Specific features of forming compound words

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The theme: Specific features of forming compound words

Contents

Introduction

I. General principles of Compound words

1.1 Specific teachers of English compound words

1.2 General characteristics of compounding or word-composition

1.3 The structure of compound verbs

1.4 Ways of forming compound words

1.5 The meaning of compound words

II. Compound words as a type of word formation

2.1 Classification of Compounds

2.2 Compound words and free word groups

2.3 Ways of Forming Compounds. Sources of Compounds

2.4 Compounding and forms of components

2.4 Plurals and possessives of compound words

III. Methods of forming compound words

3.1 Structural Meaning of the Pattern

3.2 The Criteria of Compounds

3.3 Inseparability of Compound Words

3.4 Motivation in Compound words

3.5 Semantic Classifications

3.6 Derivational compounds

3.7 Diachronic approach to compound words

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

Introduction

compound teacher composition

The English language contains a great many words and phrases which are made up of two or more words combined or related in such a way as to form a new verbal phrase having a distinct meaning of its own and differing in meaning from the sum of the component words taken singly. Income and outgo, for example, have quite definite meanings related, it is true, to come and go and to in and out, but sharply differentiated from those words in their ordinary and general signification. We use these compound words and phrases so commonly that we never stop to think how numerous they are, or how frequently new ones are coined. Any living language is constantly growing and developing new forms. New objects have to be named, new sensations expressed, new experiences described.

Sometimes these words are mere aggregations like automobile, monotype, sidewalk, policeman and the like. Sometimes, indeed very often, they are short cuts. A hatbox is a box for carrying a hat, a red-haired man is a man with red hair. A bookcase is a case to contain books, etc.

Sometimes the phrase consists of two or more separate words, such as well known or nicely kept. Sometimes it consists of words joined by a hyphen, such as boarding-house, sleeping-car. Sometimes it consists of a single word formed by amalgamating or running together the components, such as penholder, nevertheless.

In which of these forms shall we write the phrase we speak so easily? How shall we shape the new word we have just coined? Which of these three forms shall we use, and why? Ordinarily we look for the answer to such questions from three sources, historical development, the past of the language; some logical principle of general application; or some recognized standard of authority. Unfortunately we get little help from either of these sources in this special difficulty.

The history of the language is a history of constant change. The Anglo-Saxon tongue was full of compounds, but the hyphen was an unknown device to those who spoke it. The English of Chaucer, the period when our new-born English tongue was differentiated from those which contributed to its composition, is full of compounds, and the compounds were generally written with a hyphen. Shakespeare used many compound words and phrases some of which sound strange, if not uncouth, to modern ears, but used the hyphen much less than Chaucer. In modern times the tendency has been and is to drop the hyphen. The more general progression seems to be (1) two words, (2) two words hyphenated, (3) two words run together into one. Sometimes, however, the hyphen drops, leaving two words separated. That there is constant change, and that the change is progressing consistently in the direction of eliminating the hyphen is fairly clear. This, however, does not help us much. At what stage of the process are we with regard to any given word? Which form of the process is operating in any given case?

There are no laws or principles of universal application on which we may build a consistent system of practice. Certain general principles have been laid down and will be here set forth. While they are helpful to the understanding of the subject they are not sufficiently universal to serve as practical guides in all cases. In any event they need to be supplemented by careful study of the rules for the use of the hyphen, by careful study of the best usage in particular cases, and by thorough knowledge of the style of each particular office, as will be pointed out later. Authorities and usage differ widely, and it is often difficult to say that a particular form is right or wrong.

There is no recognized standard authority. The dictionaries do not agree with each other and are not always consistent with themselves. They may always write a certain word in a certain way but they may write another word to all appearance exactly analogous to the first in another way. For example Worcester has brickwork and brass work, but wood-work and iron-work. Webster, on the other hand, has woodwork and brick-work.

The best that the printer can do is to adopt a set of rules or style of his own and stick to it consistently. Here and there a generally accepted change, like the dropping of the hyphen from tomorrow and today will force itself upon him, but for the most part he may stick to his style. Of course, the author, if he has a marked preference, must be permitted to use his own methods of compounding except in magazine publications and the like. In such cases, when the author's work is to appear in the same volume with that of other writers, the style of the printing office must rule and the individual contributors must bow to it.

Compounding is an important means of replenishing dictionary of the language and to improve its system. In modern English it is one of the most productive ways of word formation, attracting the attention of many researchers, among them - AI Smirnitsky, I.V Arnold, O.D Meshkov, P.V Tsarev, G. Marchand, and others. Like other methods of forming words, compounding has its own characteristics, which relate the using of basics compounds and their distribution, the scope of application of the method of word formation, as well as factors contributing to its productivity.

Word composition reflects the specific language as side by side with common features for many languages ??have national features, typical only for that language. The analytical structure of the English language, the widespread use of word order as a means of expressing lexical and grammatical relations explains the existence of a large number of compound words.

Compound word consists of two or more notional framework that can be used in the language of their own, as the free forms. Obtained by adding the addition word is a whole, a new concept, is not equal to the sum of its values.

Compound words are very common even in old English language, but many of them were subsequently replaced French and Latin borrowings. As the French and partly Latin languages do not have the wide possibilities of compounding as English, the borrowing of these languages a little contributed to the development of this process of word formation. Nevertheless, the addition of the foundations of any etymology has always been and remains an important way of word formation in English.

The actuality of the study. An attempt is made to show first the general character of the problems involved. Then follows a discussion of the general principles of compounding. The general rules for the formation of compounds are stated and briefly discussed. The various components of compounds are fully analyzed and tabulated. The best modern usage in the matter of the employment of the hyphen is set forth in a series of rules. The whole is concluded by practical advice to the compositor as to the use of the rules in the actual work of the office.

"Compounding is a very natural, very common way to create new words in one language, while its role is very small in the other. Compound words are one of the most studied objects in Foreign Languages ??and sufficient 'to successfully develop in linguistics, there is an urgent need to address the problem of difficult words, especially those aspects that are associated with the practical implementation of these units in the language. For example, it has still not fully resolved problems of identification of complex words. Since, in practice, there is failure to distinguish compound words from them similar designs. This problem is directly related to the other - there are now inconsistent design similar compound words, not only in different languages ??one system, but in the same language. This situation in spelling, in turn, entails problems lexicographic implied by the absence of consecutive principles of selection and supply and consequently, inadequate reflection of difficult words in the dictionary. In this context, the present study, we believe to devoted a very topical subject.

The object of the study is compound words, which takes place the leading position in the compounding of the English language and the semantic relationships between the adjective and the noun at the outer and inner valence, linguistic and extra linguistic factors influencing the choice of phrase or compound word if necessary expression of attributive relations.

The subject of compounds is one of the most difficult of the matters relating to correct literary composition. The difficulty arises from the fact that usage, especially in the matter of the presence or absence of the hyphen, is not clearly settled. Progressive tendencies are at work and there is great difference of usage, even among authorities of the first rank, with regard to many compounds in common use. The cognitive processes that ensure the formation of the complex semantics of words in modern English. The choice of theme is caused by the prospect of studying the semantics of a compound word in modern English language from the perspective of cognitive-discursive direction. In studies undertaken previously been neglected knowledge correlated with both producing nouns and complex words in general, as studied mostly formal and structural features of a compound word, and to a lesser extent semantic. The present study is an attempt to show that the compound words can be seen as a special way of fixing various linguistic structures of knowledge, manifested in acts of cognition and evaluation of the world man.

The aim of this work is to determine the characteristics of the current spell of compound words and the most general tendencies of its development in the English language ??, summarize the experience of English lexicography in the reflection of complex words and to identify opportunities to improve it and to define the scientific basis of identification of complex tokens in English.

The purpose is concretized in the following tasks:

- Analyze foreign language dictionaries to identify common features in the supply of compound words;

- Consider dictionaries of the English language in order to identify the existing principles of selection and supply of compound words;

- To develop recommendations for improving the principles of selection and delivery of complex words in the dictionary of the English language;

- Define criteria for distinguishing complex words from their similar structures;

- Identify the most common mistakes in the translation of complex words and feed conversion in dictionaries;

- To analyze the existing spelling difficult words in English and in other languages, on the basis of which to develop recommendations for its improvement.

We used the following methods:

- Descriptive method;

- The analytical method followed by a generalization of the observations;

- The method of comparative analysis;

- Component analysis method.

Scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that it was the first undergo of English linguistics analysis of theoretical and practical issues orthography, lexicography and identification of compound words.

The theoretical significance of the study determined that as a result develops a complete picture of the level of theoretical and practical problem elaboration of compound words in linguistics, proposed a number of spelling problems, lexicography and identification of compound words. The obtained results can serve as a basis for determining the general laws of development of vocabulary and complex for other, theoretical questions on relevant issues.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the study results can be used to improve the rules of spelling difficult words, in the preparation of explanatory and translation dictionaries English language for improvement and harmonization, and may also be useful in the theory and practice of translation from Russian into English and English into Russian.

Provisions submitted for defense are as following:

1. Formation of the value of a compound word in modern English is carried out either by cognitive models of the form of propositions and correlated with the values of word-formation, or by cognitive mechanisms "perspective", "connection", "filling-in", "development", "conceptual metaphor "," conceptual metonymy. "

2. Formation of structurally motivated semantics of compound words that show the potential of its logical, objective values, in most cases carried out by reference to the cognitive model. The main step in determining the propositional structure behind structurally motivated compound word, is to restore the implicit atomic predicate or an operational concept that is revealed through the use of the Semantic inference or conclusion. Filling the operational concepts and reduced atomic predicates specific content is carried out by reference to producing nouns and knowledge that will be mapped to them.

3. Formation of structurally motivated semantics of compound words that do not show the potential of its logical, objective values ??is due to the treatment producing nouns, concepts, the represented them, and contextual information using cognitive mechanisms "perspective", "connection" . During the formation of the concept that will be mapped with a complex word, the concept, the represented second producing a noun and is a determining factor in this process is subject to minor changes. Most central and stable characteristics of this concept is borrowed in the concept that defines the semantics of a compound word. Such compound nouns are considered as structurally motivated.

4. The ambiguity of a compound word implies that a composite multiple interrelated values. As one of the ways the appearance of figurative meanings of difficult words are considered metaphoric and metonymic reference values ??of compound nouns. At the cognitive level, the formation of complex figurative meanings of words by means of cognitive mechanisms of conceptual metaphor or conceptual metonymy and development for by reference to the concept that defines the initial value of the complex word, and the information transmitted by the context.

The structure of the work. The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, conclusion, bibliography.

I. General principles of Compound words

Three general principles are laid down by Mr. F. Horace Teall which will be found useful, though they must be supplemented in practice by more specific rules which will be given later. They are as follows:

I. All words should be separate when used in regular grammatical relations and construction unless they are jointly applied in some arbitrary way.

An iron fence means a fence made of iron. The meaning and construction are normal and the words are not compounded.

An iron-saw means a saw for cutting iron. The meaning is not the same as iron saw which would mean a saw made of iron. The hyphenated compound indicates the special meaning of the words used in this combination.

Ironwood is a specific name applied to a certain kind of very hard wood. Hence, it becomes a single word compounded but without a hyphen. Either of the other forms would be ambiguous or impossible in meaning.

II. Abnormal associations of words generally indicate unification in sense and hence compounding in form. A sleeping man is a phrase in which the words are associated normally. The man sleeps. A sleeping-car is a phrase in which the words are associated abnormally. The car does not sleep. It is a specially constructed car in which the passengers may sleep comfortably. A king fisher might be a very skilful fisherman. A kingfisher is a kind of bird. Here again we have an abnormal association of words and as the compound word is the name of a specific sort of bird there is no hyphen. A king-fisher, if it meant anything, would probably mean one who fished for kings, as a pearl-diver is one who dives for pearls.Conversely, no expression in the language should ever be changed from two or more words into one (either hyphenated or solid) without change of sense. Saw trimmer is not compounded because there is no change in the commonly accepted sense of either word.Color work is not compounded because the word color, by usage common in English, has the force of an adjective, and the words are used in their accepted sense. In other languages it would be differently expressed. Presswork is compounded because it has a special and specific meaning. Good or bad presswork is a good or bad result of work done on a press. Here as everywhere in printing the great purpose is to secure plainness and intelligibility. Print is made to read. Anything which obscures the sense, or makes the passage hard to read is wrong. Anything which clears up the sense and makes the passage easy to read and capable of only one interpretation is right [1, 42p].

In English, words, particularly adjectives and nouns, are combined into compound structures in a variety of ways. And once they are formed, they sometimes metamorphose over time. A common pattern is that two words -- fire fly, say -- will be joined by a hyphen for a time -- fire-fly -- and then be joined into one word -- firefly. In this respect, a language like German, in which words are happily and immediately linked one to the other, might seem to have an advantage. There is only one sure way to know how to spell compounds in English: use an authoritative dictionary.

There are three forms of compound words:

- the closed form, in which the words are melded together, such as firefly, secondhand, softball, childlike, crosstown, redhead, keyboard, makeup, notebook;

- the hyphenated form, such as daughter-in-law, master-at-arms, over-the-counter, six-pack, six-year-old, mass-produced;

- the open form, such as post office, real estate, middle class, full moon, half sister, attorney general.

How a word modified by an adjective -- "a little school," "the yellow butter" -- is different from a compound word -- " a high school," "the peanut butter" -- is a nice and philosophical question. It clearly has something to do with the degree to which the preceding word changes the essential character of the noun, the degree to which the modifier and the noun are inseparable. If you were diagramming a sentence with a compound word, you would probably keep the words together, on the same horizontal line [2, 89p].

Modifying compounds are often hyphenated to avoid confusion. The New York Public Library's Writer's Guide points out that an old-furniture salesman clearly deals in old furniture, but an old furniture salesman would be an old man. We probably would not have the same ambiguity, however, about a used car dealer. When compounded modifiers precede a noun, they are often hyphenated: part-time teacher, fifty-yard-wide field, fire-resistant curtains, high-speed chase. When those same modifying words come after the noun, however, they are not hyphenated: a field fifty yards wide, curtains that are fire resistant, etc. The second-rate opera company gave a performance that was first rate.

Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are hyphenated when compounded with other modifiers: the highest-priced car, the shorter-term loan. But this is not always the case: the most talented youngster. Adverbs, words ending in -ly, are not hyphenated when compounded with other modifiers: a highly rated bank, a partially refunded ticket, publicly held securities [5,52p].

Sometimes hyphenated modifiers lose their hyphens when they become compound nouns: A clear decision-making process was evident in their decision making. The bluish grey was slowly disappearing from the bluish-grey sky. This is not always so, however: your high-rise apartment building is also known as a high-rise.

When modifying a person with his or her age, the compounded phrase is hyphenated: my six-year-old son. However, when the age comes after the person, we don't use a hyphen. My son is six years old. He is, however, a six-year-old.

Plurals and Possessives

Most dictionaries will give variant spellings of compound plurals. When you have more than one truck filled with sand, do you have several trustful? The dictionary will give you both, with the first spelling usually preferred. (And the same is true of teaspoonfuls, cupfuls, etc.) The dictionary will help you discover that only one spelling is acceptable for some compounds -- like passersby.

For hyphenated forms, the pluralizing -s is usually attached to the element that is actually being pluralized: daughters-in-law, half-moons, mayors-elect. The Chicago Manual of Style says that "hyphenated and open compounds are regularly made plural by the addition of the plural inflection to the element that is subject to the change in number" and gives as examples "fathers-in-law," "sergeants-in-arms," "doctors of philosophy," "and courts-martial" (196). The NYPL Writer's Guide puts it this way: "the most significant word -- generally the noun -- takes the plural form. The significant word may be at the beginning, middle, or end of the term" . And then we get examples such as "attorneys at law," "bills of fare," chiefs of staff," notaries public," assistant attorneys general," "higher-ups," "also-rans," and "go-betweens

[4, 68p].

Some dictionaries will list "attorney generals" along with "attorneys general" as acceptable plurals of that office. Whether that's a matter of caving in to popular usage or an inability to determine the "significant word" is unknown.

As a general rule, then, the plural form of an element in a hierarchical term belongs to the base element in the term, regardless of the base element's placement:

first sergeants

sergeants major

sergeants first class

colonel generals [Russian]

lieutenant generals

lieutenant colonels

apprentice, journeyman, and master mechanics

deputy librarians

deputy assistant secretaries of state

The possessive of a hyphenated compound is created by attaching an apostrophe -s to the end of the compound itself: my daughter-in-law's car, a friend of mine's car. To create the possessive of pluralized and compounded forms, a writer is wise to avoid the apostrophe -s form and use an "of" phrase (the "post genitive") instead: the meeting of the daughters-in-law, the schedule of half-moons. Otherwise, the possessive form becomes downright weird: the daughters-in-law's meeting, friends of mine's cars [3,27p].

One of the most difficult decisions to make about possessives and plurals of compound words occurs when you can't decide whether the first noun in a compound structure is acting as a noun that ought to be showing possession or as what is called an attributive noun, essentially an adjective. In other words, do we write that I am going to a writers conference or to a writers' conference? The Chicago Style Manual suggests that if singular nouns can act as attributive nouns -- city government, tax relief -- then plural nouns should be able to act as attributive nouns: consumers group, teachers union. This principle is not universally endorsed, however, and writers must remember to be consistent within a document.

This section does not speak to the matter of compounded nouns such as "Professor Villa's and Professor Darling's classes have been filled." In English, words, particularly adjectives and nouns, are combined into compound structures in a variety of ways. And once they are formed, they sometimes metamorphose over time. A common pattern is that two words -- fire fly, say -- will be joined by a hyphen for a time -- fire-fly -- and then be joined into one word -- firefly. In this respect, a language like German, in which words are happily and immediately linked one to the other, might seem to have an advantage. There is only one sure way to know how to spell compounds in English: use an authoritative dictionary. In linguistics compound is a lexeme (less precisely, a word) that consists of more than one stem. Compounding or composition is the word formation that creates compound lexemes (the other word-formation process being derivation). Compounding or Word-compounding refers to the faculty and device of language to form new words by combining or putting together old words. In other words, compound, compounding or word-compounding occurs when a person attaches two or more words together to make them one word. The meanings of the words interrelate in such a way that a new meaning comes out which is very different from the meanings of the words in isolation.

1.1 Specific features of English compound words

A compound is a word composed of more than one free morpheme. English compounds may be classified in several ways, such as the word classes or the semantic relationship of their components.

1. According to the parts of speech compounds are subdivided into:

a) nouns, such as : baby-moon, globe-trotter, address book, blood donor, letter-box, film star, tea bag, match-box;

b) adjectives, such as : free-for-all, power-happy, old-hand, common sense, natural history, diplomatic corps, gray-green, easy-going, new-born, light-headed;

c) verbs, such as : to honey-moon, to baby-sit, to henpeck, to blackmail, to nickname, to housekeep, to proof-read, to stage-manage, to safeguard, to shipwreck;

d) adverbs, such as: down deep, headfirst, splash down;

e) prepositions, such as: into, within, onto, without;

f) numerals, such as : fifty-five, seventy-eight, thirty-eight, ninety-one, sixty-seven, forty-three, twenty-six, eighty-eight.

2. According to the way components are joined together compounds are divided into:

a) neutral, which are formed by joining together two stems without any joining morpheme, e.g. ball-point, to window-shop, general public, space age, long jump, mother-tongue, alarm clock, bank account, washstand, old hand, briefcase, iron-clad;

b) morphological where components are joined by a linking element : vowels «o» or «i» or the consonant «s», e.g. («astrospace», «handicraft», «sportsman»), craftsman, tradesfolk, Anglo-Saxon, guardsman, saleswoman, spokesman, craftsmanship;

c) syntactical where the components are joined by means of form-word stems, e.g. here-and-now, free-for-all., do-or-die, lily-of-the-valley, bring-and-buy sale, washing-up-liquid, Jack-of-all-trades, good-for-nothing, sit-at-home, pick-me-up, merry-go-round, payment-by-the-result, sit-at-home, hold-a-lot-of-beer, up-to-no-gooders, leg-pulling, sick-in-the-mud, breakfast-in-the-bedder, what-if-nucleus, theatre-in-the-round, lady-in-waiting.

3. According to their structure compounds are subdivided into:

a) compound words proper which consist of two stems, e.g. to job-hunt, train-sick, go-go, tip-top, heartache, film-star, double-cross, shop window, whitewash, stremline, sky-blue, day-dream, fire brigade, solar system, fingerprint, paper-made;

b) derivational compounds, where besides the stems we have affixes, e.g. ear-minded, hydro-skimmer, guided missile, baked beans, runner-up, traveller's cheque, stage-manager, chain-smoker, sky-jacker, tin-opener, horn-rimmed, factory-packed, science-based;

c) compound words consisting of three or more stems, e.g cornflower-blue, eggshell-thin, singer-songwriter, greenhouse effect, one-parent family, golden handshake, labour-government-financed, wastepapper-basket, air-traffic control, fork-lift truck, under-bathroomed, aircraft-launched;

d) compound-shortened words, e.g. VJ-day, motocross, intervision, Eurodollar, Camford, T-shirt, math-mistress, H-bag, X-mas, H-bomb, M.P, G-man, T-shirt, TV-set [4, 69p].

4. According to the relations between the components compound words are subdivided into :

a) subordinative compounds where one of the components is the semantic and the structural centre and the second component is subordinate; these subordinative relations can be different: with comparative relations, e.g. honey-sweet, eggshell-thin, with limiting relations, e.g. breast-high, knee-deep, with emphatic relations, e.g. dog-cheap, with objective relations, e.g. gold-rich, with cause relations, e.g. love-sick, with space relations, e.g. top-heavy, with time relations, e.g. spring-fresh, with subjective relations, e.g. foot-sore etc [22,23p].

b) coordinative compounds where both components are semantically independent. Here belong such compounds when one person (object) has two functions, e.g. secretary-stenographer, woman-doctor, Oxbridge etc. Such compounds are called additive. This group includes also compounds formed by means of reduplication, e.g. fifty-fifty, no-no, pooh-pooh, pretty-pretty, blah-blah and also compounds formed with the help of rhythmic stems (reduplication combined with sound interchange) e.g. criss-cross, walkie-talkie, razzle-dazzle, bibble-babble, chit-chat.

5. According to the order of the components compounds are divided into compounds with direct order, e.g. kill-joy, and compounds with indirect order, e.g. nuclear-free, rope-ripe .

“Stone wall” combination.

The problem whether adjectives can be formed by means of conversion from nouns is the subject of many discussions. In Modern English there are a lot of word combinations of the type , e.g. price rise, wage freeze, steel helmet, sand castle etc.

If the first component of such units is an adjective converted from a noun, combinations of this type are free word-groups typical of English (adjective + noun). This point of view is proved by O. Yespersen by the following facts:

1. «Stone» denotes some quality of the noun «wall».

2. «Stone» stands before the word it modifies, as adjectives in the function of an attribute do in English.

3. «Stone» is used in the Singular though its meaning in most cases is plural, and adjectives in English have no plural form.

4. There are some cases when the first component is used in the Comparative or the Superlative degree, e.g. the bottomest end of the scale.

5. The first component can have an adverb which characterizes it, and adjectives are characterized by adverbs, e.g. a purely family gathering.

6. The first component can be used in the same syntactical function with a proper adjective to characterize the same noun, e.g. lonely bare stone houses.

7. After the first component the pronoun «one» can be used instead of a noun, e.g. I shall not put on a silk dress, I shall put on a cotton one [5, 86p].

However Henry Sweet and some other scientists say that these criteria are not characteristic of the majority of such units.

They consider the first component of such units to be a noun in the function of an attribute because in Modern English almost all parts of speech and even word-groups and sentences can be used in the function of an attribute, e.g. the then president (an adverb), out-of-the-way vilages (a word-group), a devil-may-care speed (a sentence).

There are different semantic relations between the components of «stone wall» combinations. E.I. Chapnik classified them into the following groups:

1. time relations, e.g. evening paper, etc.

2. space relations, e.g. top floor, etc.

3. relations between the object and the material of which it is made, e.g. steel helmet, etc.

4. cause relations, e.g. war orphan, etc.

5. relations between a part and the whole, e.g. a crew member, etc.

6. relations between the object and an action, e.g. arms production, etc.

7. relations between the agent and an action e.g. government threat, price rise,etc.

8. relations between the object and its designation, e.g. reception hall, etc.

9. the first component denotes the head, organizer of the characterized object, e.g. Clinton government, Forsyte family.

10. the first component denotes the field of activity of the second component, e.g. language teacher, psychiatry doctor,

11. comparative relations, e.g. moon face.

12. qualitative relations, e.g. winter apples.

A compound word possesses a single semantic structure. The meaning of the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components, which as a rule; retain their lexical meanings, although their semantic range becomes considerably narrowed. The lexical meanings of the components are closely fused together to create a new semantic unit with a new meaning that is not merely additive but dominates the individual meanings of the components. The semantic centre of the compound is found in the lexical meaning of the second component which is modified and restricted by the lexical meaning of the first, e.g. hand-bag is essentially 'a bag carried in the hand for money, papers, face-powder, etc.'; pencil-case is 'a case for pencils', etc [7,98p].

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'.

1.2 General characteristics of compounding or word-composition

Compounding or word-composition is one of the productive types of word- formation in Modern English. Composition like all other ways of deriving words has its own peculiarities as to the means used, the nature of bases and their distribution, as to the range of application, the scope of semantic classes and the factors conducive to productivity. Compounds, as has been mentioned elsewhere, are made up of two which are both derivational bases. Compound words are inseparable vocabulary units. They are formally and semantically dependent on the constituent bases and the semantic relations between them which mirror the relations between the motivating units. The compound words represent bases of all three structural types. The bases built on stems may be of different degree of complexity as, for example, week-end, office- management, postage-stamp, aircraft-carrier, fancy-dress-maker, etc.

However, this complexity of structure of bases is not typical of the bulk of Modern English compounds [8,92p].

In this connection care should be taken not to confuse compound words with polymorphic words of secondary derivation, i.e. derivatives built according to an affixal pattern but on a compound stem for its base such as, e. g. school-mastership ([n + n] + suf), ex-housewife (prf + [n + n]), to weekend, to spotlight ([n + n] + conversion).

Structurally compound words are characterized by the specific order and arrangement in which bases follow one another. The order in which the two bases are placed within a compound is rigidly fixed in Modern English and it is the second that makes the head-member of the word, i.e. its structural and semantic centre. The head-member is of basic importance as it preconditions both the lexico-grammatical and semantic features of the first component. It is of interest to note that the difference between stems (that serve as bases in compound words) and word-forms they coincide with is most obvious in some compounds, especially in compound adjectives. Adjectives like long, wide, rich are characterized by grammatical forms of degrees of comparison longer, wider, richer. The corresponding stems functioning as bases in compound words lack grammatical independence and forms proper to the words and retain only the part-of-speech meaning; thus compound adjectives with adjectival stems for their second components, e. g. age-long, oil-rich, inch-wide, do not form degrees of comparison as the compound adjective oil-rich does not form them the way the word rich does, but conforms to the general rule of polysyllabic adjectives and has analytical forms of degrees of comparison. The same difference between words and stems is not so noticeable in compound nouns with the noun-stem for the second component.

Phonetically compounds are also marked by a specific structure of their own. No phonemic changes of bases occur in composition but the compound word acquires a new stress pattern, different from the stress in the motivating words, for example words key and hole or hot and house each possess their own stress but when the stems of these words are brought together to make up a new compound word, 'keyhole -- `a hole in a lock into which a key fits', or 'hothouse -- `a heated building for growing delicate plants', the latter is given a different stress pattern -- a unity stress on the first component in our case. Compound words have three stress patterns:

a) a high or unity stress on the first component as in 'honeymoon,

'doorway, etc. b) a double stress, with a primary stress on the first component and a weaker, secondary stress on the second component, e. g. 'blood- vessel, 'mad-doctor, 'washing- machine, etc. c) It is not infrequent, however, for both to have level stress as in, for instance, 'arm-'chair, 'icy-'cold, 'grass-'green, etc.

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 and phonetic peculiarities serve as a sufficient indication of inseparability of compound words in contradistinction to phrases. It is true that hyphenated spelling by itself may be sometimes misleading, as it may be used in word-groups to emphasize their phraseological character as in e. g. daughter-in-law, man-of-war, brother-in-arms or in longer combinations of words to indicate the semantic unity of a string of words used attributively as, e.g., I-know-what-you're-going-to-say expression, we- are-in-the-know jargon, the young-must-be-right attitude. 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 break between the components on the other, especially in nominal compounds of the n+n type. The spelling of these compounds varies from author to author and from dictionary to dictionary [7,83p].

For example, the words war-path, war-time, money-lender are spelt both with a hyphen and solidly; blood-poisoning, money-order, wave-length, war-ship-- with a hyphen and with a break; underfoot, insofar, underhand--solidly and with a break.

It is noteworthy that new compounds of this type tend to solid or hyphenated spelling. This inconsistency of spelling in compounds, often accompanied by a level stress pattern (equally typical of word- groups) makes the problem of distinguishing between compound words (of the n + n type in particular) and word-groups especially difficult.

In this connection it should be stressed that Modern English nouns (in the

Common Case, Sg.) as has been universally recognized possess an attributive function in which they are regularly used to form numerous nominal phrases as, e. g. peace years, stone steps, government office, etc. Such variable nominal phrases are semantically fully derivable from the meanings of the two nouns and are based on the homogeneous attributive semantic relations unlike compound words. This system of nominal phrases exists side by side with the specific and numerous class of nominal compounds which as a rule carry an additional semantic component not found in phrases.

It is also important to stress that these two classes of vocabulary units -- compound words and free phrases -- are not only opposed but also stand in close correlative relations to each other.

Semantically compound words are generally motivated units. The meaning of the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components. The semantic peculiarity of the derivational bases and the semantic difference between the base and the stem on which the latter is built is most obvious in compound words. Compound words with a common second or first component can serve as illustrations. The stem of the word board is polysemantic and its multiple meanings serve as different derivational bases, each with its own selective range for the semantic features of the other component, each forming a separate set of compound words, based on specific derivative relations. Thus the base board meaning `a flat piece of wood square or oblong' makes a set of compounds chess- board, notice-board, key-board, diving-board, foot-board, sign-board; compounds paste-board, cardboard are built on the base meaning `thick, stiff paper'; the base board- meaning `an authorized body of men', forms compounds school-board, board-room. The same can be observed in words built on the polysemantic stem of the word foot. For example, the base foot- in foot-print, foot-pump, foothold, foot-bath, foot-wear has the meaning of `the terminal part of the leg', in foot-note, foot-lights, foot-stone the base foot- has the meaning of `the lower part', and in foot-high, foot- wide, foot-rule -- `measure of length'. It is obvious from the above-given examples that the meanings of the bases of compound words are interdependent and that the choice of each is delimited as in variable word- groups by the nature of the other IC of the word. It thus may well be said that the combination of bases serves as a kind of minimal inner context distinguishing the particular individual lexical meaning of each component [6, 69p].

In this connection we should also remember the significance of the differential meaning found in both components which becomes especially obvious in a set of compounds containing identical bases.

Compound words can be described from different points of view and consequently may be classified according to different principles. They may be viewed from the point of view:

1) general relationship and degree of semantic independence of components;

2) the parts of speech compound words represent;

3) the means of composition used to link the two ICs together;

4) the type of ICs that are brought together to form a compound;

5) the correlative relations with the system of free word-groups.

From the point of view of degree of semantic independence there are two types of relationship between the compound words that are generally recognized in linguistic literature: the relations of coordination and subordination, and accordingly compound words fall into two classes: coordinative compounds (often termed copulative or additive) and subordinative (often termed determinative).

In coordinative compounds are semantically equally important as in fighter-bomber, oak-tree, girl-friend, Anglo-American. The constituent bases belong to the same class and той often to the same semantic group.

Coordinative compounds make up a comparatively small group of words.

Coordinative compounds fall into three groups:

a) Reduplicative compounds which are made up by the repetition of the same base as in goody-goody, fifty-fifty, hush-hush, pooh-pooh. They are all only partially motivated. b) Compounds formed by joining the phonically variated rhythmic twin forms which either alliterate with the same initial consonant but vary the vowels as in chit-chat, zigzag, sing-song, or rhyme by varying the initial consonants as in clap-trap, a walky-talky, helter-skelter [9, 66p].

This subgroup stands very much apart. It is very often referred to pseudo-compounds and considered by some linguists irrelevant to productive word-formation owing to the doubtful morphemic status of their components. The constituent members of compound words of this subgroup are in most cases unique, carry very vague or no lexical meaning of their own, are not found as stems of independently functioning words. They are motivated mainly through the rhythmic doubling of fanciful sound-clusters.

Coordinative compounds of both subgroups (a, b) are mostly restricted to the colloquial layer, are marked by a heavy emotive charge and possess a very small degree of productivity. c) The bases of additive compounds such as a queen-bee, an actor-manager, unlike the compound words of the first two subgroups, are built on stems of the independently functioning words of the same part of speech. These bases often semantically stand in the genus-species relations. They denote a person or an object that is two things at the same time. A secretary-stenographer is thus a person who is both a stenographer and a secretary, a bed-sitting-room (a bed-sitter) is both a bed-room and a sitting-room at the same time. Among additive compounds there is a specific subgroup of compound adjectives one of which is a bound root-morpheme. This group is limited to the names of nationalities such as Sino-Japanese, Anglo-Saxon, Afro-Asian, etc.

Additive compounds of this group are mostly fully motivated but have a very limited degree of productivity.

However it must be stressed that though the distinction between coordinative and subordinative compounds is generally made, it is open to doubt and there is no hard and fast border-line between them. On the contrary, the border-line is rather vague. It often happens that one and the same compound may with equal right be interpreted either way -- as a coordinative or a subordinative compound, e. g. a woman-doctor may be understood as `a woman who is at the same time a doctor' or there can be traced a difference of importance between the components and it may be primarily felt to be `a doctor who happens to be a woman' (also a mother- goose, a clock-tower) [10, 48p].

In subordinative compounds the components are neither structurally nor semantically equal in importance but are based on the domination of the head-member which is, as a rule. The second IC thus is the semantically and grammatically dominant part of the word, which preconditions the part-of-speech meaning of the whole compound as in stone-deaf, age-long which are obviously adjectives, a wrist-watch, road- building, a baby-sitter which are nouns.

Functionally compounds are viewed as words of different parts of speech.

It is the head-member of the compound, i.e. its second that is indicative of the grammatical and lexical category the compound word belongs to.

Compound words are found in all parts of speech, but the bulk of compounds are nouns and adjectives. Each part of speech is characterized by its set of derivational patterns and their semantic variants. Compound adverbs, pronouns and connectives are represented by an insignificant number of words, e. g. somewhere, somebody, inside, upright, otherwise moreover, elsewhere, by means of, etc. No new compounds are coined on this pattern. Compound pronouns and adverbs built on the repeating first and second IC like body, ever, thing make closed sets of words:

...