Ирина Эланс

Автор который поможет с любыми образовательными и учебными заданиями

Compound words

Table of Content

Introduction	3
Chapter I Compound Words Definition and introductory remarks The criteria of compounds	5 5 8
Chapter II Specific features and classification of English compounds 2.1 Specific features of English compounds 2.2 Classification of English compounds 2.3 Means of Composition 2.4 Types of Bases	15 15 17 18 20
Conclusion	24
List of literature	27

Introduction

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.

Compound words may 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) of general relationship and degree of semantic independence of components; 2) of the parts of speech compound words represent; 3) of the means of composition used to link the two ICs together; 4) of the type of ICs that are brought together to form a compound; 5) of the correlative relations with the system of free word-groups.

Each type of compound words based on the above-mentioned principles should also be described from the point of view of the degree of its potential power, i.e. its productivity, its relevancy to the system of Modern English compounds. This description must aim at finding and setting a system of ordered structural and semantic rules for productive types of compound words on analogy with which an infinite number of new compounds constantly appear in the language.

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.

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.

Chapter I COMPOUND WORDS

1.1 DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

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.

Some compounds are made up of a determining and a determined part, which may be called the determinant and the determinatum. 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.

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’.

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

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’.

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.

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").

1.2 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."

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.

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.

H. Paul, O. Jespersen, E. Kruisinga 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. 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 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.

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.

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.

Chapter II SPECIFIC FEATURES AND CLASSIFICATION OF ENGLISH COMPOUNDS

2.1 SPECIFIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH COMPOUNDS

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.

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.

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).

2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF COMPOUNDS

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 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:

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.
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.
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;

compounds where at least one of the constituents is a derived stem: chain-smoker;
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;
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.

2.3 MEANS OF COMPOSITION

From the point of view of the means by which the components are joined together compound words may be classified into:

1) Words formed by merely placing one constituent after another in a definite order which thus is indicative of both the semantic value and the morphological unity of the compound, e.g. rain-driven, house-dog, pot-pie (cf. dog-house, pie-pot). This means of linking the components is typical of the majority of Modern English compounds in all parts of speech.

As to the order of components, subordinative compounds are often classified as: a) asуntасtiс compound in which the order of bases runs counter to the order in which the motivating words can be brought together under the rules of syntax of the language. For example, in variable phrases adjectives cannot be modified by preceding adjectives and noun modifiers are not placed before participles or adjectives, yet this kind of asyntactic arrangement is typical of compounds, e.g. red-hot, bluish-black, pale-blue, rain-driven, oil-rich. The asyntactic order is typical of the majority of Modern English compound words; b) syntactic compounds whose components are placed in the order that resembles the order of words” in free phrases arranged according to the rules of syntax of Modern English. The order of the components in compounds like blue-bell, mad-doctor, blacklist (a+n) reminds one of the order and arrangement of the corresponding words in phrases a blue bell, a mad doctor, a black list (A+N), the order of compounds of the type door-handle, day-time, spring-lock (n+n) resembles the order of words in nominal phrases with attributive function of the first noun (N+N), e.g. spring time, stone steps, peace movement.

2) Compound words whose ICs are joined together with a special linking-element — the linking vowels [ou] and occasionally [i] and the linking consonant [s/z] — which is indicative of composition as in, e.g., speedometer, tragicomic, statesman. Compounds of this type can be both nouns and adjectives, subordinative and additive but are rather few in number since they are considerably restricted by the nature of their components. The additive compound adjectives linked with the help of the vowel [ou] are limited to the names of nationalities and represent a specific group with a bound root for the first component, e.g. Sino-Japanese, Afro-Asian, Anglo-Saxon.

In subordinative adjectives and nouns the productive linking element is also [ou] and compound words of the type are most productive for scientific terms. The main peculiarity of compounds of the type is that their constituents are nonassimilated bound roots borrowed mainly from classical languages, e.g. electro-dynamic, filmography, technophobia, videophone, sociolinguistics, videodisc.

A small group of compound nouns may also be joined with the help of linking consonant [s/z], as in sportsman, landsman, saleswoman, bridesmaid. This small group of words is restricted by the second component which is, as a rule, one of the three bases man-, woman-, people-. The commonest of them is man.

2.4 TYPES OF BASES

Compounds may be also classified according to the nature of the bases and the interconnection with other ways of word-formation into the so-called compounds proper and’ derivational compounds.

Compounds proper are formed by joining together bases built on the stems or on the word-forms of independently functioning words with or without the help of special linking element such as doorstep, age-long, baby-sitter, looking-glass, street-fighting, handiwork, sportsman. Compounds proper constitute the bulk of English compounds in all parts of speech, they include both subordinative and coordinative classes, productive and non-productive patterns.

Derivational compounds, e.g. long-legged, three-cornered, a break-down, a pickpocket differ from compounds proper in the nature of bases and their second IC. The two ICs of the compound long-legged — ‘having long legs' — are the suffix -ed meaning ‘having' and the base built on a free word-group long legs whose member words lose their grammatical independence, and are reduced to a single component of the word, a derivational base. Any other segmentation of such words, say into long- and legged- is impossible because firstly, adjectives like *legged do not exist in Modern English and secondly, because it would contradict the lexical meaning of these words. The derivational adjectival suffix -ed converts this newly formed base into a word. It can be graphically represented as long legs —> [(long-leg) + -ed] -> long-legged. The suffix -ed becomes the grammatically and semantically dominant component of the word, its head-member. It imparts its part-of-speech meaning and its lexical meaning thus making an adjective that may be semantically interpreted as ‘with (or having) what is denoted by the motivating word-group’. Comparison of the pattern of compounds proper like baby-sitter, pen-holder [n+(v + -er)] with the pattern of derivational compounds like long-legged [(a+n) + -ed] reveals the difference: derivational compounds are formed by a derivational means, a suffix in case of words of the long-legged type, which is applied to a base that each time is formed anew on a free word-group and is not recurrent in any other type of words. It follows that strictly speaking words of this type should be treated as pseudo-compounds or as a special group of derivatives. They are habitually referred to derivational compounds because of the peculiarity of their derivational bases which are felt as built by composition, i.e. by bringing together the stems of the member-words of a phrase which lose their independence in the process. The word itself, e.g. long-legged, is built by the application of the suffix, i.e. by derivation and thus may be described as a suffixal derivative.

Derivational compounds or pseudo-compounds are all subordinative and fall into two groups according to the type of variable phrases that serve as their bases and the derivational means used:

derivational compound adjectives formed with the help of the highly-productive adjectival suffix -ed applied to bases built on attributive phrases of the A+N, Num + N, N+N type, e.g. long legs, three corners, doll face. Accordingly the derivational adjectives under discussion are built after the patterns [(a+n) + -ed], e.g. long- legged, flat-chested, broad-minded; [(num + n) + -ed], e.g. two-sided, three-cornered; [(n + n) + -ed], e.g. doll-faced, heart-shaped.
derivational compound nouns formed mainly by conversion applied to bases built on three types of variable phrases — verb-adverb phrase, verbal-nominal and attributive phrases.

The commonest type of phrases that serves as derivational bases for this group of derivational compounds is the V + Adv type of word-groups as in, e.g., a breakdown, a break-through, a cast-away, a lay-out. Semantically derivational compound nouns form lexical groups typical of conversion, such as an act or instance of the action, e.g. a holdup — ‘a delay in traffic’ from to hold up — ‘delay, stop by use of force’; a result of the action, e.g. a breakdown — ‘a failure in machinery that causes work to stop’ from to break down — ‘become disabled’; an active agent or recipient of the action, e.g. cast-offs — ‘clothes that the owner will not wear again’ from to cast off — ‘throw away as unwanted’; a show-off — ‘a person who shows off from to show off — ‘make a display of one’s abilities in order to impress people’. Derivational compounds of this group are spelt generally solidly or with a hyphen and often retain a level stress. Semantically they are motivated by transparent derivative relations with the motivating base built on the so-called phrasal verb and are typical of the colloquial layer of vocabulary. This type of derivational compound nouns is highly productive due to the productivity of conversion.

The semantic subgroup of derivational compound nouns denoting agents calls for special mention. There is a group of such substantives built on an attributive and verbal-nominal type of phrases. These nouns are semantically only partially motivated and are marked by a heavy emotive charge or lack of motivation and often belong to terms as, e.g., a kill-joy, a wet-blanket — ‘one who kills enjoyment’; a turnkey — ‘keeper of the keys in prison’; a sweet-tooth — ‘a person who likes sweet food’; a red-breast — ‘a bird called the robbin’. The analysis of these nouns easily proves that they can only be understood as the result of conversion for their second ICs cannot be understood as their structural or semantic centres, these compounds belong to a grammatical and lexical groups different from those their components do. These compounds are all animate nouns whereas their second ICs belong to inanimate objects. The meaning of the active agent is not found in either of the components but is imparted as a result of conversion applied to the word-group which is thus turned into a derivational base.

These compound nouns are often referred to in linguistic literature as “bahuvrihi” compounds or exocentric compounds, i.e. words whose semantic head is outside the combination. It seems more correct to refer them to the same group of derivational or pseudo-compounds as the above cited groups.

This small group of derivational nouns is of a restricted productivity, its heavy constraint lies in its idiomaticity and hence its stylistic and emotive colouring.

Conclusion

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 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).

The classification according to the type of composition permits us to establish the following groups:

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.
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.
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).
The classification of compounds according to the structure of immediate constituents distinguishes:

1) compounds consisting of simple stems: film-star;

compounds where at least one of the constituents is a derived stem: chain-smoker;
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;
compounds where at least one of the constituents is a compound stem: wastepaper-basket.

From the point of view of the means by which the components are joined together compound words may be classified into:

Compounds may be also classified according to the nature of the bases and the interconnection with other ways of word-formation into the so-called compounds proper and’ derivational compounds.

List of Literature

Robins, R. H. A short history of linguistics. London: Longmans, 1967. p. 183.
Henry Sweet, History of Language. Folcroft Library Editions, 1876. p.471.
Zellig S. Harris, Structural Linguistics. University of Chicago Press, 1951. P. 255.
Leonard Bloomfield, Language. New York, 1933
Noam Avram Chomsky, Syntactic Structures. Berlin, 1957.
K. Zimmer, Levels of Linguistic Description. Chicago, 1964. P. 18.
Kucera, H. & Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-day American English. University Press of New England, 1967.
Ginzburg R. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. Moscow, 1979.
Marchand H. Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Munich, 1974.
Арнольд И.В., Лексикология современного английского языка. Москва «Высшая школа», 1986
Мешков О.Д. Словообразование современного английского языка. М. 1976
Potter S. Modern Linguistics. Lnd., 1957