More Freedom on the Left
Gisbert Fanselow
University of Potsdam
0. This paper deals with a variety of aspects of German nominal compounds, and is
concerned with a number of ‘smaller’ issues arising in the study of natural language.
These smaller issues are possibly related to a bigger question: is there only one
mechanism generating recursive structures in natural language, or are there more?
More than two decades ago, I opted for the latter option (see Fanselow 1985a,b), but
recent developments in the syntax and certain aspects of compounding in German
now seem to favour the former alternative, but in a restricted way only. However, the
process of extending the lexicon on the basis of word formation strategies (Agnihotri
1997, Singh & Agnihotri (1997) could constitute a second way of generating
structures recursively.
The smaller (or, rather, descriptive) issues arise when one tries to implement the idea
that compound formation is a process combining words – a very natural assumption
that was spelt out in detail for Hindi morphology and compound formation by Singh
& Agnihotri (1997) and Agnihotri (1997). The formation of nominal compounds is a
very productive process in German, but there are restrictions on the form of the left
part of a compound (e.g., a ban on regular s-plurals) showing that not all kinds of
words may participate in compounding. At the same time, the choice of these left
parts is quite unconstrained in other respects: very often, they are not even possible
words of German. We argue that these problems find a solution in terms of the idea
that some properties of and constraints on words are part of the syntax rather than part
of the morphology (word formation) or the lexicon. Morphology and the lexicon are
blind to these constraints imposed by syntax. In this sense, we can defend the basic
idea underlying the model developed by Agnihotri and Singh, viz. that compound
formation involves (morphological, but not necessarily syntactic) words.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 1, I give a brief summary of the idea that
the formation rules for compounds and phrases are, essentially identical. Phrases and
compounds are endocentric, but in compounds, certain classes of morphemes (e.g.,
prepositions) may show up in non-head positions only (section 2). We argue that this
behaviour is due to a division of labour between syntax and morphology: morphemes
combine freely in the formation of compounds, but syntax may filter out certain types
of such combinations. In sections 3, 4, and 5, we use this insight to account for the
fact that the left part of compounds may consist of combinations of nouns with
prepositions, numerals, quantifiers, and particles that never show up as independent
words, and that even dvandva compounds are licensed there in spite of the fact that
they are generally banned in German. Section 6 considers combinations of adjectives
and nouns, which illustrate the differences between constraint within the generation of
compounds, and constraints that are syntactic in nature. In Section 7 we delevop the
idea that AN compounds in German are not generated on the basis or merge, but by
special word formation strategies as proposed by Agnihotri and Singh. We draw our
conclusions in section 8.
1. Ever since Lees (1960), a seemingly natural assumption has dominated the
generative analysis of word formation, viz. the idea that the nature of the rules of word
formation and the nature of rules of syntax are, essentially identical. On the side of
word formation/morphology, one major insight was that the rules of generating
complex words should not be loaded with the burden of making the interpretation of
the complex words explicit, so that the abstractness of the structures underlying
complex words could be reduced substantially (see Chomsky 1970). Within an
interpretive system for compounds such as the one proposed in Fanselow (1981), the
combinatory rules can then be kept rather simple: they combine words of certain
categories and have a word of a certain category as an output.
In a nutshell, when one considers German nominal compounds, the examples in (1)
motivate the ‘rules’ given in (2), which can be generalized as in (3). In other words,
German nominal compounds are (of course!) syntactically endocentric, with the head
sitting on the right.
(1)
(2)
Garten.schlauch1
garden hose
Rot.buche
red beech
Geh.weg
walk way (sidewalk)
N --> N N
NAN
NVN
(3)
N  XN (X a lexical category)
Endocentricity and right-headedness characterizes German compounds quite in
general, as (4) and (5) illustrate for adjectival and verbal compounds, respectively.
The most concise statement of German compounding thus appears to be (6).
(4)
(5)
(6)
kirsch.rot
cherry-red
A -> N A
dunkel.blau
dark-blue
A -> A A
kopier.echt
copy-proof
A -> V A
wasser.paddeln
water-paddle
V -> N V
heiss.laufen
hot-run (become heated)
V-> A V
kennen.lernen
know-learn (get to know)
V -> V V
X -> Y X
with X,Y ε {N,V,A}
(6) guarantees that compounds are right-headed structures, see, e.g., Fanselow
(1985b), Höhle (1985), Lieber (1980, 1983), Selkirk (1982), and much later work. (6)
is reminiscent of the X-bar-theory (7) proposed for syntax by Chomsky (1970, 1981),
so that the question arises whether the structure building mechanisms of compound
formation and of syntax are identical.
A quarter of a century ago, one might have arrived at a negative answer on the basis
of several formal differences between the mechanisms generating complex words and
complex phrases (cf. also Fanselow 1985a), but syntax has changed substantially in
the meantime so that the issue has now become much more subtle. E.g., the idea that
syntactic structures involve an elaborate system of phrasal levels (maximal (X²),
minimal (X), and ‘intermediate’ (X’) projections) that are, arguably, non-existent in
compounds, became doubtful after the important arguments elaborated in Speas
(1990), so that phrasal levels were eliminated in the minimalist program (e.g,
Chomsky 1993, 1995).
(7)
Xi --> … Xj … , with i > j or i = j
The assumption that syntactic structures show binary branching brings syntactic
branching even closer to (6), so that (7) would be replaced by something like (8) for
syntax.
(8)
X -> Y Z, with X = Y or X = Z
The far-reaching simplification of structure building in the syntax thus makes it
possible to claim that both syntax and morphology apply the same merge operation
combining two formal objects. Headedness may differ in the two domains2, and it
seems as if truly functional categories do not participate in word formation while they
play a central role in syntax, but this does not affect the identity of the combinatory
mechanism.
2. In the syntax, every category can be used both in head- and non head-positions3.
This is different in compounding, in contrast to what (6) states. It is easy to observe
that rule (6) undergenerates. While the heads of compounds must belong to one of the
lexical categories N, V, and A, some prepositions are allowed as left branches:
(9)
Zwischen.bericht
Between-report (interim report)
Vor.zug
Before-train (train in front)
Nach.ernte
After-harvest (second harvest)
Neben.regierung
Beside-government (secondary/rival government)
Gegen.bericht
Against.report (counter report)
Mit-Autor
With.author (co.author)
Semantically, such compounds are endocentric4: a Vor.zug is a train going in front of
some other train, not something going in front of some train. More interestingly, both
semantic arguments of the preposition belong to the same class of objects: a
Nach.ernte is a harvest following some other harvest (not a harvest after some
contextually given event such as ploughing), a Gegen.bericht is a report against some
other report. and a Mit.autor is an author writing together with some other author (not
an author with a spouse). This constraint following from this general pattern5 may
explain the oddness of many P + N combinations in terms of the anomaly of the
resulting semantics (*Auf.Zug ‘On-train’, train on some other train, and not a nonderailed train), but some inacceptable words such as *In-Puppe (doll in some other
doll), *Ohne-Chef (boss without some other boss) are ill-formed although their
interpretation would make sense6.
P+N compounds show that there are elements, viz. prepositions, that occur within
compounds, but are confined to non-head positions there. In descriptive terms, (6)
thus has to be replaced by (10).
(10)
X -> Y X
with X ε {N,V,A} and Y ε {N,V,A,P}
But why are there elements that participate in word formation, but not as heads? We
could of course work with an unelegant generative rule such as (10), but that would
imply that syntax and morphology differ with respect to structure building. As
mentioned above, in syntax, there are (almost) no elements that are restricted to nonhead positions.
We get a clearer picture of the nature of the special license for prepositions to act as
non-heads in compounds when we consider further instances of morphemes confined
to non-head positions such as those in (11). Pseudo- and Euro- ‘euro’ (in the sense of:
(related to) the European Union, not in the sense of the name of the EU currency) do
not occur as heads of compounds, and they fail to do so because they cannot appear as
independent words either.
(11)
Pseudo-Demokrat
pseudo-democrat
Euro-Parlamentarier
Euro-representative, ‘representative in the EU
parliament’
*Sozialisten-Pseudo
socialist-pseudo
*Alt-Euro
Old-euro
Alt-EU
Old-EU
We can derive the latter property from the (inevitable) assumption that Pseudo and
Euro lack a syntactic category specification, and the (equally natural) assumption that
the generation of syntactic structures can only ‘see’ elements that have a category
label. In recent models (Chomsky 2005), this follows from the assumption that the
(external) merging operation must also be triggered by the checking of formal
(categorical) features (coming close, thereby, to ideas entertained in Categorial
Grammar).
Now, compounds are endocentric elements. Their syntactic category is determined by
their right daughter. If the right daughter lacks a category specification, so will the
compound. Both will be unusable as parts of sentences because they lack the category
specification that is required for participating in syntactic structure building.
The ability of category-free elements to show up as left branches of compounds thus
implies that elements can be merged without feature checking/categorical selection in
the morphological component of grammar. Alternatively, we can have the merge
operation apply freely, but assume that only those elements whose categorical features
have been checked are transparent to further syntactic operations and operations at the
interface. Compounds thus are structures that are built without feature checking. We
are therefore replacing (10) by (12), and leave the nature of the parts of a compound
entirely open within the morphological component: it is only the syntax that requires
that a compound belong to one of the syntactic categories7.
(12) a.
b.
Combine any two morphemes
The category value of a compound is identical with the value of its right
daughter
We can now return to the absence of compounds with prepositional heads. The
difficulty here is not that (12b) could not compute a syntactic category for the
compound. Rather, an inappropriate label is derived. If the process of compounding is
as such unrestricted, words such as *Tisch-unter ‘table.under’ will be formed, but they
will be blocked because of the endocentricity requirement of (12). Prepositions are
(semi-) functional categories, and these come with syntactic selection features that
cannot be and is not checked/saturated within word formation structures) and a
semantic argument place corresponding to the syntactic selection feature. In
particular, prepositions select a D-feature of their complement, and the complex
preposition *Tisch-unter inherits this D-feature because of (12). However, the
semantic argument place of the preposition corresponding to this D-features has
already been closed in the complex preposition (it should get a meaning such as λx
(∃y (table (y) & below(x,y))) by the semantic process of functional application), so
that we end up with a mismatch between the semantic and the syntactic properties of
[P N+P], making such words unusable from a syntactic point of view /Fanselow
1988). By the same reasoning, all categories are excluded from the head position of
compounds that always come with a selectional feature, and this seems to hold for all
functional categories. Consequently, compounds belong to the categories N, A, and V
only.
Left daughters of a compound have been merged without feature checking. They are
not affected by (12b). Consequently, the restrictions following from (12b) are not
valid for non-head positions.
3. More complex compounds show that the picture is more complicated. ‘Triple’
compounds with the internal branching structure [C A [C B C]] do not bring any
interesting new properties, and the same seems to hold for those with the structure [C
[A B] C] as in (13)
(13)
a.
Nach.ernte..ergebnis After-harvest-result, results of the secondary
harvest
b.
Vor.prüfungs..termin Before.exam.date ‘date of the preliminary exam’
However, in addition to (13), the patterns exemplified in (14a-d) are also well-formed.
They differ from (10) and (13) in terms of interpretation. Recall that a Nach.ernte
‘after-harvest’ is a harvest following some other harvest. Vor.weihnacht in (14a) does
not refer to some Christmas preceding some other Christmas, rather it refers to λx (∃y
(christmas (y) & before (x,y)). The left branch thus has the semantics of an
exocentric
bahuvrihi-compound.
Formulated
differently,
we
observe
that
semantically, at least, the preposition is the ‘head’ of the left parts of the compounds
in (14a-d).
(14)
a.
Vorweihnachtszeit
Before.christmas-time
(Pre-Christman period)
b.
Nach.festtags.übelheit
after.holiday.nausea
(Post-holiday nausea)
c.
Zwischenkriegsdemokratie
between.war-democracy
d.
Überaugenstreif
above-eyes.stripe
e.
?*Gegen-Regen-Demonstration
against.rain-manifestation
Anti-Regen-Demonstration
anti-rain-manifestation
?*Mitkragenhemd
with.collar-shirt
Kragenhemd
collar shirt
f.
One should note that the pattern exemplified in (14a-d) is produced mostly with
spatial and temporal prepositions. The prepositions für ‘for’ and gegen ‘against’
cannot be used in such compounds (14e). They appear to be blocked by pro and anti
that fulfil the same semantic functions. However, many other prepositions like in fail
to participate in such a compounding process, too. We have no definitive answers to
the question as to why this is the case, but here is a speculation: Prepositions typically
express thematic relations. The semantic vagueness of NN compounds such as
Kragenhemd collar.shirt makes them compete with Mitkragenhemd for the expression
of exactly the same content. (14e) may thus also be ruled out as an instance of some
type of blocking triggered by NN compounds.
Returning to the productive cases in (14a-d), two questions arise. How are they
formed, and why do they take the shape they have? Given the unrestricted nature of
compound formation, nothing prevents the generation of words such as (14c)
[[Zwischen-Kriegs]demokratie].
By (12), Zwischenkriegs would be a noun if inserted into a syntactic structure by a
triggered merge operation, and at least semantically, this is incorrect, as we have just
mentioned. We have also seem that the left part of a compound need not belong to any
syntactic category at all, because it is merged with the compound’s head without
feature checking. This absence of a category specification implies a solution for the
“headedness-problem” with Zwischenkriegs: we can have that element lack a category
specification (so that the headedness problem is avoided), i.e., we can let (12b) apply
only when the complex structure is in fact inserted into a syntactic slot. In other
words, morphology ‘avoids’ the computation of a head (in a syntactic sense) unless
this is required in the interest of identifying the category by which the morpheme
complex can enter syntactic representations.
This still leaves it open why *[Kriegszwischen]demokratie “war-between democracy”
is out, i.e., why prepositions have to precede their semantic arguments in the left
branches of nominal compounds, too. It is tempting to derive this property from the
word order we find in PPs, i.e. to assume that the combination P+N in the non-head
part of the compounds in (14) is in fact due to the application of a phrasal rule. Such
phrasal compounds built from PPs in fact exist in German alongside (14), as (15)
shows:
(15)
Seine “Ohne -
Mich“ Haltung
His
me
without
attitude
“his attitude of keeping himself out of everything”
Ihre
“Mit
dem
Kopf durch
die
Wand“ Politik
Her
with
the
head
the
wall
through
politics
“her politics of being hell-bent on getting her own way”
In a grammatical model in which there are explicit phrase structure rules and explicit
rules for compound formation, the concept of a ‘phrasal compound’ is rather easy to
identify, but a system in which the structure building components of grammar are kept
as simple as possible, it is difficult to see whether ‘phrasal compound’ is more than
merely a descriptive label. If a phrasal compound is a compound the left part of which
is made up by a complete and potentially independent phrase (as in (15)), then the
structures in (14) are of course not phrasal compounds. Likewise, if a phrasal
compound is one in which the left part has been formed by the rules of syntax, then
the words in (14) are not phrasal compounds either. Apart from linear order,
Zwischen.kriegs has little in common with PPs: in the syntax (and in phrasal
compounds), prepositions accept DPs as complements rather than nouns, but
Zwischenkriegs does not follow that rule: P directly combines with N here. Given the
selectional requirements of P, we must conclude that P and N have not been combined
in the context of a feature checking operation. Their combination is not syntactic in
nature.
Furthermore, the morphological shape of the noun Kriegs is typical for Krieg when it
figures in compounds. The dative form Kriegen that would be governed by zwischen
in a syntactic expression is NOT chosem. A PP-analysis for Zwischenkriegs would
thus raise more questions than it answers, so that we will stick to analysing the word
as a compound.
We are left, then, with the linear order problem. The idea that we will pursue here is
that at least the merger of functional categories is a directional process. Prepositions,
complementizers, determiners, etc., are always merged as left branches. This property
holds of the merge process in general, both in the morphology and the syntax. With
respect to merge, the absence of feature checking thus seems to be the only difference
between syntax and morphology.
4. Our hypotheses and conclusions are confirmed when we consider further types of
left branches of compounds. In binary compounds, numerals and quantifiers cannot
show up (*All.Partei ‘all party’), but they are fine as parts of left branches of more
complex compounds:
(16)
a.
200-Seiten-Buch
200 pages book
b.
All.parteien-Regierung
all party government
c.
Kein.kind..familie
No-child-family
As in the case of prepositions, some quantifiers such as jed- ‘every’ cannot enter that
pattern (*Jed.parteien.regierung “every-party-government”), in contrast to all ‘all’,
viel ‘many’ (Viel.parteien.regierung), mehr ‘several’ (Mehr.parteien.regierung), and
kein ‘no‘ (16c). Einige and welche ‚some’ avoid showing up in complex left parts of
compounds, too. This may be linked to the fact that the default interpretation of an
NN compound AB is already “the set of B related to some A”, so that there is no need
for a triple compound “some.A..B”. Finally, demonstratives and definite articles are
also absent in left branches of compounds. Probably, nouns should not have truly
deictic meaning parts, so that compounds using demonstratives and definite articles
would be blocked.
An analysis of the forms in (16) in terms of a ‘phrasal compound’ would face the
same difficulties that we have identified for P+N combinations above. The
morphological shape of the noun is often not the one it would have in a syntactic
phrase. E.g., Ein.parteien.regierung ’one-party-government’ has the noun partei
‘party’ appear in a form that is a plural in phrasal syntax, even though ein ‘one’
requires a singular. It is just the other way round with Drei.raum.wohnung ‘threeroom-flat’, with Raum being singular rather than the plural that drei ‘three’ should
require.
Our treatment of quantifier/numeral + noun combinations raises the same issues that
already came up in the previous section with P+N compounds. We assume that
quantifiers and numerals strictly subcategorise a nominal projection, i.e., they possess
an N-feature that must be checked. This N-feature of the quantifier will be inherited
by a complex form such as kinder.alle ‘children.all’, while the semantic argument
place of alle would already be saturated within this N+Q compound. Consequently,
we are confronted with the same mismatch between syntax (X selects a feature) and
semantics (the argument slot of X is already saturated) that we already found for N+P
compounds, and that makes them unusuable in a syntactic context.
Furthermore, we assume that numerals and quantifiers, being functional elements,
always take their arguments on the right, which blocks the generation of [[N Num/Q]
N].
Functional application is the basic semantic operation combining the meanings of the
parts of the compound, so that Q+N will be interpreted by the result of applying the
meaning of a quantifier to the meaning of a noun, and we take this semantic object to
not fit the meaning constraints for nouns (cf., e.g., Fanselow 1988)). The fact that left
parts of compounds do not need a syntactic head while the complete compounds do
thus implies that complete compounds need to fulfil constraints that their left parts do
not have to.
5. We argued against an explanation of our critical examples in terms of ‘phrasal
compounding’ on the basis of morphological evidence. A phrasal analysis of their left
branches seems also unlikely for the compounds in (17): These left branches are
dvandva (coordinative) compounds, which cannot be formed productively as
independent words in German.
(17) a.
CDU-FDP-Koalition
CDU-FDP-coalition
b.
Rhein-Main-Donau-Kanal
Rhine-Main-Danube-canal
c.
Eltern-Kind-Beziehung
parents-child-relation
d.
Kaiser-König-Herzog-Hierarchie
emperor-king-duke-hierarchy
e.
Mutter-Tochter-Oma-Konstellation
mother-daugher-grandmaconstellation
f.
das Zwei Vorsitzende vier Stellvertreter System
the two-chairpersons four-deputy system
Coordinative (nominal) compounds are only used as names for (abstract) entities
composed of formerly independent parts. Examples are state names such as BadenWürttemberg or company names such as Daimler-Chrysler. In the adjectival domain,
coordinative compounds are more frequent (such as rot-grün ‘red-green’ or süß-sauer
‘sweet.sour’). The examples in (17) show that the severe restrictions on nominal
dvandva compounds disappear when they are used as left branches. The grammar of
Eltern-Kind as in (17c) can be described easily: in a coordinative compound, the right
branch is not a head. More precisely, there is no general rule that would determine the
grammatical features of a coordinative compound. Lacking a category feature,
coordinative compounds cannot be merged as part of syntactic structures. The merge
operation in the morphological component is more liberal, however, and allows nonhead left parts without a syntactic category. Thus, (17c) can be formed.
The examples (17b,d,e) suggest that dvanda compounds need not have a binary
structure. Therefore, they cannot be generated by the standard (binary) merge
operation of syntax. At first glance, this seems to imply that (17) could not possibly
be analysed in terms of phrasal compounds, but we must not forget that syntax itself
must be able to generate coordinative structures.
6. The examples discussed so far contrast nicely with other restrictions in compound
formation. For P+N, Q+N, and Num+N compounds, we have argued that they can be
formed in the morphological component of grammar. They are blocked as
independent complex words because of a mismatch of their syntactic and semantic
properties. However, in a context in which syntactic properties play no role, viz., as
left parts of compounds, they occur frequently.
With A+N compounds, the situation is different. The formation of A+N compounds is
heavily restricted, but these constraints typically do not lose effect when AN is used
as a left part of a compound. The non-head position of a compound thus serves as a
testing ground for the syntactic or morphological nature of a restriction on
compounding.
The formation of AN compounds in quite restricted in German. The presence of such
restrictions constitutes a well-known fact about German, but they have rarely been
analysed in rule-based approaches. Usually, AN compounds are, e.g., bad when N
refers to a human being, as exemplified by *[Klug][professor] “smart professor” and
*[Munter][schüler] ‘alert pupil’. Note that the constraint does not affect
(unproductive) bahuvrihi structures such as [Schlau][kopf] “clever head” , [Rot][haut]
“red skin” or [Lang][nase] “long nose”. These compound structures are inacceptable
when one tries to interpret then as standard tatpurusha compounds. In other words, it
seems as if the adjective appearing in AN should not modify the referent of the
compound. (18b) is good, while (18a) is not.
(18)
a.
λx (clever (x) & professor (x))
λx (red (x) & skin (x))
b.
λy (∃y(red (y) & skin (y)) & HAS (y,x))
The absence of a morphological distinction between adjectives and adverbs in
German obscures the ban on certain types of AN compounds to a certain extent.
Schnell.sprecher ’fast speaker, a speaker who talks fast” (not a speaker fast in some
other respects) violates the ban on AN compounds only superficially: it is a
combination of an adverb and a noun. Surprisingly, secondary predicates also often do
not count when the ban on AN formation is at stake, as Nackt.tänzer “naked dancer”
(someone who dances naked) and Nackt.modell (“naked model”, person who poses
naked) show. Apparent adjectives are factually interpreted as adverbs outside the
domain human and animate nouns, too: a Schnell.zug (“fast train”) is a train going
fast). Likewise, a Schwertransporter “heavy transporter” is a transporter carrying
heavy things, not a heavy transporter.
Interestingly, there are grammatical AN compounds which cannot be explained away
in the way just sketched. This is, e.g., true of words such as those cited in (19). Very
similar combinations of adjectives and nouns can be inacceptable, see (20).
(19)
Jung.professor “young professor”, Jung.unternehmer “young industrialist”,
Billig.flug “cheap flight”, Edel.matraze “noble mattress”, Gebraucht.buch
“used book”, Neu.ware “new goods”, Frisch.fisch “fresh fish” , Leicht.waggon
“light car, a light car”, Leer.flasche “empty bottle”
(20)
*Schwer.tisch “heavy table”, *Beschädigt.buch “damaged book”, *Teuerflug
“expensive flight“ *Vollflasche “filled bottle“8
As already mentioned above, ill-formed AN combinations do not improve when used
in the non-head position of some compound: *Klug.professoren.auszeichung ‘smartprofessor-award’ and *Teuer.flug.vermeidung ‘expensive flight avoidance’ do not
sound better than *Klugprofessor and *Teuerflug. Where there is a constraint on
compounding in the narrow sense, it affects complex words in all contexts. When
syntax filters out compound structures, it can do so only in domains within its rule.
7. The facts discussed so far support a model in which the structure building
operations of syntax and morphology are nearly identical. The major difference lies in
the fact that structure building in the syntax (merger) must be triggered, while it
applies freely in morphology. The contrast between (19) and (20) presented in the
preceding section has introduced a new type of problem, however: how can we
account for constraints in compounding that are, apparently, item-specific? Do we
have to generally allow AN compounds, and filter out illegal combinations? Or do we
have to ban AN compounding, and rule in special combinations by some other
mechanism?
I cannot offer a definite answer9 to these questions for AN compounds, but the second
option is, at least more easy to formulate. We can combine a very general constraint
on, e.g., the merge operation forming AN compounds with human referents with the
listing of a considerable number of items such as Jungunternehmer ‘young industrial’
in the lexicon, such that the list of these words can always be extended on the basis of
analogy formation, e.g., along the lines suggested by Agnihotri (1997) and Singh &
Agnihotri (1997) in their word-based account of word formation.
At least for interpretation, no account of compound formation can avoid reference to
existing words and the extension of the lexicon based on analogy to these, so that the
analogy induced generation of AN compounds does not really add a new component
to grammar. The crucial observation is that new words may partially take over the
idiomatic interpretation of existing words. A famous example of German is
Haus.mann ‘house man; man doing house work” formed in analogy to Haus.frau
“house woman, housewife”. Kauf.frau “buy woman, female merchant” (in analogy to
Kauf.mann “buy man, merchant”) and other words of this kind illustrate the same
point: there is no (interpretive) rule for compound formation that could produce the
idiomatic aspects in the meaning of Hausmann and Kauffrau by simply combining the
words Haus and Mann, or Kauf and Frau. In order to account for newly formed but
idiomatically interpreted compounds, the generative rule based model must take
recourse to analogy, too.
It is a small step, then, to allow for analogy-based processes of extending the lexicon
on the basis of already existing entries, as suggested by Agnihotri and Singh. Such a
move, deriving from existing words a strategy as formulated in (21) along the lines
proposed by Agnihotri and Singh, may be easy to accept for a domain such as human
nouns in which compounding is heavily blocked, but its extension to AN compounds
in general may seem a bolder move. Note, however, that (22), and the absence of a
corresponding strategy for TeuerN (expensive) gives as a chance to describe why
there are no words like Teuer.flug corresponding to Billig.flug.
(21)
Ns ↔ JungN (an N that is young and became an N only recently)
(22)
Ns ↔ BilligNs (an N produced or carried out in a way )
For Hindi, it seems as if the whole compounding process, even nominal compounds is
a result of such lexicon-based word formation strategies (Agnihotri 1997).
Two questions arise. First, we must describe and explain why the unrestricted merge
operation we postulate for German compounding is inapplicable in certain domains,
as we have just argued. I would suggest that we can make word formation strategies
directly responsible for this in terms of blocking: the presence of more specific rules
in a certain domain (word formation strategies) blocks the application of the more
general process (merge). Second, one may wonder whether word formation strategies
also yield recursive structures. Since Edel.jung.unternehmer ‘noble-young-industrial’
or Billig.leicht.fahrrad ‘cheap-light-bike’ are wellformed, the answer is positive.
8. The present paper has tried to capture a number of restrictions on compound
formation in German. We have identified two types: P+N, Num+N, and Q+N
combinations, and also dvandva compounds are (generally) out as simple compounds
but may figure as non-head left parts of larger compounds. Other constraints, such as
those in the AN domain, are not ignored in non-head positions.
For the former type, we argued that the ill-formed structures are in fact generated by
the morphological component, but they cannot enter syntactic structures because an
incorrect category specification will be produced. In the model we propose,
compound formation differs from the generation of syntactic (base) structures only in
the status of merge: it applies optionally in the lexicon, but is always a triggered
process in the syntax. To the extent that this difference can be ignored, this means that
recursion in compounds and in phrases comes about by the same mechanism.
AN compounds suggest that this picture must be refined. The strong lexical
restrictions we observe here do not disappear in non-head contexts. This suggests that
these constraints are due to lexicon-internal regularities. We have speculated that AN
compounds do not arise from the standard merge operation, but are rather due to word
formation strategies in the sense of Agnihotri and Singh. If correct, this implies that
recursive structures can indeed arise by two different mechanisms in natural language.
References
Agnihotri, R.K. 1997. Is ghuRsavaar a compound? Hindi compounds revisited. Ms.,
Delhi.
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on Nominalizations. In: R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum
(eds.). Readings in English Transfotmational Grammar Waltham: Ginn. 184-221.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In; The View from Building 20, Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), 1-58. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-­‐Press. Chomsky, N. 2005. On phases. Ms.,MIT.
Fanselow. G. 1981. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Fanselow, G. 1985a. Zur Stellung der Wortbildung im System kognitiver Module.
Linguistische Berichte 96: 91-126.
Fanselow, G. 1985b. What is a possible complex word? In: J. Toman (ed.) Studies in
German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris: 289-318.
Fanselow, G. 1988. Word Syntax and Semantic Principles. Yearbook of Morphology
1988: 95-122.
Höhle, T. 1985. On Composition and Derivation: The Constituent Structure of
Secondary Words in German. In: J. Toman (ed.) Studies in German Grammar.
Dordrecht: Foris: 119-176.
Lees, R. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
Lieber, R. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Bloomington, Ind.:IULC:
Lieber, R. 1983. Argument Linking and Compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14:
251-286.
Selkirk, E. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press.
Singh, R. & R.K. Agnihotri. 1997. Hindi morphology – a word based description.
Delhi: Motilala Banarsidass.
Speas, M. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht : Kluwer.
Endnotes
1
The internal structure of German compounds will be indicated by inserting a dot
between the words the compound is composed of. Of course, this dot is not part of
German orthography.
2
The differences in the location of heads between syntax and compounds is smaller
than it appears, because movement may change linear order in the syntax but not in
compounds.
3
Focus particles and coordinative conjunctions might be exceptions.
4
There are a few lexicalized exceptions, such as Zwischen.eiszeit ‘between. ice age’
(interglacial time), which refers to the warm ages between two ice ages rather than zo
an ice age sitting between two other ice ages.
5
Again, there are a few exceptions such as Vor.garten ‘before.garden’ referring to a
garden in front of a house.
6
We have no answer to the question as to why compounds with e.g. in are blocked
while vor and hinter participate in compounding easily.
7
Note that the lexicon itself is not governed by a principle requiring that each
morpheme belongs to one of the parts of speech. Cf. our above discussion of Pseudo
‘pseudo’ and related items.
8
The word is acceptable and in use in its idiomatic reading „complete loser“.
9
In fact, the item specific constraints on PN and QN compounds occur in a domain
where the merge operation applies freely. This means that both options may be
realized in natural language.