Is this a compound? E-Book

Daniel Schroeder

• Herausgeber: GRIN Verlag
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Beschreibung

Seminar paper from the year 2013 in the subject Didactics for the subject English - Pedagogy, Literature Studies, grade: 1,2, University of Rostock, language: English, abstract: People recognize, differentiate, and understand, therefore, categorize ideas and objects in everyday life. Unsurprisingly, linguists classify words. Compounds, for instance, are a part of the human language, and an interesting process of word-formation. ‘Is this a compound?’ Sometimes linguists are unsure whether certain words are compounds or not. The definition of compounds is important because defining compounds simply “as being lexeme[s] whose immediate constituents are representatives of lexemes” (Bauer 2005: 105) creates a wide array of borderline cases. Since neo-classical compounds and phrasal compounds, for example, do not consist of two words, it is incorrect to categorize these classes as forms of compounding, according to the definition. This problem can be solved, if one defines a compound as “a word that consists of two elements, the first of which is either a root, a word or a phrase, the second of which is either a root or a word” (Plag 2003: 135). This definition explains the compound status of the neo-classical compounds because the constituents in these items, such as bio-, are central meaningful elements (bio- has the meaning ‘life’), thus, can be considered as bound roots instead of affixes (see, e.g., Plag 2003: 73). Additionally, Plag’s definition demonstrates that phrasal compounds can be classified as compounds because a phrase and either a root or word are joined together to a word in these complex words. Despite the advantages that this definition reveals, demarcation problems cannot be solved and borderline cases still arise regarding English compounds. “[W]e must emphasize that these [continuing, D.S.] classification difficulties are […] the inevitable result of the fact that phenomena in living languages can rarely be compartmentalized into clearly […] distinguishable categories” (Schmid 2011: 131). Firstly, this seminar paper will focus on the distinction between compounds and syntagmas and phraseologisms; secondly, the differentiation of compounds compared to other word-formation models that seem to have similar formations (dealing with the classes synthetic and verbal compounds) will be addressed. It will be discussed whether there are criterions that help to provide a sharp boundary between the mentioned processes. Additionally, this seminar paper aims to find solutions for ongoing borderline cases.

Leseprobe

Impressum:

Copyright (c) 2015 GRIN Verlag / Open Publishing GmbH, alle Inhalte urheberrechtlich geschützt. Kopieren und verbreiten nur mit Genehmigung des Verlags.

Bei GRIN macht sich Ihr Wissen bezahlt! Wir veröffentlichen kostenlos Ihre Haus-, Bachelor- und Masterarbeiten.

Jetzt beiwww.grin.com

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Compounds vs. syntagmas and phraseologisms

3. Compounds vs. other word-formation patterns: problematic classes

3.1. Synthetic compounds

3.2. Verbal compounds

4. Practical analysis: compounds with categorization problems in a newspaper article

5. Conclusion

6. Bibliography

7. Appendix

1. Introduction

People recognize, differentiate, and understand, therefore, categorize ideas and objects in everyday life. Unsurprisingly, linguists classify words. Compounds, for instance, are a part of the human language, and an interesting process of word-formation. ‘Is this a compound?’ Sometimes linguists are unsure whether certain words are compounds or not.

The definition of compounds is important because defining compounds simply “as being lexeme[s] whose immediate constituents are representatives of lexemes” (Bauer 2005: 105) creates a wide array of borderline cases. Since neo-classical compounds and phrasal compounds, for example, do not consist of two words, it is incorrect to categorize these classes as forms of compounding, according to the definition. This problem can be solved, if one defines a compound as “a word that consists of two elements, the first of which is either a root, a word or a phrase, the second of which is either a root or a word” (Plag 2003: 135). This definition explains the compound status of the neo-classical compounds because the constituents in these items, such as bio-, are central meaningful elements (bio- has the meaning‘life’), thus, can be considered as bound roots instead of affixes (see, e.g., Plag 2003: 73). Additionally, Plag’s definition demonstrates that phrasal compounds can be classified as compounds because a phrase and either a root or word are joined together to a word in these complex words.

Despite the advantages that this definition reveals, demarcation problems cannot be solved and borderline cases still arise regarding English compounds. “[W]e must emphasize that these [continuing, D.S.] classification difficulties are […] the inevitable result of the fact that phenomena in living languages can rarely be compartmentalized into clearly […] distinguishable categories” (Schmid 2011: 131).

Firstly, this seminar paper will focus on the distinction between compounds and syntagmas and phraseologisms; secondly, the differentiation of compounds compared to other word-formation models that seem to have similar formations (dealing with the classes synthetic and verbal compounds) will be addressed. It will be discussed whether there are criterions that help to provide a sharp boundary between the mentioned processes. Additionally, this seminar paper aims to find solutions for ongoing borderline cases.

2. Compounds vs. syntagmas and phraseologisms

First of all, it is important to define the terms that will be discussed in this section. “Word-formation syntagmas are considered to be shortened grammatical constructions or sentences” (Schmid 2011: 89). These units form a syntactic unit, and one can also use the term phrase for words that build a group together and, finally, fulfill a syntactic function in a clause. In sum, “a phrase must be a group of words which form a constituent” (Kroeger 2005:35), thus, it functions as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence. Phraseologisms, or idioms, are a combination of words with figurative meaning, and it has to be added that the frequency of this co-occurrence of linguistic elements of various kinds “is larger than expected on the basis of chance” (Gries 2008: 6). Additionally, “idioms are not expected to behave linguistically as phrases but as long words” (Moreno 2007: 177).