very complex one and has attracted the attention of many scholars. See, for example: Berlizon S. English Verbal Collocations. M.; L., 1964, where a complete bibliography may be found. See also: Ilyish B. The Structure of Modern English. M.; L., 1965, p.p. 153-154.
 120
 
 character there are free combinations built on the same pattern and of the same elements. In these the second element may: (1) retain its adverbial properties of showing direction (come : : come back, go : : go in, turn : : turn away); (2) change the aspect of the verb (eat : : eat up, speak : : speak out, stand : : stand up; the second element then may mark the completeness or the beginning of the action); (3) intensify the meaning of the action (end : : end up, talk : : talk away).
  The second elements with the exception of about and around may be modified by right, which acts as an intensifier suggesting the idea of extremity: He pushed it right down. Sometimes the second element serves to create an evaluative shade, so that a verb of motion + about means 'move here and there' with an implication of light-mindedness and waste of time: climb, drive, float, run, walk, etc. about.
  There are also cases where the criteria of motivation serving to differentiate between compounds, free phrases and set expressions do not appear to yield definite results, because motivation is partially retained, as for instance in drop in, put on or shut up, so that the existence of boundary cases must of necessity be admitted.
  The borderline between free phrases and set expressions is not always sharp and distinct. This is very natural, as set expressions originate as imaginative free phrases and only gradually become stereotyped. So this is one more instance where understanding of synchronic facts is incomplete without diachronistic additions.
 § 6.3 SPECIFIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH COMPOUNDS
  There are two important peculiarities distinguishing compounding in English from compounding in other languages. Firstly, both immediate constituents of an English compound are free forms, i.e. they can be used as independent words with a distinct meaning of their own. The conditions of distribution will be different but the sound pattern the same, except for the stress. The point may be illustrated by a brief list of the most frequently used compounds studied in every elementary course of English: afternoon, anyway, anybody, anything, birthday, day-off, downstairs, everybody, fountain-pen, grown-up, ice-cream, large-scale, looking-glass, mankind, mother-in-law, motherland, nevertheless, notebook, nowhere, post-card, railway, schoolboy, skating-rink, somebody, staircase, Sunday.
  It is common knowledge that the combining elements in Russian are as a rule bound forms (руководство), but in English combinations like Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Soviet, Indo-European or politico-economical, where the first elements are bound forms, occur very rarely and seem to be avoided. They are coined on the neo-Latin pattern.
  The second feature that should attract attention is that the regular pattern for the English language is a two-stem compound, as is clearly testified by all the preceding examples. An exception to this rule is observed when the combining element is represented by a form-word stem, as in mother-in-law, bread-and-butter, whisky-and-soda, deaf-and-dumb, good-for-nothing, man-of-war, mother-of-pearl, stick-in-the-mud.
 121
 
 If, however, the number of stems is more than two, so that one of the immediate constituents is itself a compound, it will be more often the determinant than the determinatum. Thus aircraft-carrier, waste-paper-basket are words, but baby outfit, village schoolmaster, night watchman and similar combinations are syntactic groups with two stresses, or even phrases with the conjunction and: book-keeper and typist.
  The predominance of two-stem structures in English compounding distinguishes it from the German language which can coin monstrosities like the anecdotal Vierwaldstatterseeschraubendampfschiffgesellschaft or Feuer- and Unfallversicherungsgesellschaft.
  One more specific feature of English compounding is the important role the attributive syntactic function can play in providing a phrase with structural cohesion and turning it into a compound. Compare: ... we've done last-minute changes before ...( Priestley) and the same combination as a free phrase in the function of an adverbial: we changed it at the last minute more than once. Cf. four-year course, pass-fail basis (a student passes or fails but is not graded).
  It often happens that elements of a phrase united by their attributive function become further united phonemically by stress and graphically by a hyphen, or even solid spelling. Cf. common sense and common-sense advice; old age and old-age pensioner; the records are out of date and out-of-date records; the let-sleeping-dogs-lie approach (Priestley). Cf.: Let sleeping dogs lie (a proverb). This last type is also called quotation compound or holophrasis. The speaker (or writer, as the case may be) creates those combinations freely as the need for them arises: they are originally nonce-compounds. In the course of time they may become firmly established in the language: the ban-the-bomb voice, round-the-clock duty.
  Other syntactical functions unusual for the combination can also provide structural cohesion. E. g. working class is a noun phrase, but when used predicatively it is turned into a compound word. E. g.: He wasn't working-class enough. The process may be, and often is, combined with conversion and will be discussed elsewhere (see p. 163).
  The function of hyphenated spelling in these cases is not quite clear. It may be argued that it serves to indicate syntactical relationships and not structural cohesion, e. g. keep-your-distance chilliness. It is then not a word-formative but a phrase-formative device. This last term was suggested by L. Bloomfield, who wrote: "A phrase may contain a bound form which is not part of a word. For example, the possessive [z] in the man I saw yesterday's daughter. Such a bound form is a phrase formative."1 Cf. ... for the I-don't-know-how-manyth time (Cooper).
 § 6.4.1 CLASSIFICATION OF COMPOUNDS
  The great variety of compound types brings about a great variety of classifications. Compound words may be classified according to the type of composition and the linking element; according to the part of
  1 Bloomfield L. A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language. // Psycho-linguistics. A Book of Reading/Ed. by Sol Saporta. N.Y., 1961. Pt. IV. P. 28.
 122
 
 speech to which the compound belongs; and within each part of speech according to the structural pattern (see the next paragraph). It is also possible to subdivide compounds according to other characteristics, i.e. semantically, into motivated and idiomatic compounds (in the motivated ones the meaning of the constituents can be either direct or figurative). Structurally, compounds are distinguished as endocentric and exocentric, with the subgroup of bahuvrihi (see p. 125ff) and syntactic and asyntactic combinations. A classification according to the type of the syntactic phrase with which the compound is correlated has also been suggested. Even so there remain some miscellaneous types that defy classification, such as phrase compounds, reduplicative compounds, pseudo-compounds and quotation compounds.
  The classification according to the type of composition permits us to establish the following groups:
  1) The predominant type is a mere juxtaposition without connecting elements: heartache n, heart-beat n, heart-break n, heart-breaking a, heart-broken a, heart-felt a.
  2) Composition with a vowel or a consonant as a linking element. The examples are very few: electromotive a, speedometer n, Afro-Asian a, handicraft n, statesman n.
  3) Compounds with linking elements represented by preposition or conjunction stems: down-and-out n, matter-of-fact a, son-in-law n, pepper-and-salt a, wall-to-wall a, up-to-date a, on the up-and-up adv (continually improving), up-and-coming, as in the following example: No doubt he'd had the pick of some up-and-coming jazzmen in Paris (Wain). There are also a few other lexicalised phrases like devil-may-care a, forget-me-not n, pick-me-up n, stick-in-the-mud n, what's-her name n.
  The classification of compounds according to the structure of immediate constituents distinguishes:
 1) compounds consisting of simple stems: film-star;
  2) compounds where at least one of the constituents is a derived stem: chain-smoker;
  3) compounds where at least one of the constituents is a clipped stem: maths-mistress (in British English) and math-mistress (in American English). The subgroup will contain abbreviations like H-bag (handbag) or Xmas (Christmas), whodunit n (for mystery novels) considered substandard;
  4) compounds where at least one of the constituents is a compound stem: wastepaper-basket.
  In what follows the main structural types of English compounds are described in greater detail. The list is by no means exhaustive but it may serve as a general guide.
 § 6.4.2 COMPOUND NOUNS
  Within the class of compound nouns we distinguish endосentriс and exocentric compounds. In endocentric nouns the referent is named by one of the elements and given a
 123
 
 further characteristic by the other. In exocentric nouns only the combination of both elements names the referent. A further subdivision takes into account the character of stems.
  The sunbeam type. A noun stem is determined by another noun stem. This is a most productive type, the number of examples being practically unlimited.
  The maidservant type also consists of noun stems but the relationship between the elements is different. Maidservant is an appositional compound. The second element is notionally dominant.
  The looking-glass type shows a combination of a derived verbal stem with a noun stem.
  The searchlight type consisting of a verbal stem and a noun stem is of a comparatively recent origin.
  The blackboard type has already been discussed. The first stem here very often is not an adjective but a Participle II: cutwork. Sometimes the semantic relationship of the first element to the second is different. For instance, a green-grocer is not a grocer who happens to be green but one who sells vegetables.
  There are several groups with a noun stem for the first element and various deverbal noun stems for the second: housekeeping, sunrise, time-server.
  In exocentric compounds the referent is not named. The type scarecrow denotes the agent (a person or a thing) who or which performs the action named by the combination of the stems. In the case of scarecrow, it is a person or a thing employed in scaring birds. The type consists of a verbal stem followed by a noun stem. The personal nouns of this type are as a rule imaginative and often contemptuous: cut-throat, daredevil 'a reckless person', 'a murderer', lickspittle 'a toady', 'a flatterer', pickpocket 'a thief, turncoat 'a renegade'.
  A very productive and numerous group are nouns derived from verbs with postpositives, or more rarely with adverbs. This type consists chiefly of impersonal deverbal nouns denoting some action or specific instance. Examples: blackout 'a period of complete darkness' (for example, when all the electric lights go out on the stage of the theatre, or when all lights in a city are covered as a precaution against air raids); also 'a temporary loss of consciousness'; breakdown 'a stoppage through accident', 'a nervous collapse'; hangover 'an unpleasant after-effect' (especially after drink); make-up, a polysemantic compound which may mean, for example, 'the way anything is arranged', 'one's mental qualities', 'cosmetics'; take-off, also polysemantic: 'caricature', 'the beginning of a flight', etc. Compare also: I could just imagine the brush-off he'd had (Wain). Some more examples: comedown, drawback, drop-out, feedback, frame-up, knockout, set-back, shake-up, splash-down, take-in, teach-in, etc.
  A special subgroup is formed by personal nouns with a somewhat derogatory connotation, as in go-between 'an intermediary', start-back 'a deserter'. Sometimes these compounds are keenly ironical: die-hard 'an irreconcilable conservative', pin-up (such a girl as might have her
 124
 
 photograph pinned up on the wall for admiration, also the photograph itself), pick-up 'a chance acquaintance', 'a prostitute'. More seldom the pattern is used for names of objects, mostly disparaging. For instance: "Are these your books?" "Yes". They were a very odd collection of throw-outs from my flat (Cooper).
  The group of bahuvrihi compound nouns is not very numerous. The term bahuvrihi is borrowed from the grammarians of ancient India. Its literal meaning is 'much-riced'. It is used to designate possessive exocentric formations in which a person, animal or thing are metonymically named after some striking feature they possess, chiefly a striking feature in their appearance. This feature is in its turn expressed by the sum of the meanings of the compound's immediate constituents. The formula of the bahuvrihi compound nouns is adjective stem +noun stem. The following extract will illustrate the way bahuvrihi compounds may be coined: I got discouraged with sitting all day in the
 backroom of a police station with six assorted women and a man with
 a wooden leg. At the end of a week, we all knew each other's life histories, including that of the woodenleg's uncle, who lived at Selsey and had to be careful of his diet (M. Dickens).
  Semantically the bahuvrihi are almost invariably characterised by a deprecative ironical emotional tone. Cf. bigwig 'a person of importance', black-shirt 'an Italian fascist' (also, by analogy, any fascist), fathead 'a dull, stupid person', greenhorn 'an ignoramus', highbrow 'a person who claims to be superior in intellect and culture', lazy-bones 'a lazy person'.
 § 6.4.3 COMPOUND ADJECTIVES
  Compound adjectives regularly correspond to free phrases. Thus, for example, the type threadbare consists of a noun stem and an adjective stem. The relation underlying this combination corresponds to the phrase 'bare to the thread'. Examples are: airtight, bloodthirsty, carefree, heartfree, media-shy, noteworthy, pennywise, poundfoolish, seasick, etc.
  The type has a variant with a different semantic formula: snow-white means 'as white as snow', so the underlying sense relation in that case is emphatic comparison, e. g. dog-tired, dirt-cheap, stone-deaf. Examples are mostly connected with colours: blood-red, sky-blue, pitch-black; with dimensions and scale: knee-deep, breast-high, nationwide, life-long, world-wide.
  The red-hot type consists of two adjective stems, the first expressing the degree or the nuance of the second: white-hot, light-blue, reddish-brown.
  The same formula occurs in additive compounds of the bitter-sweet type correlated with free phrases of the type adjective1 and adjective2 {bitter and sweet) that are rather numerous in technical and scholarly vocabulary: social-economic, etc. The subgroup of Anglo-Saxon has been already discussed.
  The peace-loving type consisting of a noun stem and a participle stem, is very productive at present. Examples are: breath-taking,
 125
 
 freedom-loving, soul-stirring. Temporal and local relations underlie such cases as sea-going, picture-going, summer-flowering.
  The type is now literary and sometimes lofty, whereas in the 20s it was very common in upper-class slang, e. g. sick-making 'sickening'.
  A similar type with the pronoun stem self- as the first component (self-adjusting, self-propelling) is used in cultivated and technical speech only.
  The hard-working type structurally consists of an adjective stem and a participle stem. Other examples of the same type are: good-looking, sweet-smelling, far-reaching. It is not difficult to notice, however, that looking, smelling, reaching do not exist as separate adjectives. Neither is it quite clear whether the first element corresponds to an adjective or an adverb. They receive some definite character only in compounds.
  There is a considerable group of compounds characterised by the type word man-made, i.e. consisting of Participle II with a noun stem for a determinant.
  The semantic relations underlying this type are remarkable for their great variety: man-made 'made by man' (the relationship expressed is that of the agent and the action); home-made 'made at home' (the notion of place); safety-tested 'tested for safety' (purpose); moss-grown 'covered with moss' (instrumental notion); compare also the figurative compound heart-broken 'having a broken heart'. Most of the compounds containing a Participle II stem for their second element have a passive meaning. The few exceptions are: well-read, well-spoken, well-behaved and the like.
 § 6.4.4 COMPOUND VERBS
  Scholars are not agreed on the question of compound verbs. This problem indeed can be argued in several different ways. It is not even clear whether verbal compositions exist in present-day English, though such verbs as outgrow, overflow, stand up, black-list, stage-manage and whitewash are often called compound verbs. There are even more complications to the problem than meet the eye.
  H. Marchand, whose work has been quoted so extensively in the present chapter, treats outgrow and overflow as unquestionable compounds, although he admits that the type is not productive and that locative particles are near to prefixes. "The Concise Oxford Dictionary", on the other hand, defines out- and over- as prefixes used both for verbs and nouns; this approach classes outgrow and overflow as derivatives, which seems convincing.
  The stand-up type was in turns regarded as a phrase, a compound and a derivative; its nature has been the subject of much discussion (see § 6.2.4).
  The verbs blackmail and stage-manage belong to two different groups because they show different correlations with the rest of the vocabulary.
 blackmail v = honeymoon v = nickname v
 blackmail n honeymoon n nickname n
 
 126
 
  The verbs blackmail, honeymoon and nickname are, therefore, cases of conversion from endocentric nominal compounds. The type stage-manage may be referred to back-formation. The correlation is as follows:
  stage-manage v = proof-read v = housekeep v
 stage-manager n proof-reader n housekeeper n
  The second element in the first group is a noun stem; in the second group it is always verbal.
  Some examples of the first group are the verbs safeguard, nickname, shipwreck, whitewash, tiptoe, outline, honeymoon, blackmail, hero-worship. All these exist in English for a long time. The 20th century created week-end, double-cross 'betray', stream-line, softpedal, spotlight.
  The type is especially productive in colloquial speech and slang, particularly in American English.
  The second group is less numerous than the first but highly productive in the 20th century. Among the earliest coinages are backbite (1300) and browbeat (1603), then later ill-treat, house-keep. The 20th century has coined hitch-hike (cf. hitch-hiker) 'to travel from place to place by asking motorists for free rides'; proof-read (cf. proof-reader) 'to read and correct printer's proofs'; compare also mass-produce, taperecord and vacuum-clean. The most recent is hijack 'make pilots change the course of aeroplanes by using violence' which comes from the slang word hijacker explained in the Chambers's Dictionary as 'a highwayman or a robber and blackmailer of bootleggers' (smugglers of liquor).
  The structural integrity of these combinations is supported by the order of constituents which is a contrast to the usual syntactic pattern where the verb stem would come first. Cf. to read proofs and to proofread.
  H. Marchand calls them pseudo-compounds, because they are created as verbs not by the process of composition but by conversion and back-formation. His classification may seem convincing, if the vocabulary is treated diachronically from the viewpoint of those processes that are at the back of its formation. It is quite true that the verb vacuum-clean was not coined by compounding and so is not a compound genetically (on the word-formation level). But if we are concerned with the present-day structure and follow consistently the definition of a compound given in the opening lines of this chapter, we see that it is a word containing two free stems. It functions in the sentence as a separate lexical unit. It seems logical to consider such words as compounds by right of their structural pattern.
 § 6.5 DERIVATIONAL COMPOUNDS
  Derivational compounds or compound-derivatives like long-legged do not fit the definition of compounds as words consisting of more than one free stem, because their second element (-legged) is not a free stem. Derivational compounds are included in this
 127
 
 chapter for two reasons: because the number of root morphemes is more than one, and because they are nearest to compounds in patterns.
  Derivational compounds or compound-derivatives are words in which the structural integrity of the two free stems is ensured by a suffix referring to the combination as a whole, not to one of its elements: kind-hearted, old-timer, schoolboyishness, teenager. In the coining of the derivational compounds two types of word-formation are at work. The essence of the derivational compounds will be clear if we compare them with derivatives and compounds proper that possess a similar structure. Take, for example, brainstraster, honeymooner and mill-owner. The ultimate constituents of all three are: noun stem + noun stem+-er. Analysing into immediate constituents, we see that the immediate constituents (IC's) of the compound mill-owner are two noun stems, the first simple, the second derived: mill+owner, of which the last, the determinatum, as well as the whole compound, names a person. For the word honeymooner no such division is possible, since *mooner does not exist as a free stem. The IC's are honeymoon+-er, and the suffix -er signals that the whole denotes a person: the structure is (honey+moon)+-er.
  The process of word-building in these seemingly similar words is different: mill-owner is coined by composition, honeymooner - by derivation from the compound honeymoon. Honeymoon being a compound, honeymooner is a derivative. Now brains trust 'a group of experts' is a phrase, so brainstruster is formed by two simultaneous processes - by composition and by derivation and may be called a derivational compound. Its IC's are (brains+ trust)+-еr1.
  The suffix -er is one of the productive suffixes in forming derivational compounds. Other examples of the same pattern are: backbencher 'an M.P. occupying the back bench', do-gooder (ironically used in AmE), eye-opener 'enlightening circumstance', first-nighter 'habitual frequenter of the first performance of plays', go-getter (colloq.) 'a pushing person', late-comer, left-hander 'left-handed person or blow'.
  Nonce-words show some variations on this type. The process of their formation is clearly seen in the following examples: "Have you ever thought of bringing them together?" "Oh, God forbid. As you may have noticed, I'm not much of a bringer-together at the best of times." (Plomer) "The shops are very modern here," he went on, speaking with all the rather touchy insistence on up-to-dateness which characterises the inhabitants of an under-bathroomed and over-monumented country (Huxley).
  Another frequent type of derivational compounds are the possessive compounds of the type kind-hearted: adjective stem+noun stem+ -ed. Its IC's are a noun phrase kind heart and the suffix -ed that unites the elements of the phrase and turns them into the elements of a compound adjective. Similar examples are extremely numerous. Compounds of this type can be coined very freely to meet the requirements of different situations.
  1 See on this point the article on compounds in "The Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English" (p. 115).
 128
 
  Very few go back to Old English, such as one-eyed and three-headed, most of the cases are coined in Modern English. Examples are practically unlimited, especially in words describing personal appearance or character: absent-minded, bare-legged, black-haired, blue-eyed, cruel-hearted, light-minded, ill-mannered, many-sided, narrow-minded, shortsighted, etc.
  The first element may also be a noun stem: bow-legged, heart-shaped and very often a numeral: three-coloured.
  The derivational compounds often become the basis of further derivation. Cf. war-minded : : war-mindedness; whole-hearted : : whole-heartedness : : whole-heartedly, schoolboyish : : schoolboyishness; do-it-yourselfer : : do-it-yourselfism.
  The process is also called phrasal derivation: mini-skirt>mini-skirted, nothing but>nothingbutism, dress up>dressuppable, Romeo-and-Julietishness, or quotation derivation as when an unwillingness to do anything is characterised as let-George-do-it-ity. All these are nonce-words, with some ironic or jocular connotation.
 § 6.6 REDUPLICATION AND MISCELLANEA OF COMPOSITION
 § 6.6.1 REDUPLICATIVE COMPOUNDS
  In what follows we shall describe some combinations that may be called compounds by right of pattern, as they very markedly consist of two parts, but otherwise in most cases fail to satisfy our definition of a compound word. Some of them contain only one free form, the other constituents being a variation of this, while there are also cases where both constituents are jocular pseudo-morphemes, meaningless and fanciful sound clusters which never occur elsewhere. Their motivation is mostly based upon sound-symbolism and it is their phonetic make-up that plays the most important role in their functioning They are all stylistically coloured (either colloquial, slang or nursery words) and markedly expressive and emotional: the emotion is not expressed in the constituents but suggested by the whole pattern (reduplication rhyme).
  The group consists of reduplicative compounds that fall into three main subgroups: reduplicative compounds proper, ablaut combinations and rhyme combinations.
  Reduplicative compounds proper are not restricted to the repetition of onomatopoeic stems with intensifying effect, as it is sometimes suggested. Actually it is a very mixed group containing usual free forms, onomatopoeic stems and pseudo-morphemes. Onomatopoeic repetition exists but it is not very extensive: hush-hush 'secret', murmur (a borrowing from French) pooh-pooh (to express contempt). In blah-blah 'nonsense', 'idle talk' the constituents are pseudo-morphemes which do not occur elsewhere. The usage may be illustrated by the following example: Should he give them half a minute of blah-blah or tell them what had been passing through his mind? (Priestley) Nursery words such as quack-quack 'duck', Pops-Pops 'father' and many other words belong to the same type.
 129
 
  Non-imitative words may be also used in reduplication and possess then an ironical ring: pretty-pretty 'affectedly pretty', goody-goody 'sentimentally and affectedly good'. The instances are not numerous and occur only in colloquial speech. An interesting example is the expressive and ironical never-never, an ellipsis of the phrase never-never system 'a hire-purchase system in which the consumer may never be able to become the owner of the thing purchased'. The situation may be clear from the following: "They've got a smashing telly, a fridge and another set of bedroom furniture in silver-grey." "All on the never-never, what'll happen if he loses his job?" (Lindsay)
 § 6.6.2 ABLAUT COMBINATIONS
  The reduplicative compounds resemble in sound form the rhyme combinations like razzle-dazzle and ablaut combinations like sing-song. These two types, therefore, are treated by many1 as repetition with change of initial consonant or with vowel interchange. H. Marchand treats these as pseudo-compounds, which occur as twin forms with phonic variation and as twin forms with a rhyme for characteristic feature.
  Ablaut combinations are twin forms consisting of one basic morpheme (usually the second), sometimes a pseudo-morpheme which is repeated in the other constituent with a different vowel. The typical changes are [?]- [?]: chit-chat 'gossip' (from chat 'easy familiar talk'), dilly-dally 'loiter', knick-knack 'small articles of ornament', riff-raff 'the mob', shilly-shally 'hesitate', zigzag (borrowed from French), and [?] - [o]: ding-dong (said of the sound of a bell), ping-pong 'table-tennis', singsong 'monotonous voice', tiptop 'first-rate'. The free forms corresponding to the basic morphemes are as a rule expressive words denoting sound or movement.
  Both groups are based on sound symbolism expressing polarity. With words denoting movement these words symbolise to and fro rhythm: criss-cross; the to and fro movement also suggests hesitation: shilly-shally (probably based on the question "Shall I?"); alternating noises: pitter-patter. The semantically predominant group are the words meaning idle talk: bibble-babble, chit-chat, clitter-clatter, etc.
 § 6.6.3 RHYME COMBINATIONS
  Rhyme combinations are twin forms consisting of two elements (most often two pseudo-morphemes) which are joined to rhyme: boogie-woogie, flibberty-gibberty 'frivolous', harum-scarum 'disorganised', helter-skelter 'in disordered haste', hoity-toity 'snobbish', humdrum 'bore', hurry-scurry 'great hurry', hurdy-gurdy 'a small organ', lovey-dovey 'darling', mumbo-jumbo 'deliberate mystification, fetish',
  1 O. Jespersen, H. Koziol and the author of this book in a previous work.
  130
 
 namby-pamby 'weakly sentimental', titbit 'a choice morsel', willy-nilly 'compulsorily' (cf. Lat volens-nolens).
  The choice of the basic sound cluster in some way or other is often not arbitrary but motivated, for instance, lovey-dovey is motivated in both parts, as well as willy-nilly. Hurry-scurry and a few other combinations are motivated in the first part, while the second is probably a blend if we take into consideration that in helter-skelter the second element is from obsolete skelt 'hasten'.
  About 40% of these rhyme combinations (a much higher percentage than with the ablaut combinations) are not motivated: namby-pamby, razzle-dazzle. A few are borrowed: pow-wow 'a noisy assembly' (an Algonquin1 word), mumbo-jumbo (from West African), but the type is purely English, and mostly modern.
  The pattern is emotionally charged and chiefly colloquial, jocular, often sentimental in a babyish sort of way. The expressive character is mainly due to the effect of rhythm, rhyme and sound suggestiveness. It is intensified by endearing suffixes -y, -sie and the jocular -ty, -dy. Semantically predominant in this group are words denoting disorder, trickery, teasing names for persons, and lastly some playful nursery words. Baby-talk words are highly connotative because of their background.
 § 6.7 PSEUDO-COMPOUNDS

<< Пред.           стр. 5 (из 11)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу