Cover not available
Article published In:
From Culture to Language and Back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Sandrine Sorlin
[International Journal of Language and Culture 5:2] 2018
► pp. 163–183

Denominations of humans

The case of compounds in English

| Sorbonne Université
| Sorbonne Université
In English, the lexicon is one of the many areas affected by the asymmetry in the treatment of humans and inanimates. The study focuses on compounds. We compare compounds denoting human animates to those denoting inanimates. We find that there are proportionately few compounds for humans, and that this small proportion reveals a tendency for human animate nouns to be more opaque than nouns for inanimates. We propose that this is due to the way we conceptualize humans, i.e. as more than the sum of their parts. Humans resist transparent denominations because reducing a person to one characteristic amounts to ignoring his or her essential complexity. We take this to be a manifestation of anthropocentrism in language. Moreover, when human animate nouns are compounds (in spite of their tendency to be opaque), they exhibit two semantic characteristics that are not shared by inanimate nouns. The first one is that they tend to be derogatory. This again indicates that humans cannot easily be reduced to one characteristic. If they are, denominations tend to be negatively loaded. The second one is that they often involve the representation of a personal relationship (for example, a paper boy delivers newspapers, i.e. comes to someone’s place). Transparency is therefore meaningful.
Keywords: human nouns, compounds, opacity, transparency, anthropocentrism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Scope of the study
    • 1.2Aim of the study
    • 1.3Research gap
    • 1.4Corpus and method
  • 2.Relatively few compounds for human animates
    • 2.1Quantitative results
    • 2.2Interpretation of the results: The special status of humans in language
      • 2.2.1Animacy
      • 2.2.2The human vs. non-human opposition
      • 2.2.3Humans at the top of a scale
      • 2.2.4The (extended) animacy hierarchy
      • 2.2.5Relevance of the animacy hierarchy in this study
      • 2.2.6Humans and the opacity requirement
  • 3.The derogatory meaning of compounds which denote humans
    • 3.1The process in which a person participates is negatively valued
    • 3.2Negative connotations of the component words
    • 3.3Nouns of animals
    • 3.4Nouns of inanimates to designate humans
  • 4.Interpersonal relationships
    • 4.1Interpersonal relationships and transparency
    • 4.2People who are at someone’s service
    • 4.3People who come to your place
    • 4.4Entering the private sphere
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00005.mig
References (44)
References
Aikhenvald, A. (2003). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a). Les composés exocentriques de l’anglais. In D. Amiot (Ed.), La composition dans une perspective typologique (pp. 35–47). Arras: Artois Presse Université.Google Scholar
(2008b). Dvandva. Word Structure, 11, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). A typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 343–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Lexical word formation. In R. Huddleston & J. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 1621–1722). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. (2005). Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In W. U. Dressler et al. (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcation: Selected papers from the 11th morphology meeting, Vienna, February 2004 (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Compounding and construction morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 201–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (1994). Past, space and self. Cambridge, Massachussetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chauvier, S. (2003). Qu’est-ce qu’une personne?. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). (2nd ed.). Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, C. (Ed.). (1986). Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D. (2006). Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique (21 volumes). Paris: Hermes Science Publications, Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). (1st ed. 1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 531, 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (2006). Compound types. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 23–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. (2006). Le genre en anglais moderne (XVIème siècle à nos jours), PhD dissertation. Paris-Sorbonne University.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1960). An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds. Word, 161, 356–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (2000) [1748]. An inquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Katamba, F. (1994). English words. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 141, 251–286.Google Scholar
(2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malmberg, B. (1977). Signes et symboles. Les bases du langage humain. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Mignot, E. (2008). L’adjectif strange et le nom stranger : quelques réflexions sur les noms en –er, In G. Girard-Gillet (Ed.), Etrange / Etranger, Etudes de linguistique anglaise, CIEREC, Travaux 137. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 161–175.Google Scholar
(2012a). The Conceptualization of Natural Gender in English, Anglophonia 321, Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 39–61.Google Scholar
(2012b). Noms d’animés humains et opacité : le cas des conversions verbe - nom en anglais. In P. Frath, V. Bourdier, K. Bréhaux, E. Hilgert and J. Dunphy-Blomfield (Eds.), Res Per Nomen 3 - Référence, conscience et sujet énonciateur, Reims, Épure - Éditions et Presses Universitaires de Reims, 297–312.Google Scholar
(2015). Pragmatic and stylistic uses of personal pronoun one , In L. Gardelle and S. Sorlin (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns (pp. 275–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neveux, J. (2013). John Donne. Le sentiment dans la langue. Paris: Editions Rue d’Ulm / Presses de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Opfer, J. E., & Gelman, S. A. (2011). (2nd ed.). Development of the animate inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 213–238). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, S., & Vogel, I. (Eds.). (2010). Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. C. (1974). The plurality split. In M. W. La Galy, R. A. Fox & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, April 19–21, 1974 (pp. 657–671). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A., & Waite, M. (Eds.). (2011). Concise Oxford English dictionary. Twelfth edition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made. But not by me. San Diego: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Warren, B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar