2. Compound words

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.

The integrity of a compound is manifested 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.

In describing the structure of a compound we can examine three types of relations;a) the relations of the members to each other b) the relation of the whole to its members c) and correlation with equivalent free phrases.

1)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: sunbeams, brothers-in-law, passers-by.

If in a compound the two constituent elements are clearly the de­terminant and the determinatum, such compounds are called endocentric.

If the determinatum is not expressed but implied, they are called exocentric: A killjoy- “a person who throws gloom over social enjoyment”. The essential part of the determinatum is obviously missing, it is implied and under­stood but not formally expressed.

2)The semantic integrity of a compound means that the meaning of the whole is not a mere sum of its elements. A compound is often very different in meaning from a corresponding syntactic group. Thus, a blackboard is very different from a black board. Many authors treat semantic connections within compounds in terms of syntactic relations. Marchand distinguishes such relations as 1) objective: house-keeping, book­keeping, sightseeing,2) subjective: earthquaking,3) predicative: cock-croaaing, sunburning. I.V. Arnold thinks that we should speak about 4)adverbial relations, purpose or functional relations, e.g. bath­robe, raincoat, classroom 5) different local relations, e.g. dockland, garden-party 6) comparison: blockhead, butter-fingers 7) the material e.g. silverware, tin-hat, waxwork 8) temporal relations e.g. night-club, summer-house 9) sex-denoting compounds, e.g. she-dog, he-goat, Jack-ass.

Compounds that conform to grammatical patterns current in present-day English are termed syntactic compounds, e.g. seashore; those that do not - asyntactic, e.g. baby-sit­ting.

There are two important peculiarities distinguishing compounding in English from compounding in other languages. 1)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. Sometimes there are bound forms like Anglo-Saxon, Indo-European, but they are rare.

2)the regular pattern for the English language is a two-stem compound. 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.

The criteria of compounding

As English compounds consist of free forms, it is difficult to distinguish them from phrases. Scholars often disagree upon the question of relevant criteria.

The problem is connected with the problem of defining word boundaries in the language. E. Nida wrote that "the criteria for determining the word-units in a language are of three types: (1) phonological, (2) morphological, (3) syntactic. None of the criteria is normally sufficient. Other scholars add here the graphic criterion of solid or hyphenated spelling.

The 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, e.g. L. Bloomfield suggested that `ice-cream is a compound but `ice `cream is a phrase. In all these cases the determinant has a heavy stress, the determinatum has the middle stress. Some scholars oppose this idea because the rule is not true for adjectives. Compound adjectives are double stressed like 'gray-'green, 'easy-'going, 'new- 'born.

H. Paul and 0. Jespersen support the semantic criterion, and define a compound word 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: dirty work - 'dishonorable proceedings'- a compound; clean work is a phrase. But in reality it is practically impossible to distinguish compound words and phraseological units.

Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky spoke about the size of the unit problem and introduced the criterion of formal integrity, which is a morphological criterion. 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 examples that a word is characterized by structural integrity non­existent in a phrase. N. G. Guterman proves it by comparing the plural forms of the compound sweetheart 'a lover' and the phrase sweet heart (tender heart), i.e. sweethearts and sweet hearts, respectively.

Some authors consider the syntactical criterion based on comparing the com­pound and the phrase comprising the same morphemes more substantial. 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: the first element of black market or black list cannot be modified by very either.

With the problem of compound words the so-called “stone wall problem”is connected. The question here is if it a word or word combination. A.I.Smirnitsky studied the question in detail. There is no absolute solution. But he comes to the conclusion that the first element serves as as adjective, formed from a noun stem by conversion, though it is not a proper adjective. To prove it he offers a transformational procedure. 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. Such word-group as stone wall is called by some scholars, e.g. E.M.Dubenets nominative binomials.