Word-Composition (Compounding)

The derivational bases may be of different degrees of complexity as, e.g. arm-chair, prizefighter, fancy-dress-maker, forget-me-not, merry-go-round, pay-as-you-earn, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that many linguists devoted their researches to word-composition, still some of the issues concerning this type of word formation are open to debate. One of the difficulties is the problem of distinguishing compound words from word combinations (word-groups, phrases). Comparing such compound words as running water ?water coming from a mains supply ? Rus. ??????????? a dancing-girl ?a professional dancer ? Rus. ??????????? with the word combinations running water ?water that runs ? Rus. ????????? ????? and a dancing girl ?a girl who is dancing ? Rus. ????????? ???????? and many others, it is difficult to determine whether we deal with compound words or word combinations.

The most important property of compound words is their integrity (see section 1 of chapter I) which is understood as impossibility to insert other units of the language (morphemes, words) between the components of a compound word. Integrity might be also considered the basic criterion of distinguishing compound words from word combinations and other language units. Compound words possess both structural and semantic integrity.

Structural integrity of compound words manifests itself in the fixed order of their components. The second IC (Immediate Constituent) is in overwhelming majority of compound words the structural and semantic centre, the onomasiological basis of the word. In compound words like a house-dog and a dog-house and many others, it is the second component that determines the part of speech, i.e. lexico-grammatical properties of the compound, and its referent, or what actually the word denotes, while the first component modifies the meaning of the second one: a house-dog ? a dog trained to guard a house; a dog-house ? a house for a dog.

For some types of compound words the indication of integrity is the reverse order of the components as compared with word combinations. It is the case of the compounds with the second components expressed by adjectives and participles, e.g. oil-rich, man-made. In the synonymous word combinations the word order is: rich in oil, made by man.

There are other criteria employed for distinguishing compound words from word combinations taking into account various aspects of compound words. The phonetic (phonic) criterion rests on the marked tendency in English to give compounds a heavy stress on the first component. It is true that compound words in many cases are given single, or the so-called unity stress; or two stresses ? a primary and a secondary one. Such stress patterns differ from the stress patterns of word combinations where each notional word is stressed. For instance, each of the words road and house is stressed in a word combination, e.g. a `house by the `road but when they make up a compound word a `roadhouse ?a building on a main road? the stress pattern is changed, the word acquires a unity stress on the first component or double stress (the primary and secondary ones) as in the words `blood-vessel, `washing-maֽِchine. The phonic criterion will prove that `laughing `boys ?the boys who are laughing? is a word combination (word group) but `laughing-gas ?gas used in dental surgery? is a compound word. However, not infrequent are the cases with the so-called level stress when each component is equally stressed: `arm-`chair, `snow-`white, `icy-`cold. Hence, the phonic criterion is not quite reliable.

The structural integrity of a compound word differing from structural separateness of a word combination is backed up by the morphological (morphemic)criterion.A sequence of components making up acompound word is a morphemic unity and it has a single paradigm. It means that the grammatical inflections are added to the word as a whole but not to its separate parts, e.g. earthquake ? earthquakes, weekend ? weekends. In a word combination each of the component parts is morphemically independent and may attract the grammatical inflections (?f. age-long and ages ago). This criterion, however, is limited for the English language because of the scarcity of its grammatical morphemic means.

To the syntactic criterion besides the above-mentioned fixed order of the components refers the character ofsyntactic relations. The components of compound words cannot enter into the syntacticrelations of their own. Thus in the word combination (a factory) financed by the government each notional word may be modified by an attribute: a factory generously financed by the British government (the example is borrowed from [?????? 1976: 182]). None of the components of a compound word can be modified by an attribute: *generously government-financed. Modifying a component of a compound word is only possible by introducing one more component into the structure of a compound word: Labour-government-financed. However, syntactic parameters do not unambiguously solve the problem of distinguishing a compound word from a word combination because the collocability of the components of word combinations may be limited.

The semantic criterion presupposes the semantic integrity of a compound word, close semantic links between its components. According to this criterion the following examples refer to compound words: daybreak, blackmail, killjoy and many others. But the semantic criterion seems to be the most unreliable one as it is not always possible to objectively determine to what extent the components are semantically linked together. Besides it is impossible to draw a line between compound words and phraseological units, idioms which are characterized by semantic unity.

As one more criterion of structural integrity of compound words might be named the graphic criterion. The majority of compound words are spelled either solidly or with a hyphen. But there is no consistency in English spelling in this respect. The same words may be spelt either solidly, with a hyphen or with a break. The spelling varies with different texts and even dictionaries (e.g. airline, air-line, air line). There is statistic data concerning the variability of spelling, e.g. complexes with the first components well-, ill- (e.g. ill-advised, ill-affected, well-dressed, well-aimed) in 34 % cases are spelt with a break, in 66% with a hyphen [?????????? 1992: 180]. The vacillations in spelling are most frequent in ?n + n? pattern: war(-)time, money(-)order, post(-)card, etc. E. P?rtridge in his book ?Usage and Abusage? writes that a compound word goes through three stages in its evolution: (1) two separate words (cat bird); (2) a compound word spelt with a hyphen (cat-bird); (3) a solidly spelt word (catbird). Thus, solid spelling of compounds is manifestation of language consciousness, the moment when the lexical unit is perceived as having acquired a semantic unity. Solid or hyphenated spellings are indications of compound words, although cases of a break between components allow of various interpretations.

So far not a single criterion is reliable enough to identify compound words. Moreover, even a combination of criteria is not sufficient enough to unequivocally decide whether the lexical unit is a compound word or a word combination.

The second aspect of the issue of identification of compound words and determining the types of word-formation is the problem of delineation between compounding and other types of word-formation resulting in appearance of compound words. Such words as long-legged, three-cornered, schoolmasterish are complex in their morphological structure but according to the type of word formation they refer to suffixal derivatives. Their derivational patterns are as follows: long-legged ~ (long + leg) +-ed ~ (a + n) + sf , but not long + legged, as there is no such a derivational base as *legged. By analogy: three-cornered ~ (num + n) + sf, schoolmasterish ~ (n + n) + sf. Such words are considered to be compound derivatives. They must be distinguished from the words of the type pen-holder, tongue-twister, which are derived by compounding, i.e. bringing together two derivational bases pen + (hold + -er)~ n + (n + sf), which are compound words.

Besides suffixalcompound derivatives to compound derivatives refer the words formed by conversion: breakthrough n. from to break through, breakdown n. from to break down, based on V > N pattern, to blackmail from blackmail n. (N > V), back formation (see the next section 5): to baby-sit from baby-sitter, to fact-find from fact-finding ?inquiring into facts?.