Cover not available
Part of
Competition in Word-Formation
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano and Vincent Renner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 284] 2024
► pp. 297–325

Chapter 10
[N1 + N2], [N + A], and [N1 + de + N2]

Is there a tripartite competition in French endocentric naming constructions?

ORCID logo | Aoyama Gakuin University
[N1 + N2], [N1 + A], and [N1 + P + N2] constructions have a function of naming subcategories of the concept indicated by the N1. [N1 + A] and [N1 + P + N2] constructions are considered as lexicalized syntactic units, whereas [N1 + N2] constructions cannot be formed by syntactic rules. The formation of [N1 + N2] constructions is based on a model created by an analogy from existent binominal constructions. The three types of constructions under investigation can establish a tripartite competition, but such cases do not always occur, because of the conditional productivity of [N1 + N2], the lack of adjectival form and restrictions on the formation of [N1 + de + N2].
Keywords: French, binominal constructions, compounding, lexicalization, analogy, multi-word units
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Internal structure of the three types of construction
    • 2.1[N1 + N2]
    • 2.2[N1 + A]
    • 2.3[N1 + de + N2]
    • 2.4Lexical nature of endocentric naming constructions
  • 3.Theoretical status of the three types of construction
    • 3.1Different approaches to compounding
    • 3.2The non-restrictive approach
    • 3.3The scalar approach
    • 3.4The restrictive or lexicalist approach
    • 3.5The constructionist approach
    • 3.6Analogical formation and conditional productivity of [N1 + N2]
    • 3.7Productive constructions with a specific N2
    • 3.8Summary
  • 4.Complementarity and competition
    • 4.1[N1 + N2] and [N1 + A]: Complementarity
    • 4.2[N1 + N2] with specific N1 and [N1 + A]: Possible competition
    • 4.3[N1 + de + N2] vs. [N1 + N2] and/or [N1 + A]
    • 4.4Competition with constructions with other prepositions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.284.10kog
References (43)
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1990. Pourquoi un moulin à vent n’est pas un ventilateur. Langue française 86: 103–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Figement, idiomaticité et matrices lexicales. In Le figement linguistique: la parole entravée, Jean-Claude Anscombre & Salah Mejri (eds), 17–40. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Arnaud, Pierre J. L. 2016. Categorizing the modification relations in French relational subordinative [NN]N compounds. In The Semantics of Compounding, Pius ten Hacken (ed), 71–93. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Bateau phare, magasin phare: composés [N1 N2]N et séquences syntaxiques N1+N2 à N2 adjectivé. Travaux de linguistique 76: 7–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartning, Inge. 1980. Remarques sur la syntaxe et la sémantique des pseudo-adjectifs dénominaux en français. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
. 1984. Aspects syntaxiques et sémantiques des adjectifs ethniques en français. Revue Romane 19(2): 177–216.Google Scholar
Bartning, Inge & Noailly, Michèle. 1993. Du relationnel au qualificatif: flux et reflux. L’Information Grammaticale 58: 27–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale II. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14(4): 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 201–216. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bosredon, Bernard. 1988. Un adjectif de trop: l’adjectif de relation. L’Information Grammaticale 37(1): 3–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosredon, Bernard & Tamba, Irène. 1991. Verre à pied, moule à gaufres: préposition et noms composés de sous-classe. Langue Française 91: 40–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène. 1874. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. [1967] Paris: A. Franck.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard. 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
. 2008. Les adjectifs relationnels et la morphologie. In La raison morphologique: hommage à la mémoire de Danielle Corbin, Bernard Fradin (ed), 69–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. IE, Romance: French. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 417–435. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Libio & Ricca, Davide. 2009. Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Italian Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 35–70.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, Gaston. 1988. Degré de figement des noms composés. Langages 90: 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Définition des noms composés dans un lexique-grammaire. Langue française 87: 84–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Les expressions figées en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Guilbert, Louis. 1971. Fondement lexicologique du dictionnaire. In Grand Larousse de la langue française, ix–lxxxi. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar and Evolution. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenge. Language 84(1): 8–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koga, Kentaro. 2018. Un espace papeterie n’est-il pas une (simple) papeterie ?: composition binominale sous-catégorisante. Actes du 6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2018. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020a. Goi to bunpou no aida de: Furansu-go fukugou meishi no seisanteki na keisei-hou (Between Lexicon and Grammar: A Productive Formation Process of French nominal compounds). Tokyo: Surugadai Shuppansha.Google Scholar
. 2020b. Qui dit Noël dit cadeaux : modèle, variation et idées conventionnelles. Actes du 7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loock, Rudy. 2013. The emergence of Noun + Noun constructions with a regressive order in contemporary French? Journal of French Language Studies 23(2): 259–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2(2): 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Competition between morphological word and multiword expressions. In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 281–305. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monceaux, Anne. 1992. Un exemple de formation productive de composés de structure nom adjectif. Langue française 96: 74–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noailly, Michèle. 1990. Le substantif épithète. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
. 1999. L’adjectif en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pepper, Steve. 2023. Defining and typologizing binominal lexemes. In Binominal Lexemes in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Steve Pepper, Francesca Masini & Simone Mattiola (eds), 23–72. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picone, Michael D. 1996. Anglicisms, Neologisms and Dynamic French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Bisetto, Antonietta. 2009. The classification of compounds. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 34–53. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara & Plag, Ingo. 2011. Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua 121: 1539–1551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamba-Mecz, Irène. 1980. Sur quelques propriétés de l’adjectif de relation. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 18(1): 119–132.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel & Amiot, Dany. 2019. Compounds and multi-word expressions in French. In Complex Lexical Units: Compounds and Multi-Word-Expressions, Barbara Schlücker (ed), 128–152. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villoing, Florence. 2012. French compounds. Probus 24: 29–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar