Difference between compound words and word combinations

Composition
— a
way of forming a new word by combining at least two stems.

Compounds
are not homogeneous in structure. Traditionally three types are
distinguished:

1)
neutral the
process of compounding is realised
without any linking
elements, by
a mere juxtaposition of two stems.

2)
morphological Morphological
compounds are few
in number. This type is non­productive.
It is represented by words in
which two compounding stems are combined
by a linking vowel or consonant, e. g. Anglo-Saxon,
Franko-Prussian, handiwork, handicraft, craftsmanship, spokesman,
statesman

3)
syntactic In
syntactic compounds (the term is arbitrary)
we once more find a feature of
specifically English word-structure.
These words are formed from
segments of speech, preserving in their structure numerous traces of
syntagmatic relations typical of speech:
articles, prepositions, adverbs,
as in the nouns lily-of-the-valley,
Jack-of-all-trades, good-for-nothing, mother-in-law, sit-at-home.
Syntactical relations and grammatical patterns
current in present-day
English
can be clearly traced in the
structures
of such compound nouns as
pick-me-up, know-all, know-nothing, go-between, get-together,
whodunit. The
last word (meaning «a detective story») was obviously
coined from the ungrammatical variant of the word-group who
(has) done it.

There
are three subtypes of neutral
compounds depending on the structure
of the constituent stems.

1.
they consist of simple affixless stems

blackbird,
shop-window, sunflower, bedroom, tallboy

2.
compounds which have affixes in

their
structure are called derived
or

derivational
compounds,
e.g.

absent-mindedness,
blue-eyed,
golden-haired, broad-shouldered, lady-killer, film-goer, music-lover,
honey-moon-er, first-nighter, late­comer, newcomer, early-riser,
evildoer.

3.
contracted
compounds
These
words have a shortened (contracted)
stem in their
structure: TV-set
(-program, -show, -canal, etc.),
V-day
(Victory day), G-man (Government man «FBI
agent»), H-bag
(handbag), T-shirt, etc.

The
criteria for distinguishing between a compound and a word-combination

1)graphic
criterion-
solid, e.g.
tallboy
through
the hyphen

2)semantic
criterion
a compound forms a unit expressing a single idea which
is not identical to the same
of meaning of its

components
in a free phrase, e.g.
black-bird

3)phonetic
criterion the
presence of a single stress. The criterion is convincingly applicable
to many
compound nouns, yet
does
not work with
compound
adjectives:
cf.
‘slowcoach,
blackbird,
‘tallboy,
but:
blue-‘eyed,
‘absent-‘minded,
‘ill- ‘mannered.

4)morphological
and syntactic criterion In
the word-group a
tall
boy
each
of the constituents
is independently open to

grammatical
changes peculiar to its own category as a part of speech: They
were
the tallest boys in
their
form. Between
the constituent parts of the word-group
other words can be inserted:
a
tall handsome
boy.
The compound tallboy
—
and, in actual fact, any other compound — is not subject to such
changes. The first component is grammatically invariable; the plural
form ending is added to the whole unit: tallboys.
No
word can be inserted between the components, even with the compounds
which have a traditional separate graphic form.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

First, terminology needs to be defined. Here, ‘word’ (orthographic word) and ‘phrase’ (meaningfully constructed string not containing finite verb and consisting of two or more words) are used:

Giegerich argues extensively that

steel bridge and watch-maker are unequivocally phrasal and
lexical respectively.

[ie a phrase and a (compound) word respectively]

The analysis really boils down to ‘is XY better considered/treated as a coherent unit or as a closely-related pair of units?’

He adds

Establishing [these] two prototypes will facilitate a more informed subsequent discussion
of the less clear-cut and possibly borderline cases …

He spends pages attempting to establish the truth of his assertions. And it’s a difficult process. And these are not two of ‘the less clear-cut and possibly borderline cases’.

I feel entitled to quote his ‘Linguists continue to argue’ slightly out of context.

My advice is not to worry too much about when a string has graduated from free combination (ie ‘casual acquaintance’) to strong collocation to open compound. Use them the way most people do, and be aware that the analysis is very tricky and open to dispute.