Allomorphs

The term allomorph originated from two Greek elements: allo (“other”) + morph (“form”). Allomorphs are variations of one and the same morpheme, which do not differ in meaning or function, but show a slight difference in either spelling, or sometimes pronunciation, depending on the final phoneme of the preceding stems. Such are the forms “ion”, “sion”, “tion”, “ation”, “ssion”, which are not different suffixes, but a single suffix, manifesting itself in a number of allomorphs. Allomorphs are also defined as positional variants of the same morpheme, occuring in a specific environment. E.g. the stems ending in consonants typically take the “ation” suffix (liberation), the stems ending in p typically only take “tion” (corruption, where the final t becomes fused with the suffix).

Compound words in modern English

A compound word is a unit consisting of at leat two stems, both of them occuring in speech as free forms. In a sentence any compound word functions as a separate lexical unit. There’s a definite set of the formal features by which English compounds can be distinguished and separated from other lexical units:

1) solid or hyphenated spelling;

2) unity of stress, always falling on the first element or syllable (a `green `house – a `greenhouse);

3) semantic unity;

4) the unity of morphological and syntactical functioning of a compound word.

Among the most importan features of compounds is their indivisibility, which can be treated as the impossibility to make any insertions between the two components. Thus if we wish to characterize the word sunbeam we can only say a bright sunbeam and never put bright after sun. The components of a compound word are usually named a determinant, which occupies the left or the initial position, and a determinator, occupying the final position. This opposition is due to the synactical nature of compounds, because in the English sentence determinants usually precede the determined element.

The subdivision of compounds in determinants and determinators was first introduced by English scholar Henry Marchant, who said that the determinator is the basic stem in both grammatical and semantic respects. This is the element taking all possible inflections, e.g. sunbeams.

From the viewpoint of their semantic nature, all compounds can be subdivided into non-idiomatic compounds (also named transparent units) and idiomatic ones. The meanings of the transparent compounds can be easily understood through the meanings of their components, thus a seaman is a man who works at sea, a spaceship is a metaphorical naming of a vehicle travelling through outer space. One can we even create such words with accordance with a pattern without including them in the dictionary and introducing into the living vocabulary.

The meaning of idiomatic compounds may be misleading for those who don’t know the language. E.g. a blackboard may not be black. A wheelchair is a chair for invalids which has wheels, but a pushchair is a special chair for the infants who cannot walk yet, and the trick here is that not every chair which has wheels is for invalids.

The relations between the two elements also prove to be different. This fact may be easily proved by the example of several compounds all based upon one and the same determinant ear: earache (an ache in the ear), earmark (a mark on an animal’s ear), earlobe (a lower part of the ear), eardrops (drops for ears), earring (a ring for the ear). The English language knows quite a large number of tautological compounds, which consists of the elements whose semantic structures partially overlap, e.g. a troutfish, an egineerman, a tumblerglass. An important fact that even in these latter cases the first element specifies the meaning of the second one.

Another approach to studying the semantic structure of compounds is the relation between the compound word on the one hand and the phrases consisting of their elements on the other. E.g. we may draw comparison between an ashtray and a tray for ashes or a hairbrush, a brush for hair, a paperknife and a knife for paper. These relations make scholars think of the existence of definite grammatical patterns of compound words which may be quite unexpectedly violated and broken, thus a bookseller is a person who sells books, a bookbinder is he who binds books, but a bookmaker is not the one who makes books, but who makes his living by taking bets at horse races. These days it also a business term.

The criteria of compounds separating them from the other words of the language are another important problem in modern linguistics. In fact, it is not a question of private interest concerned with the spelling standards of the language, but the problem of the word as a linguistic unit in general.

How can a compound word like a broadsword be distinguished from two separate words a broad sword in fluent speech? Different linguists proposed different approaches to this question which were phonological, morphological, syntactical and graphical criteria. The least scientific of these all is, of course, the last one, because it is natural that those two stems which are written down together or through a hyphen should form one word. The objections to the graphical criterion may be:

1. Written speech is always secondary as compared to oral and it only attempts to reflect the oral presentation.

2. In quite a number of cases that is in different dinctionaries we often come across various types of spelling, e.g. a headmaster and a head-master, a loudspeaker and a loud speaker. As compared to Russian authography, English spelling is very poorly standardized.

The phonological criterion. It is true that all English compounds are stressed on the first syllable. However, this rule loses its validity with the compound adjectives which have two equal stresses, e.g. grey-green, newborn, easy-going, deep-purple, etc. Besides the forestress may occur with those combinations of words in which the second element is repeated in a single utterance, e.g. it was a dining table, not a writing table is pronounced as if there are two compound words. Here the neglection of the word table shows the contrast between the two determining elements – dining and writing.

The morphological criterion shows by a number of examples like sometimes the plural forms of such compounds are built in quite non-standard ways. From the course of practical grammar it is known that the plural form of life is lives, but the plural form of the compound still-life is still-lifes. Some connective elements are quite unique in compounds, e.g. Anglo-Saxon, socio-psychological, handiwork, craftsman, etc. However, such examples are quite few in modern English.

The syntactical criterion is traced in the fact that a free combination a black bird may only be used with the element very before it, while with the compound blackbird this can not be done at all. However, in absolutely the same way we cannot modify the first element of such idioms as black market, black list, etc.

The summary is that not a single type of criteria is normally required to establish whether the unit is a compound word or a free phrase. For this purpose all units should first be treated individually and second not less than two of the above said criteria should be applied.

Still another problem is that of distinguishing a compound word from a derivative one. Some historical or etymological roots are so frequently used in compounds that they begin to resemble affixes and turn into semi-affixes, although they are used independently in the language. Such elements are: -man, -berry, -land, etc. Within words such elements begin to lose their semantic and formal characteristics. They lose stress and are frequently pronounced as reduced variants. Such words also undergo the process digendering. We can call a man and a woman policeman, but in the modern USA there’s a very strong tendency to separate them, e.g. a businessman and a businesswoman and even a businesslady. One of such semi-affixes is -like: godlike, ladylike, unladylike. Semi-affixes may not only occur in postposition, but in preposition as well, e.g. minibus, miniskirt, etc.

There are two more problems of defining compounds in English. Should we consider combinations like a stone wall, a rose garden to be compounds, like a railway, etc.? Besides, should phrasal verbs be treated as compounds or not? Besides, English compounds as compared to the similar words of other languages have two specific features:

1. their elements can almost always function in speech as free forms (compare to Russian руководство, where the second element of the word never functions separately);

2. English compound words are typically two-stem structures with a very small number of exceptions, like mother-in-law, man-o’-war, forget-me-not. The tendency of the 20^th century is to construct larger compound structures from out of sentences, like mister-know-it-all, mister-what’s-your-name, “she gave me a very severe get-out-of-this-room-as-soon-as-possible-look”. we’ve done last-minute changes before .