Of the republic of uzbekistan gulistan state university

CHAPTER II. MAIN FEATURES OF PHRASEOLOGY
2.1. Main Criteria about Compounds
This study aims to identify the main cross-linguistic criteria for compoundhood discussed in the relevant literature, with a special focus on English, ranking them from the most reliable to the least. These criteria-orthographic, phonological, syntactic and semantic in nature-have been proposed to make a distinction between compounds and phrases. The analysis reveals that the most reliable cross-linguistic criteria to distinguish between phrases and compounds are adjacency and referentiality. With regard to the former criterion, no intervening elements can be inserted between the head and the non-head of compounds, whilst such insertion is allowed in phrases. With regard to the latter criterion, the non-head of a phrase is always referential, whereas the non-head of a compound is normally non-referential. Other criteria have been found to be partially applicable, e.g. free pluralisation of the non-head, compositionality, stress, possibilities for modification and coordination, ellipsis, orthography and the replacement of the second element by a pro-form.⁵ The study also proposes a definition for compounds that may be the most widely applicable. Finally, the study concludes with ranking the main criteria for compoundhood discussed in the study.There has been much discussion of what exactly a compound is and whether com-pounds can be distinguished from other word-formation processes such as deriva-tion, on the one hand, and other syntactic constructs such as phrases, on the other. To answer the latter question, several criteria have been proposed some of which deserve serious consideration, while others are less plausible. Hence, this study presents the criteria that have been proposed so far to draw borderlines between compounds, on the one hand, and phrases and derivation, on the other. In doing so, it aims to reveal the main universal criteria that can identify compounds and propose a hierarchical structure of these criteria.
In addition, it suggests a new definition of compounding that is meant to be appli-cable cross-linguistically. The significance of this study stems from the fact that compounds are considered a relatively cross-linguistic word-formation process found in many languages, and how determining their definition contributes to our understanding of how languages work. In fact,note that 50 languages have compounds. Languages which they cite as lacking compound). Nonetheless, compounding is still a very productive word-formation process and examples of compounds from typologically different languages show the prominence of this process.Thus, proposing a cross-linguistic definition for compounds could be regarded as an area still worthy of further investigation. The study proceeds as follows: section 2 discusses the main general criteria that have been suggested in the literature to distinguish compounds from phrases. Section 3 discusses the boundary between compounding and derivation. Finally, section 4 summarises the main points and provides a definition of compounding that may be used cross-linguistically. The mani criteria for compoundhood posits that a “[c]ompound is a lexical unit made up of two or more elements, each of which can function as a lexeme, independent of the other(s) in other contexts, and which shows some phonological and/or grammatical isolation from normal syntactic usage.” Finally, Plag proposes that “a compound is a word that consists of two elements, the first of which is either a root, a word or a phrase, the second of which is either a root or a word.” Of the definitions dis-cussed above, Plag provides the most concise, yet detailed, definition of a com-pound. Thus, his definition is my departure point to provide my definition that could be applicable cross-linguistically. 2. 2. Compounds and phrases Several linguists have attempted to differentiate between compounds and phrases in various languages. defines a phrase as “a syntactic constituent whose head is a lexical category, i.e. a noun, adjective, verb, adverb or preposition”. A phrase may consist of one word, two words or more. Similarly, a compound consists of two words or more. This means that the number of words in a construct is not an indicator of whether this construct is a compound or phrase. Additionally, Bauer shows that compounding is similar to phrase formation, due to the fact that compounds are sequences of lexemes, unlike idi-oms, which are formed through rules of syntax. It is frequently the case that the meaning of a noun plus noun compound is indistinguishable from the meaning of an adjective plus noun. For example: (1) atom bomb atomic bomb (2) verb paradigm verbal paradigm (3) language development linguistic development These two constructions are equivalent alternatives despite the fact that
N + N compounds are seen as products of morphology, while Adj + N compounds are products of syntax.) explain that Adj + N compounds have an equivalent function to N + N compounds.
N + N Adj + N (4) city parks urban parks (5) ocean/sea life marine life The adjectives in (1-3) are derived from the nouns used in the competing construc-tion, e.g. verbal from verb and linguistic from language. This is arguably also the case in (4) and (5), since urban is the only available relational adjective for express-ing “related to cities” and marine is the only available adjective that expresses the meaning “related to seas”. A sequence of N + N in English can also be equivalent to possessive plus noun. The latter is usually seen as an example of syntax, whereas the former is viewed as a complex.
y. Relevant examples include the following
Compounds Phrases
(6) dog house dog’s house
(7) lawyer fees lawyer’s fees
(8) Sunday lunch Sunday’s lunch
Due to this overlap between the two constructs, several linguists , ) propose criteria to distinguish between compounds and phrases cross-linguistically. However, the boundaries between compounds and phrases are not completely clear. Therefore, I compile these criteria to form a comprehensive list of eleven tests for compoundhood. In the next section, these criteria are applied to N + N combinations with special focus on English to decide whether such combinations are compounds or phrases. In doing so, this study seeks to answers to the following research questions.the other hand, Lieber ) points out that compounding in many languages is highly productive and new compounds are very often compositional in meaning, especially when the context is taken into account. In other words, it is easy to dismiss this criterion for compoundhood at least in languages like English; the more productive the process of compounding in a language, the less chance that individual compounds will be lexicalized or listed. Examples of compositional compounds are houseboat, committee meeting and bookshop, whilst egghead, redskin and blue-stocking are non-compositional. The same applies to phrases since white lie, and old hand are non-compositional, whereas beautiful house, long journey and tall man are compositional. Therefore, composition-ality is not a reliable criterion to distinguish compounds from phrases in English. In other languages, things may of course be different. shows that compositionality in Hebrew is a reliable criterion to distinguish between compounds, on the one hand and various phrase types, on the other. However, being reliable in one language and unreliable in another, surely, does not make a certain criterion valid cross-linguistically. Hence, more criteria need to be identified to make a valid cross-linguistic distinction between compounds and phrases. Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh: What is a compound? The main criteria for compoundhood 4. Compounding and derivation It has been suggested that compounding and derivation may not be clearly distinct in some languages, including English. suggests that com-pounds are prototypically constructed by free morphemes, and derivations by bound morphemes. One type of compound, namely, neoclassical compounds such as biology, biography and anthropology may be problematic under distinction, since it has been argued that neoclassical compounds are not com-posed of free morphemes. In addition, both combining forms and affixes can be added to lexemes, such as the combining form -ology in music-ology vs. the deriva-tional suffix -al in music-al. A combining form can be defined as a “bound mor-pheme, more root-like than affix-like, usually of Greek or Latin origin, that occurs only in compounds, usually with other combining forms. Examples are poly- and -gamy in poly. argues that neoclassical compounds occur when one of the elements is a root borrowed from Greek or Latin, which does not correspond to a lexeme. Booij (ibid) distinguishes three different cases: bio-logy, psycho-logy, socio-logy, geo-graphy, tomo-graphy (two combining forms) tele-camera, tele-phone, tele-vision, tele-gram, tele-kinesis (the final element is a lexeme) magneto-hydro-dynamic, magnet-metry, bureau-crat (the first element is a lexeme) Thus, the borderline between compounding and derivation is blurred at least in English. Bauer argues that neoclassical compounds cannot be differentiat-ed from prefixation. For example, in the word geo-morphology, the bound mor-pheme geo can be analysed either as a prefix attached to the lexeme morphology, or as a combining form attached to the lexeme morphology like the combining form tele in tele-vision. 1 Furthermore, it is difficult to differentiate neoclassical compounding from blending and clipping, as in Eurocrat and gastrodrama. Neoclassical roots some-times combine with affixes, such as gynocidal. Bauer argues that if produc-tivity is measured based on coining new forms unconsciously, we might hesitate to call neoclassical compounds productive. Nonetheless, some new neoclassical com-pounds have been formed in English (Bauer, ibid). As a result, Booij ʼsuggests that the term ‘semi-affixes’ or ‘affixoids’ to refer to the constituents of neoclassical compounding, which are intermediate between affixes and lexemes. The terms ‘semi-affixes’ and ‘affixoids’ seem similar to the term ‘combining forms’, which is found in Carstairs-McCarthy 1 Geo-morphology is the study of the evolution, features and configuration.
hey have a pleasantly happyi ending (well, ti ish).
Is everyone excitedi? I am- ti ish
Can you swim well?
Table 1. Possible internal elements of compounds in English
Compounds :windmill, egghead, truck driver, blackbird two words biology, sociology two combining forms television, telephone, geo-politics combining form plus word bureau-crat, magnet-metry word plus combining form [water and wind] mill, [tea and coffee] cups, [pipe and slipper] husband, [floor of a bird-cage] taste, [slept all day] look, [pleasant to read] book, [connect the dots] puzzle. the first element is a phrase, the final element is a word [jack-[in-the-box]], [mother [in law]], [bikini girls [in trouble]], [good-[for-nothing]] the first element is a word, the final element is a phrase Taking the examples in Table 1 into consideration, the following definition of a compound, at least in English, can be suggested: a compound is a complex word that consists of at least two adjacent elements, in which each of these elements is either a word, combining form or a phrase, so that the whole compound is a com-bination of these elements. And finally, although there are a few cases where referentiality as a criteri-on, fails to distinguish between compounds and phrases, e.g. when the non-head is a proper noun or has unique reference, it can be considered a significant criterion when we are identifying compounding cross-linguistically. Therefore, I would propose the following general definition that could be used to identify compounds cross-linguistically, incorporating the idea of non-referentiality: A compound is a complex word that consists of at least two adjacent eis a complex word that consists of at least two adjacent ele-ments, where the non-head is normally non-referential. Each of these ele-ments is either a word, combining form or a phrase, so that the whole com-pound is a combination of these elements. The typology in ranks the main criteria for compounds.