Cover not available
Article published In:
Semantics and Psychology of Complex Words
Edited by Christina L. Gagné and Thomas L. Spalding
[The Mental Lexicon 15:1] 2020
► pp. 79–100

Remarks on the semantics and paradigmaticity of NN compounds

| University of Granada
English Noun+Noun compounding has garnered the attention of morphologists due to characteristics that involve its semantics (Bauer & Tarasova, 2010; Jackendoff, 2009), degree of productivity (Bauer, Beliaeva, & Tarasova, 2019; Maguire, Wisniewski, & Storms, 2010) and possible paradigmatic nature (Bagasheva, in press; Boyé & Schalchli, 2016). This article addresses the above questions from an inclusive perspective with the aim of bringing together various unsolved issues in the study of this morphological process. The experiment exploits data from the BNC Sampler and the Oxford English Dictionary, from which morphological and semantic information is extracted in order to fathom the contribution of nominal root compounding to the lexicon. The results show that the paradigmatic nature, semantics and high productivity of NN compounding are all closely interrelated, which explains certain characteristics associated to the current status of this process and its role in the enrichment of the lexicon.
Keywords: compounding, corpus-based, derivational paradigms, modifiers, productivity, semantics, word-formation paradigms
Article outline
  • Antecedents
  • Data preparation
  • The Misfits of NN compounding
  • The categorization of compound semantics
  • The paradigmaticity of compounding
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00015.fer
References (58)
References
Allen, M. R. (1978). Morphological investigations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp.899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010). The directed compound graph of English. An exploration of lexical connectivity and its processing consequences. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 171, 383–402.Google Scholar
Bagasheva, A. (2014). Frame semantics, metaphtonymy and compound verbs in English. In G. Rundblad, A. Tytus, O. Knapton, & C. Tang (Eds.), Selected papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics conference (pp.1–17). London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
(in press). Paradigmaticity in compounding. In J. Fernández-Domínguez, A. Bagasheva & C. Lara-Clares (Eds.), Paradigmatic relations in word-formation. Leiden: Brill.
Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational paradigms. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp.243–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics, 21, 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Notions of paradigm and their value in word-formation. Word Structure, 12(2), 153–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., & Tarasova, E. (2010). The meaning link in nominal compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 101, 1–18.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Beliaeva, N., & Tarasova, E. (2019). Recalibrating productivity: Factors involved. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation, 3(1), 44–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: A general theory of inflection and word formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Blank, A. (1997). Outlines of a cognitive approach to word-formation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Paper No. 0291. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon. romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., & Strnadová, J. (2018). Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology, 29(2), 167–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. (2010). Compound construction: Schemas or analogy? A Construction Morphology perspective. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp.93–108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PI: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourque, Y. S. (2014). Toward a typology of semantic transparency: The case of French compounds. University of Toronto PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Boyé, G., & Schalchli, G. (2016). The status of paradigms. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp.206–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, T., & Kolkmann, J. (2019) (Eds.). English Language and Linguistics, Volume 23, No. 4 – Special issue: Different perspectives on proper noun modifiers.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 531, 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J. (2009). Productivity in English word-formation. An approach to N+N compounding. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27(1), 236–254.Google Scholar
(2009). Psycholinguistic perspectives. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.255–271). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gagné, C., & Spalding, T. (2004). Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun-noun compounds. Brain & Language, 90(1–3), 478–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guevara, E., & Scalise, S. (2009). Searching for universals in compounding. In S. Scalise, E. Magni & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp.101–128). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B., Hansen, K., Neubert, A., & Schentke, M. (1982). Englische Lexikologie. Einführung in Wortbildung und lexikalische Semantik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1960). An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds. Word, 161, 356–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.105–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Meaning and the lexicon: The Parallel Architecture, 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). English noun-noun compounds in Conceptual Semantics. In P. ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp.15–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI, morphology. London and Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1986). The problem of productivity in word formation. Linguistics, 241, 585–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. (2001). Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel: Von der kognitiven Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 1211, 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., Glass, L., & Jurafsky, D. (2019). Systematicity in the semantics of noun compounds: The role of artifacts vs. natural kinds. Linguistics 57, 3, 429–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. (2006). Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp.3–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). English nouns. The ecology of nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P. (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipka, L. (1990). Metaphor and metonymy as productive processes on the level of the lexicon. In W. Bahner, J. Schildt, & D. Viehweger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists (pp.1207–1210). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Maguire, P., Wisniewski, E. J., & Storms, G. (2010). A corpus study of semantic patterns in compounding. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(1), 49–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E., & Dressler, W. U. (2018). The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglia Posnaniensia, 531, 67–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: [URL]. Last accessed 13 February 2020.
Pepper, S. (forthcoming). The typology of binominal lexemes. Noun-noun compounds and their functional equivalents. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo.
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radimský, J. (in press). A paradigmatic approach to compounding. In J. Fernández-Domínguez, A. Bagasheva & C. Lara-Clares (Eds.), Paradigmatic relations in word-formation. Leiden: Brill.
Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2018). The semantic transparency of English compound nouns. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. -J. (2015). The scope of word-formation research. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe (vol. I1, pp.1–21). Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005). Meaning predictability in word formation. Novel, context-free naming units. Berlin & New York, NY: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Meaning predictability of novel context-free compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.272–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp.354–369). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In P. ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp.54–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, B. (1984). The functions of modifiers of nouns. Quaderni di Semantica, 5(1), 111–122.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E. (1971). Some general observations about nominal compounds. Working Papers on Language Universals, 51, 1–21.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bagasheva, Alexandra & Jesús Fernández-Domínguez
2022. Chapter 4. Fact-checking on compound verbs in English. In Paradigms in Word Formation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 225], ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.