Lexicalization of Syntactic Phrases: The Case of Genitive Compounds
like Woman’s Magazine
Reiko Shimamura
Tsuda College
1 Introduction
It is well known that there are two different constructions in which the genitive marker s
occurs prenominally (Jespersen 1961 (MEG 6), Lees 1960, Yasui et al. 1976, Woisetschlaeger
1983, Quirk et al. 1985, Ike-uchi 1991, Balhorn 1992, Greenbaum 1996, Taylor 1996,
Zribi-Hertz 1997, and McCawley 1998, to mention a few). Consider the following:
(1) the mayor’s house, Fred’s car, your brother’s picture
(2) a. fool’s paradise, bull’s-eye, cat’s cradle, lion’s share, death’s head
b. woman’s voice, girls’ school, bird’s nest, cow’s milk, mother’s love
In the case of the constructions in (1), under a traditional assumption, the prenominal noun
phrase with s is taken to function as the determiner of the following noun. On the other hand,
in the case of (2), the noun with s and the following noun are usually considered to constitute
a compound. In this paper expressions like the ones given in (2) will henceforth be referred
to as ‘genitive compounds’ or sometimes as ‘[N’s N] compounds,’ and constructions like the
ones given in (1) as ‘[NP’s N] constructions.’
There are all degrees of semantic compositonality in compounds, so the mere dichotomy
between semantically opaque and transparent compounds should be avoided. But it seems
safe to say that whereas some genitive compounds such as (2a) are idiomatic and highly
conventionalized, there exist others like (2b) which are semantically transparent to a certain
extent. It should be noticed that although there are much fewer genitive compounds than
ordinary noun-noun compounds, the former are constantly being created, as is witnessed by,
for example, those in (3) which were coined in the twentieth century which are listed in
Knowles and Eliot (eds.) 1997, Barnhart, Steinmetz, and Barnhart (eds.) 1990, Ayto 1999,
Cannon 1987, and Algeo 1980; 1991.
(3) Citizen’s/Citizens’ Charter, men’s movement, camel’s nose, children’s rights, curate’s
egg, God’s Eye, hatter’s shakes, idiot’s lantern, jogger’s/joggers’ nipple, Men’s
Lib(eration), parrot’s perch, surfer’s knob, widow’s mandate, Women’s-Libber,
Women’s Lib(eration), Women’s Liberationist, Women’s Movement/women’s movement,
women’s studies, athlete’s foot, big girl’s blouse, bum’s rush, cat’s whisker(s), citizen’s
band, Father’s Day, duck’s ass, Gentleman’s Relish, Hell’s Angel, Mother’s Day,
people’s republic/People’s Republic, mug’s game, woman’s magazine, bomber’s moon,
scholar’s privilege, States’ Righter, bee’s knees, businessman’s risk, chef’s salad,
director’s chair, horse’s asses, legionnaires’ disease, people’s park
1
Furthermore, the number of genitive compounds will increase substantially if compounds with
a proper noun, like Achilles’ heel, are counted. The following are such genitive compounds
created in the twentieth century which are shown in Ayto 1999 and Cannon 1987.
(4) Alzheimer’s disease, Buggins’s turn, Down’s syndrome, Emily’s List, Montezuma’s
revenge, Murphy’s law, Rubik’s cube, Parkinson’s law, Darwin’s finches, Dillon’s
rule, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Mason and Dixon’s line, McGuffey’s reader, Okun’s law,
Raynaud’s Phenomenon, Wilson’s disease
Genitive compounds offer us a serious problem in terms of the interaction between
syntax and morphology. They will possibly be regarded as counterexamples to the
generalization shown below, which is considered to hold as long as we adopt the distinction
between inflectional morphology and derivational morphology proposed by Anderson 1992
and others.
(5) No syntactically relevant elements can occur inside a word.
If it is made clear that the two uses of the marker s in genitive compounds and [NP’s N]
constructions are reducible to the same morpheme, there is a possibility that the inflectional
suffix s actually occurs within genitive compounds. This will make us doubt the adequacy of
the generalization (5).
The aim of this paper is to clarify the process of lexicalization of syntactic phrases by
comparing [NP’s N] constructions and genitive compounds. It will be claimed that the latter
are obtained as the result of the lexicalization of the NP. By claiming this, I will show that
genitive compounds can no longer be said to be counterexamples to (5) above.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, [NP’s N] constructions are compared
with genitive compounds. In Section 3 the compoundhood of expressions like the ones
shown in (2)-(4) above is clarified. In Section 4 I discuss syntactic, semantic and
morphological properties of the genitive marker s in [NP’s N] constructions and genitive
compounds. Section 5 shows that genitive compounds are defined as lexicalized phrases
which have acquired lexical status. Section 6 is concerned with the boundary between [NP’s
N] constructions and genitive compounds. Section 7 is a summary of this paper.
2 [NP’s N] Constructions versus Genitive Compounds
The structure for the [NP’s N] constructions in (1) above is represented roughly as (6)
according to the so-called DP analysis (cf. Abney 1987).
2
(6)
NP
DP
the mayor
Fred
your brother
D'
D
NP
s
house
car
picture
In the above structure, the genitive marker s is dominated by the head D of DP. This marker
cannot cooccur with other determiners like this, the, and a (e.g. (7)), since the latter also
function as the head D.
(7) *this the mayor’s house, *the Fred’s car, *a your brother’s picture
On the other hand, genitive compounds can cooccur with various determiners, as shown
in (8). (Some pieces of evidence that they are actually compounds will be presented in
Section 3.)
(8) a men’s store, all ship’s doctors, those catcher’s mitts, most tailor’s thimbles
(McCawley 1998: 399)
The determiner and the following noun in each noun phrase in (8) do not form the Specifier of
DP. This is obvious from the impossibility of the following:
(9) *a men, *all ship, *those catcher, *most tailor
It sometimes happens that an expression containing s can be analyzed as having the
structure either of an [NP’s N] construction or of a genitive compound, as shown in (10).
(10) a.
b.
c.
d.
[the woman]’s magazine
the [woman’s magazine]
[those children]’s shoes
those [children’s shoes]
(a., b. Taylor 1996: 287)
But when some elements intervene between the noun with s and the subsequent noun as in
(11a), there is no possibility for such expressions to be structurally ambiguous, because in the
case of genitive compounds, the noun with s and the head noun cannot be separated by some
other elements as seen in (11b).
(11) a. [these children]’s rough and heavy shoes
b. *these [children’s rough and heavy shoes]
Now let us compare the genitive marker s in the [NP’s N] construction with that in the
[N’s N] compound. The former s should be considered to be syntactically associated not with
3
a noun but with a full DP, though it is phonologically realized on the last element within DP,
as is suggested by the difference in acceptability between (12a) and (12b).
(12) a. [a cousin of mine]DP ’s house
b. *[a cousin’s of mine] DP house
According to Katamba 1993: 248, in the case of (12a), the syntactic/semantic host of the
genitive marker s is the entire NP (i.e. our DP) but its phonological host is mine. Therefore,
the marker s in the [NP’s N] construction is best regarded as a clitic-like affix (or affix-like
clitic) (Taylor 1995: 181). On the other hand, the same marker in the genitive compound
seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill affix, because it is attached only to the noun (For more
details, Section 5.2 and Note 12).
Finally, let us touch on the relation between genitive compounds and ordinary nounnoun compounds. In some cases, omission of s in the [N’s N] compound will lead us to the
ordinary noun-noun compound, as illustrated in (13). (We find many more similar examples
in Gold 1975.)
(13) collector item -- collector’s item, insider report -- insider’s report, doll house -doll’s house, dog-ear -- dog’s ear
(Taylor 1996: 310-311)
The three variants with the element s are sometimes possible as seen in (14). This seems to
be due to the instability of the use of the apostrophe, as is indicated in Taylor 1996 and Sklar
1976.
(14) a. a girl’s school, a girls’ school, a girls school
b. printer’s ink, printers’ ink, printers ink
(Quirk et al. 1985: 149)
We even find some conventionalized compounds with the medial s without the word space, as
shown in (15).
(15) a. menswear
b. bullseye
c. lambswool
(Taylor 1996: 311)
(b., c. Adams 1973: 70)
3 Compoundhood of Expressions such as Woman’s Magazine
I have thus far assumed that the [N’s N] combination is a compound and not a phrase.
In fact, there are five pieces of evidence for it.
The genericness of the nonhead noun of an ordinary [N N] compound has been
menitoned by many researchers (Seuren 1975, Levi 1978, Anderson 1985, Di Sciullo and
Williams 1987, Spencer 1991, and others). As is emphasized in Taylor 1996, the first noun
in the [N’s N] expression is also interpreted as generic; that is, it does not refer to any specific
or particular instance(s) or individual(s) but denotes a type of entity. To give an example,
woman in woman’s magazine does not denote a particular woman but women in general, so
this compound means a magazine designated primarily for women (cf. Taylor 1996: 290).
Second, the compoundhood of the [N’s N] combination is proved by the fact that it meets
the criterion of inseparability, which is proposed in Lieber 1992b as a test of compoundhood.
This criterion requires that in the case of compounds no modifier is allowed to intervene
4
between the first and the second elements. (Bauer 1988: 50-51 also presents a criterion to the
same effect which is termed ‘uninterruptability’, though he gives no English examples in
connection with the criterion.) This criterion is illustrated with the following examples:
(16) a. black (*heavy) board
b. truck (*careful) driver
As mentioned in Taylor 1996, the above criterion applies without reservation to the [N’s N]
compound. Consider:
(17) a. a [boys’ (*expensive) school]
cf. an expensive [boys’ school]
(Taylor 1996: 289)
b. There is a [girl’s (*small green) bicycle] on the lawn.
cf. There is a small green [girl’s bicycle] on the lawn.
c. The tall blonde girl’s (small green) bicycle is on the lawn.
(b., c. Zribi-Hertz 1997: 531)
(17a) and (17b) show that adjectives cannot occur inside the compound. On the other hand,
the subject noun phrase in (17c), in which small green separates girl’s from bicycle, has a
reading of the [NP’s N] construction. (18a) and (18b) below are both acceptable as genitive
compounds in spite of the occurrence of the nouns shoe and grammar respectively between
the noun with s and the second noun.
(18) a. a men’s shoe shop
b. a boys’ grammar school
(Taylor 1996: 289)
However, they are not counterexamples to the above-mentioned criterion. The two nouns
shoe and shop in (18a) constitute a compound noun, which in turn is modified by men’s, as is
stated in Taylor 1996: 289. The same is true of (18b).
Third, the principle of lexical integrity has often been referred to in order to account for the
unacceptability of expressions like (19) below.
(19) *a thick bookseller
This principle allows no syntactic process or rule to refer exclusively to parts of words (Di
Sciullo and Williams 1987, Bresnan and Mchombo 1995, and others). Similarly, the
unacceptability of (20) below can be accounted for by recourse to this principle.
(20) *a shy women’s college
The fourth piece of evidence for the compoundhood of [N’s N] expressions is concerned
with the notion of so-called anaphoric island. For example, the sentence below, which
includes the ordinary compound teapot, cannot mean “he poured the tea into the cup.”
(21) *He took the teaipot and poured iti into the cup.
5
(Spencer 1991: 42)
The anaphoric islandhood of the compound teapot does not allow the pronoun it to be
coreferential with the noun tea inside it.1 Similarly, in the case of an [N’s N] combination,
the coreferentiality of a noun inside it and a pronoun outside it is impossible, as in (22).2
(22) *I found those [womani’s magazines], but as far as I know shei has not read them.
cf. I found [that womani]’s magazines, but as far as I know, shei has not
read them.
(Taylor 1996: 29)
Fifth, the compound status of [N’s N] combinations is attested from a phonological point
of view. In the case of (23), as opposed to (24), the primary stress is put on the first noun
with s, which is consistent with the stress pattern observed in compounds (Yasui et al. 1976,
Quirk et al. 1985, Taylor 1996).
(23) a.
b.
(24) a.
b.
a [wóman’s magazine]
a [dríver’s license]
[the woman]’s magazíne
[the truck driver]’s lícense
(Taylor 1996: 291)
(Ibid.)
But it seems that stress assignment is not so reliable a criterion as a test of compoundhood of
[N’s N] expressions. According to Liberman and Sproat 1992, some expressions with s, like
the ones given in (25) below, prefer the primary stress on the first noun, while other
expressions with this marker, like those in (26), have the primary stress on the second noun.
(25) cáshier’s check, báchelor’s degree, sérvant’s entrance, píg’s feet
(Liberman and Sproat 1992: 153)
(26) pope’s nóse, cat’s pajámas, fool’s érrand
(Ibid.)
I have shown five pieces of evidence for the characterization of [N’s N] expressions as
compounds.
4 The Morpheme s
As I suggested in Section 1, in order that the discussion of whether the genitive
compound should be counted as counterexamples to the generalization (5) given above is
fruitful, we have to make it clear that the genitive marker s in genitive compounds are
essentially the same entity as that in [NP’s N] constructions. However, it is not necessarily so
obvious that this is the case. Consider the following:
(27) a. her two children’s clothes
b. children’s clothes
(Biber et al. 1999: 294)
The NP in the [NP’s N] construction in (27a), her two children’s, denotes the possessor of
clothes and serves to specify the reference of clothes, while the N in the [N’s N] compound in
(27b), children’s, does not denote the possessor of clothes, but serves to classify the type of
clothes. Therefore, it is not so obvious whether the s’s in (27a) and (27b) are two different
uses of the same morpheme. However, in this section I argue that they really are.
Subsequently I discuss some seemingly puzzling behaviors of the s occurring in genitive
compounds. If we try to account for them, we will be led to conclude that the genitive
6
compound should be characterized as resulting from the lexicalization of the NP in the DP
structure.
4.1 The Uses of the Morpheme s in [NP’s N] Construction and Genitive Compounds
In Section 1 I discussed that genitive compounds possibly are regarded as incompatible
with the generalization (5) given above as long as it is assumed that the marker s in genitive
compounds is essentially the same entity as that in [NP’s N] construction. Therefore, the
simplest solution in connection with the marker s seems to be that these two uses of it are
treated as mere homonyms and that this marker, when used in genitive compounds, is
considered not an inflectional suffix but some kind of linking element similar to ‘derivational
linking elements’ which are observed within words like the following (see Allen 1978):
(28) craftsman, kinsman, doorsman
But I consider that the above-mentioned solution is not supportive, because it will make it
impossible for us to account for the fact that [NP’s N] constructions and [N’s N] compounds
share at least two semantic properties. They will be discussed below.
It has been mentioned in various researches (Quirk et al. 1985, Greenbaum 1996, Ljung
1997, Biber et al. 1999, to mention a few) that in the case of [NP’s N] constructions, it is
typical of the NPs with s to refer to animate beings, more specifically, to human beings.3 The
same is true with genitive compounds; that is, the N with s is human or animate. However, in
the case of genitive compounds, it seems that the requirement for the animacy or humanness
of the non-head N has been assumed only implicitly and that no special emphasis has been
placed upon this fact in linguistic research, with the single exception of Taylor 1996, as far as
I know. According to Taylor 1996, who deals with various kinds of possessive constructions
in English under the framework of cognitive grammar, the ‘reference point’ function of NPs
with s requires both NPs in [NP’s N] constructions and Ns in [N’s N] compounds refer to
animate or human beings. It will not be so easy to account for the animacy or humanness of
the above-mentioned NPs and Ns, mutatis mutandis, in the framework of generative
transformational theory, because this framework does not have recourse to the notion of
‘reference point.’ Still, it seems that this kind of semantic similarity indicates that the same
morpheme s is involved in [NP’s N] constructions and genitive compounds.
In connection with the humanness of the NP in [NP’s N] constructions, it is stated in
Biber et al. 1999 that ‘nouns with human/personal reference, especially proper nouns, tend to
occur with the s-genitive rather than an of-phrase’ (p.302). Here remember that as is clearly
seen from the examples given in (4) above, there are many genitive compounds whose
non-head N with s is a proper noun which is human. Thus, it seems clear that the tendency
for proper nouns to occur both in [NP’s N] constructions and genitive compounds suggests
that the s’s occurring inside them can be reduced to the same morpheme.
Another semantic property which is shared by [NP’s N] constructions and [N’s N]
compounds is mentioned by Taylor 1996. According to Taylor 1996, NPs in the former have
to be referential, and in some of the latter, unlike in ordinary noun-noun compounds, a certain
degree of referentiality is implied for the non-head N. Taylor proposes that this semantic
property of referentiality also accords with the referential point function of NPs with s. For
example, in the case of insider’s report and insider report (both of which are acceptable), the
noun insider’s in the former exhibits some degree of referentiality in that a single person has
offered a report, whereas the same noun in the latter lacks referentiality, and the compound
7
merely means a report of the kind that only insiders can offer. The same can be said with
children’s room and guest room on the one hand and driver’s seat and passenger seat on the
other (Taylor 1996: 309).4, 5
4.2 The Morpheme s in Genitive Compounds
Having shown that the genitive marker s in the [NP’s N] construction and that in the [N’s
N] compounds are reducible to the same entity, we seem to have two possible approaches to
the formation of genitive compounds. First, I introduce Zribi-Hertz 1997’s proposal, point
out some problems with it, and subsequently make an alternative proposal which will appear
more radical but nonetheless capture more adequately the essential unity of the two uses of the
morpheme s.
Zribi-Hertz 1997 claims that the s’s in [NP’s N] constructions and [N’s N] compounds
should be regarded as two uses of the same entity, though he seems to give nodefinite
evidence for it, and that this entity can operate in two different components, i.e. syntax and the
lexicon. Moreover, Zribi-Hertz 1997 claims that this analysis of the dual behavior of the
morpheme s is not so unreasonable, by referring the fact that the passive morpheme ed can
behave differently, namely, either as an inflectional suffix in passive constructions or as a
derivational suffix in expressions like a learned girl and a crooked smile in which prenominal
past participles function as adjectives.6
On the basis of the characterization of the distinction between inflectional morphology
and derivational morphology proposed by Anderson 1992 and others, we can say that
inflectional morphology is concerned with “those aspects of word structure (morphosyntax)
that interact with phrasal syntax” (Jackendoff 1997: 114) and that derivational morphology is
regarded as “essentially invisible to phrasal syntax” (Jackendoff 1997: 115). (Jackendoff
1997 adopts Anderson 1992’s characterization of the distinction.) This distinction will
naturally lead us to conclude that, as is claimed in Zribi-Hertz 1997, the affix s in the genitive
compound is derivational, because it seems inconceivable that the applicability of syntactic
rules would depend on whether a compound in question is in the form of [N N] or [N’s N].
It is well known that many derivational affixes, especially suffixes, change the categories
of their bases, and Zribi-Hertz 1997 asserts that the characterization of the morpheme s as a
derivational affix is motivated by the fact that it is a category-changing affix; that is, the noun
suffixed with s can be identified as an adjective formed from a noun. I will examine the
validity of this proposal by choosing one piece of evidence which is probably the most
convincing of the four given by Zribi-Hertz 1997.
Zribi-Hertz 1997 mentions that agreement is typically one of the properties of adjectives
though English happens not to have underived adjectives which are overtly inflected, and
claims that the facts below suggest that the noun suffixed with s in genitive compounds must
agree in number with the following modified noun.
(29) a. (I saw) one large green {girl’s/ man’s/ child’s/ woman’s} bicycle.
b. (I saw) two large green {girls’/ men’s/ children’s/ women’s} bicycles.
c. *(I saw) two large green {girl’s/ man’s/ child’s/ woman’s} bicycles.
(Zribi-Hertz 1997: 532)
But actually there are a lot of counterexamples like (30b)-(30d) in addition to (30a) which
Zribi-Hertz 1997 herself refers to.
8
(30) a. I walked into a large blue {??man’s/ men’s} room.
(Zribi-Hertz 1997: 532, fn.23)
b. children’s playground, children’s room, women’s college,
magistrates’ court, collector’s items, women’s magazine (Taylor 1996)
c. girls’ school
(Greenbaum 1996: 116)
d. witches’-broom
(Gold 1975: 155)
A natural conclusion to follow from the facts in (30) above will be, contra Zribi-Hertz 1997,
that nouns with the affix s in genitive compounds behave differently from possessive
adjectives in Slavic languages which agree with nouns they modify with respect to number,
case, and gender (see Corbett 1987). Moreover, there are many genitive compounds which
cannot be paraphrased as expressions with prenominal adjectives, as indicated in (31), though
this kind of paraphrase is sometimes possible as in (32).
(31) a.
b.
c.
d.
(32) a.
b.
c.
d.
a children’s room -- *a childish room
a woman’s magazine -- *a womanly magazine
boys’ shoes -- *boyish shoes
men’s room -- *manly room
her mother’s love -- her motherly love
a giant’s task -- a gigantic task
his boy’s cheeks -- his boyish cheeks
his woman’s voice -- his womanly voice
(a., b. Yasui et al. 1976: 38)
This being the case, we can no longer assert that it is because the affix s within a genitive
compound is category-changing that it is considered to be derivational. Still, this affix cannot
be inflectional, because it occurs inside a genitive compound and syntax typically cannot
access its internal structure.
A further problem we are confronted with under the assumption that the marker s in the
genitive compound is a pure derivational affix will be that it cannot stand alone but always has
to occur inside a word, as is seen from (33) below.
(33) a. *Her love was so mother’s. (cf. Her love was so motherly.)
b. *His cheek was so boy’s. (cf. His cheek was so boyish.)
The above-mentioned behavior of the marker s in genitive compounds seems to be rather
exceptional as a property which characterizes derivational morphology in English.
To sum up, there is no explicit evidence that the marker s in the [N’s N] compound is a
derivational suffix, except for the fact that it occurs word-internally in contrast to the genitive
marker s used in the [NP’s N] construction.
At this point I present an alternative analysis which does not assume that [N’s N]
compounds are formed in the lexicon independently of [NP’s N] constructions but that the
former are formed in the lexicon by the rule (34) below.
(34) N → NP (in Abney 1987’s sense)
This rule is counted as a kind of reanalysis rule which reanalyzes a phrasal category as a
lexical category and which are applied in the lexicon, as will be clear in Section 5.2. I
suppose that [NP’s N] constructions have DP structures, as was already indicated in Section 2,
9
and therefore, the NP in (34) above should be interpreted as a constituent which occurs in the
internal structure of DP. As will be fully discussed in Section 5, [N’s N] compounds should
be considered to result from the reanalysis of NP in accordance with the rule in (34), rather
than from the reanalysis of DP. In the case of the genitive compound woman’s magazine, the
reanalysis rule in (34) operates so as to generate the structure in (35) below.
(35)
N1
NP 1
NP 2
NP 3
N'
N'
N2
N3
woman
s
magazine
This reanalysis approach to genitive compounds should clear up some problems with the
marker s inside them. It can solve the problem of whether genitive compounds should be
regarded as counterexamples to the generalization (5) given above. As was already
mentioned, the marker s in genitive compounds cannot be regarded as a pure derivational
suffix, but nonetheless, it cannot be regarded as an inflectional suffix either. That is, this
marker is neither fully inflectional nor fully derivational. I consider that the reanalysis
approach given above can account for this intermediateness of this marker between an
inflectional and a derivational suffix. According to this approach, this marker might be
regarded as derivational in that it occurs inside a genitive compound, that is, N1 in the
structure in (35) above, as the result of reanalysis. But at the same time, it might be regarded
as inflectional in that it occurs within the NP1 in (35), which is usually supposed to be
syntactically generated. Thus, the reanalysis approach makes it possible for us to consider that
genitive compounds are not counterexamples to the generalization given in (5) above, because
the marker s inside them can be neither fully derivational nor fully inflectional.
In addition, the fact that the initial noun with s in a genitive compound cannot stand
alone is also accounted for by assuming that this marker would not be attached to the noun by
a usual word formation rule but that it is ‘locked’ within a genitive compound after the
reanalysis rule in (34) applies.
5 Genitive Compounds as Lexicalized Phrases
More should be said of the reanalysis rule for genitive compounds than I have explained
in the last section. But in this section, first, in order to show that the reanalysis approach to
genitive compounds developed above is not an ad hot one but independently motivated,
various other reanalyzed phrases are focused on, and then genitive compounds are discussed
again.
5.1 Reanalyzed Phrases
10
It is well known that in order to argue that there is no separate component of morphology
in the grammar, Lieber 1992a asserts that a phrasal expression and a subsequent noun
constitute a phrasal compound as illustrated in (36) and that a phrasal compound has the
structure shown in (37),
(36) a.
b.
c.
d.
(37)
the Charles and Di syndrome
a who’s the boss wink
an ate too much headache
God is dead theology
(Lieber 1992a: 11)
Xo
YP
X0
Several researchers have raised some problems with this analysis. First, it is not always the
case that a YP constituent and an X0 constituent constitute an X0-level constituent. This is
clear from the fact that in some cases an adjective can separate a phrasal expression from the
head noun (see (38)), as pointed out by Sproat 1993, Sugioka 1994, and Kato and Kageyama
1998.
(38) a. He gave an in-depth, thorough report.
b. The stew had a rather uniquely pungent, floor of a birdcage, salty taste.
(a., b. Sproat 1993: 248)
c. pleasant-to-read Russian novels
(Sugioka 1994: 254)
d. It was a cost-of-living reliable index.
(Kato and Kageyama 1998: 311)
The following expressions indicated in Burstein 1992 can be added:
(39) a. He made an off the wall sarcastic comment.
b. That is a state-of-the-art expensive computer.
c. He wrote a stick-to-the-issue, provocative article.
(Burstein 1992: 64)
(Burstein 1992: 69)
(Burstein 1992: 73)
The possibility of one-substitution in expressions such as (40) below also proves the
inadequacy of Lieber 1992a’s analysis in which all expressions consisting of a YP constituent
and an X0 constituent are regarded as X0-level compounds.
(40)
— Is it a cost-of-living index or a consumer price index?
— A cost-of-living one.
(Kato and Kageyama 1998: 312)
Another problem with the structure (37) is that not every YP can seem to occur
prenominally, as seen in (41a)-(41c), which are almost unacceptable in contrast to (36a)-(36c).
(41) a. ??a Harry-and-Betty syndrome
(Jackendoff 1997: 231)
b. ??who’s the manager, proprietor, or CEO wink
c. ??an ate too much and smoked a post-prandial cigar headache
(b., c. Bresnan and Mchombo 1995: 194)
11
It is suggested in Wiese 1996, Spencer 1993: 586, and Bresnan and Mchombo 1995: 194 that
it will be more appropriate to regard prenominal phrasal expressions like those in (36) above
as quoted or listed phrases. (In fact, in Jespersen 1961 (MEG 2: 352-353) phrasal
expressions like (36b) and (36d) are termed ‘quotation adjuncts.’) Spencer 1993: 586 states
that morphology can be fed by syntax over a limited domain but that this should not be
equated with Lieber’s position that morphology actually is syntax.
Wiese 1996, in favor of a quotation analysis, presents the following structure for phrasal
compounds:
(42)
X0
Y0
X0
"NP/VP/PP..."
In the structure in (42), a quoted phrase and an X0 form a compound; therefore, this structure
too will face the problem of the lexical status of the topmost constituent, as is the case with
the structure (37) above. But the structure (42) seems adequate in that various quoted phrases
are considered to have acquired lexical status (i.e. Y0 in (42)). (In contrast, usual phrases
obviously cannot occur prenominally, as witnessed *by-the-sea cottage, and *interest-us
article.)
Wiese 1996 concludes his paper with the statement that “all complete phrases can in
principle be quoted” (p. 191). In order to prove the validity of his conclusion, Wiese 1996
gives some facts which he considers will support it. One of them is that the following phrasal
compounds seem to be perfectly acceptable under an interpretation in which they are quoted,
though Burstein 1992: 54 does not accept them, claiming that phrasal expressions which have
been reanalyzed as adjectives must be idiomatic or ‘frozen’ in a sense indicated below.
(43) a. (*) along the wall ivy
b. (*) beside the river vineyards
In face of the two native speakers’ variance in their tolerance for expressions such as
(43), I conjecture that even Wiese 1996 would hesitate to judge (44) as perfectly acceptable.
(44) a. *along the high wall ivy
b. *beside the river near the village vineyards
Suppose that my conjecture is accurate. Then my position will be essentially the same as
Burstein 1992’s, as far as expressions like off the wall, state-of-the-art, and stick-to-the-issue
in (39) above are concerned. Burstein 1992 regards such expressions as ‘frozen’ or idiomatic
on the basis of the fact that no extra word such as an adjective can be inserted into them and
that they cannot be made structurally more complex by adding some words, as seen in (45)
and (46).
(45) a. after (*new) tax reform
(Burstein 1992: 56)
b. Those are expensive, hang-on-the-(*plastic)-wall TVs. (Burstein 1992: 73)
(46) a. ?the [clothes of the 1920’s from Alabama] auction
12
b. *the [clothes of the 1920’s from Alabama during the Depression] auction
cf. the [clothes of the 1920’s] auction
the [clothes from Alabama] auction
(Burstein 1992: 77)
It is certain that after tax and hang on the wall in (45) are much more transparent in meaning
than, say, behind-the-scenes (policy maker), round-the-clock (service), clear-the-air
(statement). Nevertheless, I claim, in conformity with Burstein 1992, that the former two as
well as the latter three are ‘frozen’ phrases, because their structures are tightly fixed. In
Shimamura 1986 I pointed out some facts similar to (45) and (46).
(47) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
after-the-(*lavish)-party mess
after-(*that)-party mess
under-the-(*tall)-tree(s) picnic
under-the-(*three)-tree(s) picnic
end-of-the-(*twentieth)-century time
(Shimamura 1986)
(47a) and (47c) will be unacceptable if an adjective is inserted, and (47b) and (47d) will be
unacceptable if they contain the referential expressions that party and the three tree(s)
respectively. (47e), if it contains the ordinal number twentieth, is also unacceptable.
It is well known that so-called idioms whose meanings cannot be straightforwardly
predicted from the meanings of the component words are ‘frozen’. Words occurring in
idioms often do not permit the usual variability they display in other contexts, as is illustrated
with (48).
(48) a. It’s raining cats and dogs.
b. *It’s raining a cat and a dog.
c. *It’s raining dogs and cats.
(Crystal 1997: s.v. ‘idiom(atic)’)
Moreover, other elements often cannot occur inside idioms, as is evident from (49) and (50),
though in some cases parts of idioms can take nonidiomatic modifiers as in (51) (Fellbaum
1993: 273, Nunberg et al. 1994: 500, and O’Grady 1998: 282, among others).
(49) a.
b.
(50) a.
b.
(51) a.
b.
You will have to bite the bullet.
*You will have to bite {a/ no/ every｝bullet.
Tom has kicked the bucket.
*Tom has kicked the big bucket.
kick the filthy habit
leave no legal stone unturned
(Fellbaum 1993: 275)
(O’Grady 1998: 282)
At this point, I would like to propose that some reanalyzed or lexicalized phrases
which function as prenominal modifiers are ‘frozen’ phrases whose structures are tightly fixed
and
not allowed considerable latitude in form, as in (45)-(47), and that such frozen
reanalyzed phrases are phrases which are formed by reanalysis rules like the ones shown in
(52) below which change a phrasal category to a lexical (i.e. X0-level) category. (On the
other hand, I do not discuss how we should obtain phrasal compounds like (36) which contain
phrases which seem to be quasi-quotative are obtained, because they cannot decide between
lexical and nonlexical analyses of compounds, as is suggested by Wiese 1996: 190.)
13
(52) a. A → PP
b. A → VP
c. A → NP (in Abney 1987’s sense)
The application of the reanalysis rules in (52a) and (52b) result in reanalyzed phrases like
after tax (reform) in (45a) and hang-on-the-wall (TVs) in (45b) respectively. And (52c)
generates reanalyzed phrases like end-of-the-century (time) in (47e).
Phrases which are to be reanalyzed as adjectives by this rule should be regarded as not
DPs but NPs. Notice that such phrases cannot be preceded by a determiner, as shown in (53).
(53) a.
b.
c.
d.
a [floor of a birdcage] taste
*a [the floor of a birdcage] taste
those [turn-of-the-century] houses
*those [the-turn-of-the-century] houses
(a., b.
Lieber 1992a: 12)
Hoeksema 1988 claims that the non-head element of a phrasal compound must be any
maximal phrase that belongs to an open class, that is, VP, AP, NP, and PP, because open
classes are the classes that are typically involved in word formation.7 (It is followed by Lieber
1992a:12 as well.) Because of this restriction, NPs can be reanalyzed as adjectives, but DPs
cannot.
As suggested in Section 4.2, reanalysis rules like those in (52) which generate ‘frozen’
phrases should be considered to apply in the lexicon and not in syntax, because such phrases
can provide inputs for compounding, as illustrated in (54).8
(54) a. clear-the-air statement
b. after-the-party mess
5.2 Genitive Compounds and Other Reanalyzed Phrases
After making an extended digression, let us turn back to the discussion of genitive
compounds. I suggested in Section 4.2 that the phrases which are to be reanalyzed as
genitive compounds should be NPs and not DPs , as is stipulated by the reanalysis rule in (34)
(repeated as (55)).9
(55) N → NP (in Abney 1987’s sense)
The above-mentioned suggestion can be proved by the fact that genitive compounds, like
other reanalyzed phrases dealt with in Section 5.1, can involve no determiner in the initial
position, as in (56).
(56)
*that [the woman’s magazine]
Next, compare the structures in (57a) and (57b). The former is the structure for the [NP’s N]
construction [[the woman]’s magazine] and the latter the structure which contains the NP1 ,
which has to be reanalyzed in order to obtain the genitive compound [woman’s magazine].
14
(57)
DP
a.
DP
D'
the woman
D
NP
s
magazine
DP
b.
D'
NP 1
D
NP 2
the
NP 3
N'
N'
N
N
woman
s
magazine
(57b) is obviously not a correct DP structure, and therefore, it is considered that it cannot exist
independently and that the NP1 in (57b) has to be reanalyzed as a noun (i.e. a genitive
compound). The fact that the genitive marker s in (57a), unlike that in (57b), occupies the
head position in the DP structure makes it possible that the DP Specifier the woman in the
former structure is assigned the genitive Case by this marker and therefore can be interpreted
as a possessor. As was indicated in Section 4, the NP in the [NP’s N] construction denotes a
possessor, but the N in the [N’s N] compound does not. This can be accounted for by
considering that the genitive marker s in the structure in (57a), unlike that in (57b), functions
as the head of the DP. But we have to examine carefully whether the analysis in which the
latter structure, which is not taken directly to be generated in syntax, is stipulated is
independently motivated. I can say nothing definite about this.
In Johnson et al. 1996, it is explained that about half of the 3 to 5 year old children who
were asked to interpret expressions such as the two bears’ trees responded as if the two
modified trees. They conclude that apparently prenominal genitives may at first be more like
compounds like ladies’room than like adult DP structures, though they do not mention
explicitly what structure is assigned to the above-mentioned expressions in such children’s
grammar. Here suppose that as in the case of the two bears’ trees given above, the children
interpret expressions with premodification like the two little bears’ trees and the two bears’
small trees to have compound-type readings, though Johnson et al. 1996 do not mention it.
Then it might be the case that in the children’s grammar, something like the NP1 structure
occurring in (57b) above are assigned to such expressions. As mentioned above, in the case
of adult grammar, the NP1 structure, in which the marker s is not assigned the genitive Case,
15
cannot exist independently and can appear only in the form of genitive compounds, which, I
have claimed, are obtainable as the result of reanalysis of the NP with s. I have to consider
whether there are independent motivations for the postulation of the DP structure represented
in (57b).
If the reanalysis approach to genitive compounds is basically correct, it follows that
genitive compounds, like other ‘frozen’ phrases discussed above, are characterized as
reanalyzed or lexicalized phrases which are X0s.10 Under this approach it is predicted that the
reanalysis rule in (55) for genitive compounds and reanalysis rules like the ones shown in (52)
for frozen phrases have something in common. In order to make sure that this prediction is
accurate, let us investigate more fully the characterization of reanalysis rules.
I showed in Section 5.1 that reanalysis rules for ‘frozen’ phrases are applied in the
lexicon. The same is true of the reanalysis rule for genitive compounds, as seen from the
following compounds which have incorporated the genitive compounds.
(58) a. women’s college fair
b. woman’s magazine reader
c. men’s wear shop
I have proposed above that both genitive compounds and frozen phrases are the products
of lexicalization of syntactic phrases. If this proposal is reasonable, we will be led to reject
the assumption made by Chomsky 1995: 319 that morphology deals only with X0 categories.
In fact, there is a sense in which genitive compounds and frozen phrases blur the boundary
between morphology and syntax. But what should be emphasized here again is that only a
small number of syntactic phrases are actually treated as frozen phrases, as was shown in (45)(47). To be more concrete, it seems that only the syntactic structures of the following forms
(and probably some other forms similar to them), all of which seem to be rather simple or
short, can be reanalyzed or lexicalized as adjectives: [P - (the) - N] PP, [V - (the) - N] VP, [V P - (the) - N] VP, [N - P - (the) - N] NP. 11 (As for examples which have such structures, see
Shimamura 1986.) The same is true with genitive compounds. The NPs with s which are to
be reanalyzed or lexicalized as genitive compounds are limited to the structure of the form
[N’s - N] NP. The unacceptability of (11b) above (reproduced as (59)) and (60) suggests that
pre- or postmodification of the first or the second nouns in the reanalyzed NP with s is
impermissible.12
(59) *these [children’s [rough and heavy shoes]]
(60) a. *a [[children who are gifted]’s school]
b. *a[ [very old people]’s home]
(Taylor 1996: 288)
(Taylor 1996: 289)
Di Sciullo and Williams 1987, in the framework of a strict demarcation between
morphology and syntax, refer to Romance compounds like (61) and posit the reanalysis rule
(62) as a marked rule generating structures which are internally syntactic but externally
lexical.
(61) a. V + N: essui-glace
wipe-window
b. V + A: gagne-petit
gain-small
c. V + Adv: couche-tard
‘windscreen wiper’
‘low wage earner’
16
lie-late
(62) N → VP
‘night-owl’, ‘one who goes to bed late’
It seems to me that Di Sciullo and Williams 1987 are on the right track when they reach the
conclusion that syntactically formed phrases are allowed to enter the lexicon only in the
special case of phrases which have been reanalyzed as words. Interestingly, Di Sciullo and
Williams 1987, offering this conclusion, add that “the phrases actually found as X0s are quite
limited and short. In part this can be explained in terms of atomicity -- because they are X0s,
they cannot contain any referential material, and it is difficult to construct a long phrase
without including any referential material” (p.84). Consider (63) below.
(63) a. *essui-bien-glace
wipe-well-window
b. *essui-quelques-glaces
wipe-some-windows
(Di Sciullo and Williams 1987: 80)
In (63a) and (63b), the adverb bien and the quantifier quelques respectively intervene between
the words constituting the compound .
It is clear from the above-mentioned remarks of Di Sciullo and Williams 1987 about the
structures of Romance compounds, that the restrictedness of reanalyzed phrases in form is
common to English genitive compounds, English ‘frozen’ phrases, and Romance compounds.
But the problem that we have with reanalysis rules for these three kinds of expression, if
formulated as in (52), (55) and (62), seems to be that these rules cannot account for the
above-mentioned fact; that is, they would generate not only correct English genitive
compounds, English frozen phrases, and Romance compounds but also many incorrect ones
into which various syntactically generated phrases have been incorporated. Therefore, a more
appropriate way of dealing with this problem might be to list in the lexicon syntactic
structures which should be reanalyzed as words. That is, we consider that only a limited
number of syntactic structures which are rather short and simple, once being generated above
the X0-level in syntax, enter the lexicon and are listed as such in the lexicon, and that only
these syntactic structures undergo reanalysis rules. Under this analysis, some syntactic
phrases can really behave as words, but such syntactic phrases are not generated but merely
listed in the lexicon; they are not generated in the lexicon. It is not clear to me whether such
an analysis is tenable or not. I leave this problem open for future research. Before turning to
the next section, I would like to add that compounds like the ones in (54) above with a frozen
phrase in the non-head position cannot be formed by recursion from syntax back into
morphology, as suggested by Kiparsky 1982: 9-10. This analysis will not make it possible to
impose restrictions on the forms of frozen phrases.
6 The Boundary between [NP’s N] Constructions and Genitive Compounds
In this section I would like to examine the validity of a proposal made by Taylor 1996
with respect to the three expressions, i.e. [NP’s N] expressions, [N’s N] compounds and
ordinary noun-noun compounds. After his careful and insightful investigations of them in the
framework of cognitive grammar, Taylor 1996 presents a conclusion which he hopes will give
a fundamental support to the notion of prototype structure. His conclusion is that there is a
continuum of the expressions given above and therefore that there is no clear-cut boundary
between them. Taylor 1996 claims that “an expression simultaneously exhibits some
17
properties of the structure [XY][Z] and properties of the structure [X][YZ]” (p. 312). He
substantiates his claim by showing some expressions which are not good examples of either
the [NP’s N] construction or the [N’s N] compound. I will first introduce his explanation by
giving an example of such expressions and then show an alternative proposal without recourse
to the notion of prototype structure.
Taylor 1996’s explanation goes as follows. The periphery of the expression in (64)
below can be attested by the fact that it simultaneously exhibits some properties of the [NP’s
N] construction and some properties of the [N’s N] compounds.
(64) a man’s skull
The unacceptability of (65) below suggests that (64) has the property of the [N’s N]
compound, not the [NP’s N] construction. On the other hand, the acceptability of (66)
indicates that the two occurrences of the pronoun he can be coreferential with the noun man
appearing in (64). Such an interpretation is possible because (64) has the [NP’s N] structure.
(65) *[a man]’s [forty thousand-year-old skull]
cf. a forty thousand-year-old [man’s skull]
(Taylor 1996: 298)
(66) The archaeologists found a forty thousand-year-old mani’s skull. It is not known how
old hei was when hei died.
(Taylor 1996: 297)
Meeting with the above explanation of Taylor 1996, I would like to propose alternatively
that the notion of coanalysis (cf. Di Sciullo and Willams 1987 and Ike-uchi 1988, among
others) is promising to account for both (65) and (66). The expression in (64) is considered
to have a coanalyzed structure; that is, it simultaneously possesses two different structures as
depicted in (67).
(67)
DP
D'
DP
D
D'
NP
D
NP
N'
a
N'
N
N
s
m an
skull
N
N
N'
N'
NP
NP
NP
N
18
The upper part of the structure in (67) is syntactically generated; on the other hand, its lower
part is morphologically obtained by reanalysis.13 What makes the expression in (64)
peripheral is the fact that it has a coanalyzed structure whose upper part is purely syntactic and
the latter part is purely morphological. As Di Sciullo and Williams 1987 state, “coanalysis is
not a core grammar” (p.91). Thus, the notion of coanalysis can seem to account for the
marginal status of the expression in (64). Consequently, I consider, in opposition to Taylor
1996: 312, that at least in the case of [NP’s N] constructions and [N’s N] compounds, it is
“possible, within classical theories of syntax, to claim that an expression simultaneously
exhibits some properties of the structure [XY][Z] and [X][YZ].”
As for the continuum from genitive compounds to ordinary noun-noun compounds,
which Taylor claims as well, I cannot afford to argue against this claim. But it seems that not
so much explicit evidence is shown that these two kinds of compound exhibit prototype
structures.
7 Summary and Residual Problems
I have argued that genitive compounds as well as ‘frozen’ phrases can be characterized
as lexicalized or reanalyzed phrases which are X0 s. If this analysis is correct, we can
conclude that there are some words which are structurally linked to phrases through the
process of reanalysis or lexicalization. What I have emphasized with respect to this process
is that not every syntactically generated phrase can enter the lexicon and undergo this process.
In the case of genitive compounds, neither premodification nor postmodification is
permissible (sse (59) and (60)). In Section 5.1 I indicated that the same applies to ‘frozen’
phrases. It seems that syntactic phrases which have been reanalyzed as words are quite limited
and rather short or simple. But it is not clear to me at present whether such phrases should be
listed as such in the lexicon.
In Japanese, like in English, there are not only noun-noun compounds but also genitive
compounds. The latter are in the form [N-no-N]. Several examples of them are given
below. (For more examples and more extensive discussion of Japanese genitive compounds,
see Shimamura 1999.)
(68) a. umi -no
ie
sea
-GEN house
‘teahouse on the beach’
b. haha
-no hi
mother -GEN day
‘Mother’s Day’
c. na -no hana
rape-GEN flower
‘rape blooms’
The genitive marker no is used in both NP structures and genitive compounds. However,
there seems to be no positive evidence that the reanalysis approach to genitive compounds in
English developed in this paper can be extended to those in Japanese. I leave this problem
open for future research.
19
* This is a revised version of Shimamura 1998, 1999.
Notes
1
However, many examples against the idea of words as anaphoric islands have been pointed out (e.g. Lieber
1992a). I do not pursue this issue here.
2
(22) is presented in Taylor 1996: 291 to explain that its unacceptability is attributed to the fact that the first
noun with s inside a genitive compound has no referentiality, rather than to argue for the notion of anaphoric
island. Taylor 1996, in fact, points out that there are some genitive compounds whose first noun with s has a
weak referentiality, and argues that in such a case, coreferentiality is permissible as is shown below.
(i) We now bring you a disturbing [insideri’s report], in which hei describes the latest happenings in the country.
(Taylor 1996: 310)
Taylor states that (i) is accepted (though perhaps marginally), while the following, which includes a noun-noun
compound, is completely unacceptable.
(ii) *We now bring you a disturbing [insideri report], in which hei describes the latest happenings in
the
country.
(Ibid.)
3
For animacy of prenominal genitive NPs, see also the gender hierarchy of Quirk et al. 1985: 322-323.
4
The OED, however, lists one example of guest’s room in addition to two examples of guest room. (As for
children’s room, it is not listed in the dictionary, and children room is not listed there either.) And the OED lists
one example of passenger’s seat as well as seven examples of passenger seat. (The dictionary lists no example
of driver seat, while 28 examples of driver’s seat are observed there.)
5
The use of [N N] compounds can typically be characterized as narrowing the semantic coverage of the head
noun to a subclass. For details, see Kay and Zimmer 1990 and the ‘IS A’ condition (Allen 1978).
6
Zribi-Hertz 1997 also proposes that the genitive marker s, when used after a copula, also behaves either as
inflectional or as derivational. I cannot afford to examine the plausibility of this proposal.
7
See Hoeksema 1988 for a discussion of why this proposal is superior to Sproat 1985’s Nonmaximality
Constraint, which is also proposed to account for the absence of determiners in the initial position of a phrasal
compound like end-of-the-century time.
8
I have to admit here that reanalyzed phrases such as (i) and (ii) below cannot be treated well under the
reanalysis approach proposed in this paper.
(i) wash-hand (stand), break-neck (character), tell-tale (face)
(ii) after-party (mess) (cf. also after-the-party (mess) in (47a) above)
on-record (interview) (cf. also on-the-record (interview))
on-spot (inspections) (cf. also on-the-spot (inspections))
Such reanalyzed phrases could be called ‘asyntactic’, containing singular count nouns with zero determiners. At
present I have no satisfactory solution to these asyntactic phrases.
Some of the so-called idioms are also asyntactic, as illustrated with (iii) below.
(iii) eat humble pie, talk turkey
(Fellbaum 1993: 293)
20
Fellbaum1993 proposes that nouns with zero determiners in idioms have figurative meanings corresponding to
mass nouns, which are compatible with zero determiners. I have not yet considered seriously whether this claim
is adequate.
9
It seems that the reanalysis rule in (55), by which NPs are reanalyzed as Nouns, is also applicable to generate
not only genitive compounds but also nouns like the following: cost-of-living, point of view.
10
Notice that in Di Sciullo and Williams 1987, the term ‘lexicalized phrase’ is used in a different sense. By
this term, they mean a listed phrase (i.e. phrasal idiom) which is an XP (not an X0).
11
In Shimamura 1986 I dealt with frozen phrases like tough-to-please (boss) as well. They should probably be
regarded as reanalyzed adjective phrases. But I do not discuss them in this paper because of their some
obscurities. (Burstein 1992 does not treat them either.)
12
As is mentioned in Taylor 1996: 288, genitive compounds like an [old people’s] home, though not (60b), are
permissible. On the basis of such genitive compounds, he suggests the possibility of the N' projection of the
non-head part. However, I consider that the combination of a prenominal modifier and the following noun is an
N, and not N'. For details, see Shimamura (To appear).
As is suggested in Taylor 1996: 289, genitive compounds such as a boys’ [private school] are not
counterexamples to the claim that premodification is impossible in the head position. It should be considered that
private school has acquired the status of a conventionalized compound, as is clear from the assignment of the
primary stress to private (not to school).
13
It will be necessary to restrict coanalyzed structures to the structures in which an affix (or an affix-like
element) is crucially involved. The coanalyzed structure in (67) seems to be consistent with this restriction.
Ike-uchi 1988 proposes slightly to loosen this restriction so as to regard a certain kind of structure not including
an affix as a coanalyzed structure.
References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. MIT doctoral
dissertation.
Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London:
Longman.
Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological Investigations. University of Connecticut doctoral
dissertation.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. “Typological distinctions in word formation.” In Grammatical
Categories and the Lexicon, ed. Timothy Shopen, 3-56. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Balhorn, Mark Gerard. 1992. The Representation of English Genitives. University of
Wisconsin doctoral dissertation.
Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999.
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
21
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1995. “The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from
Bantu.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181-254.
Burstein, Jill Caryn. 1992. The Stress and Syntax of Compound Nominals. City University of
New York doctoral dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 1987. “The morphology/syntax interface: Evidence from possessive
adjectives in Slavic.” Language 63, 299-345.
Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 4th edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1993. “The determiner in English idioms.” In Idioms: Processing,
Structure, and Interpretation, ed. Cristina Cacciari and Patrizia Tabossi, 271-295.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gold, David L. 1975. “Rabbit-foot versus rabbit’s foot: A trend in English compounds?”
American Speech 50, 149-155.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. “Head-types in morpho-syntax.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1988,
ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 123-137. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ike-uchi, Masayuki. 1988. “Review article of Di Sciullo and Williams: On the definition of
word.” English Linguistics 5, 313-328.
Ike-uchi, Masayuki. 1991. “An analysis of English descriptive genitives in the dynamic theory
of syntax.” In Current English Linguistics in Japan, ed. Heizo Nakajima, 95-138.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles 2, 6. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Johnson, Kyle, Sarah Bateman, Deanna Moore, Tim Roeper, and Jill de Villiers. 1996. “On
The acquisition of word order in nominals.” BUCLD 20, 397-406.
Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.
Kato, Kyoko and Taro Kageyama. 1998. “Phrasal compounds and lexical
integrity.” English Linguistics 15, 309-315.
Kay, Paul and Karl Zimmer. 1990. “On the semantics of compounds and genitives in
English.” In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization,
ed. S.L. Tsohatzidis, 239-246. London: Routledge.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “Lexical morphology and phonology.” In Linguistics in the Morning
Calm, ed. I.-S. Yang, 3-91. Seoul: Hanshin.
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic
Press.
Liberman, Mark and Richard Sproat. 1992. “The stress and structure of modified noun
phrases in English.” In Lexical Matters, ed. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 131-181.
Stanford: CSLI.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992a. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992b. “Compounding in English.” Rivista di Linguistica 4, 79-96.
Lung, Magnus. 1997. “The s-genitive and the of-construction in different types of English
22
Texts.” In From AElfric to the New York Times, ed. Udo Fries, Viviane Müller, and
Peter Schneider, 21-32. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
McCawley, James D. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Second edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Nicolas, Tim. 1995. “Semantics of idiom modification.” In Idioms: Structural and
Psychological
Perspectives, ed. Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden,
André Schenk, and Rob Schreuder, 233-252. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. “Idioms.” Language 70, 491-538.
O’grady, William. 1998. “The syntax of idioms.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16,
279-312.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Seuren, Pieter. 1975. “Referential constraints in lexical items.” In Formal Semantics of
Natural
Language, ed. Edwin L. Keenan, 84-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shimamura, Reiko. 1986. “Lexicalization of syntactic phrases.” English Linguistics 3, 20-37.
Shimamura, Reiko. 1999. “Lexicalization of syntactic phrases: The case of genitive
Compounds like woman’s magazine.” In Grant-in-Aid for COE Research Report (3):
Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language, ed. Kazuko Inoue,
277-300. Kanda University of International Studies.
Shimamura, Reiko. 2000. “Go-toshite-no eigo-no zokaku-fukugo-meishi-ni-tsuite (On English
Genitive compounds as ‘words’).” In Grant-in-Aid for COE Research Report (4):
Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language, ed. Kazuko Inoue,
341-361. Kanda University of International Studies.
Shimamura, Reiko. To appear. “The A-N expression within the compound and the phrase/
word distinction.” In Report: Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human
Language, ed. Kazuko Inoue. Kanda University of International Studies.
Sklar, Elizabeth, S. 1976. “The possessive apostrophe: The development and decline of a
crooked mark.” College English 38, 175-183.
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in
Generative Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Spencer, Andrew. 1993. “Review of Lieber: Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in
syntactic theory.” Language 69, 580-587.
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On Deriving the Lexicon. MIT doctoral dissertation.
Sproat, Richard. 1993. “Morphological non-separation revisited: A review of R. Lieber’s
Deconstructing Morphology.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, ed. Geert Booij and
Jaap van Marle, 235-258. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sugioka, Yoko. 1994. “Review article: Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in
Syntactic Theory, by Rochelle Lieber, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1992.”
English Linguistics 11, 245-266.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Second
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Wiese, Richard. 1996. “Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry
27, 183-193.
Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1983. “On the question of definiteness in ‘an old man’s book’.”
Linguistic Inquiry 14, 137-154.
23
Yasui, Minoru, Rei Akiyama, and Masaru Nakamura. 1976. Keiyoshi (Adjectives). Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1997. “On the dual nature of the ‘possessive’ marker in modern English.”
Journal of Linguistics 33, 511-537.
Data:
Algeo, John. 1980. “Where do all the new words come from?” American Speech 55, 264-276.
Algeo, John. 1991. Fifty Years among the New Words: A Dictionary of
Neologisms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ayto, John. 1999. Twentieth Century Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnhart, Robert K., Sol Steinmetz with Clarence L. Barnhart. ed. 1990. The Third Barnhart
Dictionary of New English. H.W. Wilson Company.
Cannon, Garland. 1987. Historical Change and English Word-Formation: Recent Vocabulary.
New York: Peter Lang.
Knowles, Elizabeth and Julia Elliot. ed. 1997. The Oxford Dictionary of New Words. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on Compact Disc. 1993. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
The Department of English
Tsuda College
Tsuda-machi 2-1-1, Kodaira-shi
Tokyo 187-8577
[[email protected]]
[December 1, 2000]
24