scholarly journals Splitting Katakana Noun Compounds by Paraphrasing and Back-transliteration

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-88
Author(s):  
Nobuhiro Kaji ◽  
Masaru Kitsuregawa
Keyword(s):  
Noun Compounds

Adjective–noun compounds in Mandarin: a study on productivity

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tian Shen ◽  
R. Harald Baayen
Keyword(s):  
Formation Process ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Distributional Semantics ◽  
Semantic Transparency ◽  
Noun Compounds ◽  
Hapax Legomena

Abstract In structuralist linguistics, compounds are argued not to constitute morphological categories, due to the absence of systematic form-meaning correspondences. This study investigates subsets of compounds for which systematic form-meaning correspondences are present: adjective–noun compounds in Mandarin. We show that there are substantial differences in the productivity of these compounds. One set of productivity measures (the count of types, the count of hapax legomena, and the estimated count of unseen types) reflect compounds’ profitability. By contrast, the category-conditioned degree of productivity is found to correlate with the internal semantic transparency of the words belonging to a morphological category. Greater semantic transparency, gauged by distributional semantics, predicts greater category-conditioned productivity. This dovetails well with the hypothesis that semantic transparency is a prerequisite for a word formation process to be productive.

The paradigmatic aspect of compounding and derivation

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-609
Author(s):  
AYSUN KUNDURACI
Keyword(s):  
Current System ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Morphological Operations ◽  
Dynamic Aspect ◽  
Noun Compounds ◽  
Autonomous Morphology

This study aims to show the dynamic aspect of word-formation paradigms in autonomous morphology by examining the compound marker in Turkish Noun–Noun compounds, as in buz paten-i ‘ice-skate (ice skate-cm)’, and its relation to derivational suffixes. The study proposes a process-based morphological paradigm structure which involves compounding and derivational operations. In this system, the compound marker has a formal paradigmatic function: it creates correct lexeme forms based on bare Noun–Noun compounds, which would otherwise serve as input to certain derivational operations. The current system thus accounts for both permitted and unpermitted suffix combinations involving compounding and the optionality in certain combinations, such as buz paten-ci (-si) ‘a/the ice skater (ice skate-agt-cm)’, where the compound marker may (not) appear in combination with the (derivational) agentive -CI. The study also presents a survey which implies that a group of derivational affixes is in a paradigmatic relation with the compound marker, and all of these affixations constitute alternative paths in a dynamic paradigm structure. The findings of the study are considered to contribute to the understanding of the nature of the autonomous morphological operations and paradigms, which cannot be restricted to the lexicon or manipulated by syntax.

Plurals as modifiers in Dutch and English noun-noun compounds express plurality in production

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arina Banga ◽  
Esther Hanssen ◽  
Anneke Neijt ◽  
Robert Schreuder
Keyword(s):  
Picture Naming ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Semantic Constraints ◽  
Noun Compounds ◽  
English Noun

The present study investigates the relation between conceptual plurality and the occurrence of a plural morpheme in novel Dutch and English noun-noun compounds. Using a picture-naming task, we compared the naming responses of native Dutch speakers and native English speakers to pictures depicting either one or multiple instances of the same object serving as a possible modifier in a novel noun-noun compound. While the speakers of both languages most frequently produced novel compounds containing a singular modifier, they also used compounds containing a plural modifier and did this more often to describe a picture with several instances of an object than to describe a picture with one instance of the object. Speakers of English incorporated some regular plurals into the noun-noun compounds they produced. These results contradict the words-and-rules theory of Pinker (1999) and also the semantic constraints for compounding put forth by Alegre and Gordon (1996). Interestingly, it appears, however, that the acceptability constraints put forth by Haskell, MacDonald, and Seidenberg (2003) apply to the production of compounds.

scholarly journals The influence of interactional semantic patterns on the interpretation of noun–noun compounds.

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phil Maguire ◽  
Rebecca Maguire ◽  
Arthur W. S. Cater
Keyword(s):  
Noun Compounds

scholarly journals Coordinating nominal compounds: Universal vs. areal tendencies

Linguistics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1197-1243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Context ◽  
The Other ◽  
Irian Jaya ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Nominal Compounds ◽  
Noun Compounds ◽  
The One ◽  
Referential Function

AbstractCoordinating compounds, i.e. complex word forms in which the constituent lexemes are in a coordination relation, may be divided into two classes: hyperonymic, in which the referent of the whole compound is the “sum” of the meanings of the constituent lexemes (Korowaiyumdefól‘(her) husband-wife, couple’; van Enk, Gerrit J., & Lourens de Vries. 1997.The Korowai of Irian Jaya: Their language in its cultural context. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 66), and hyponymic, where the compound designates a single referent having features of all the constituents (Englishactor-director). It has been proposed that languages choose either type as the one with the “tightest” marking pattern; whereas the crosslinguistic tendency is to have tighter hyperonymic compounds, most languages of Europe rather have tighter hyponymic compounds (Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco, Nicola Grandi, & Bernhard Wälchli 2010. Coordination in compounding. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.),Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 177–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins). In this paper, we will test this assumption on noun-noun compounds in a sample of 20 Standard Average European languages and in a balanced sample of 60 non-SAE languages, arguing that the preference for hyperonymic compounds is best explained by the default referential function of nouns; in hyponymic compounds, on the other hand, nouns are used to indicate properties. We will then compare nominal and adjectival coordinating compounds, showing that for the latter the hyponymic compounding pattern is the dominant one, as adjectives are prototypical property-denoting words.

scholarly journals NOUN COMPOUND IN ENGLISH

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ni Luh Ketut Mas Indrawati
Keyword(s):  
Primary Stress ◽  
Noun Compounds ◽  
English Noun

This paper aims at analyzing and describing the English compound specifically the English noun compound.  Compound is a combination of two or more words of which meaning cannot always be predicted from the meaning of each part. In English, words, especially adjectives and nouns, are combined into compound structures in a variety of ways. This article attempts to discuss the formal characteristics and types of the English noun compound. The theory of compound was adopted for further analysis. The finding shows that the formal characteristics of  the English noun compound are:  the noun compounds  have primary stress on the first constituent, the  semantic unity of a noun compound is reflected in an orthographic, the meaning of the noun compound cannot be predicted from  the meaning of the parts. The orthographic characteristics can be solid, hyphenated, and open. The types involved are Subject and Verb, Verb and Object, verb and adverbial, verb-less, subject and complement, combining-form and Bahuvrihi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document