Compounds N+N as formally lexicalized appositions in Spanish

KORNFELD, LAURA

Topics in morphology

IULA

Lugar: Barcelona; Año: 2003; p. 211 - 225

It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the nature of compounds of the type noun+noun (N+N), such as hogar escuela, salón comedor, pollera pantalón, perro policía, turismo aventura, hombre lobo, and to establish their origin as formally lexicalized appositions. The status of compounding is controversial (compare DiSciullo & Williams 1987 ideas, in which compounding in English is considered a morphological process, with Lieber 1992 or Baker 1995 views, that defend its syntactic nature). However, even those who assert that English compounds are morphological, recognize the syntactic form of the internal structure in compounds of Romance languages (cf. DiSciullo & Williams about French compounds such as gagne-petit, essuie-glace, trompe-l?oeil). This hypothesis has not been yet developed for Spanish (cf., in this respect, most specific articles about compounding, such as Rainer & Varela 1992, Piera & Varela 1999 or Val Alvaro 1999). In the particular case of compounds N+N, in literature about Spanish morphology and syntax it has been often remarked their similarities with restrictive appositions (cf. RAE 1973, Hernanz & Brucart 1987, Rainer & Varela 1992, Di Tullio 1997, Val Alvaro 1999, Piera & Varela 1999, among others). These similarities have been explained from different views: compounds are derived from appositions (for example, RAE 1973, Di Tullio 1987); appositions are actually compounds, that is to say, morphological constructions (for example, Hernanz & Brucart 1987); there are two different constructions, one generated by the morphological component (compounds) and the other by the syntactic component (appositions) (for example, Rainer & Varela 1992, Piera & Varela 1999, Val Alvaro 1999). Althought they recognize implicitely a sort of continuum between the two phenomena, Rainer & Varela (1992: 117-120) study some criteria that would differenciate compounds N+N from appositions. The most useful of these criteria seems to be the following: compounds are ?syntatic islands?, referring with this label to the ?inseparability of compounds? and the ?inaccessibility of their constituents for syntactic rules?, but implying too that units whose internal structure obeys the Spanish phrase rules are not compounds (on slightly different terms, the reasoning is reproduced in Piera & Varela 1999: 4380-4386 and Val Alvaro: 4778-4779). In a previous paper (Kornfeld 2000), we have noted in this respect that the opacity to syntactic rules of the compounds N+N actually derives from their syntactic atomicity; indeed, this type of atomicity appears too in sequences that have been clearly generated in syntax and that are, in fact, excluded explicitely by Rainer & Varela from morphological compounds set (i.e. cases of ?lexicalized phrases? or ?improper compounds?, such as ojo de buey or media luna). In this paper, we try to demonstrate that formal similarities between internal structure of compounds N+N and of appositions support the claim that compounds are simply instances of appositions listed in the lexicon and having syntactic atomicity (in the title and the beginning of the abstract, we have called the conjunction of this properties ?formally lexicalized?). With this purpose, first we analyze in some detail the phenomenon of apposition from a syntactic point of view, and, in particular, we suggest a solution to the problems in case assignment to appositions exposed by Hernanz & Brucart (1987). Then, we try to unify the properties of appositions and compounds and to reduce all the types of compounds N+N proposed by Rainer & Varela (1992) or Val Alvaro (1999), for example, to the types of appositions signaled in Val Alvaro (1999). Finally, we explain these phenomena by means of a ?syntactist? model about the relations between morphology, lexicon and syntax. The discussion is based on the following theoretical assumptions: · There are (at least) three different notions of ?word?, that define extensionally different sets of elements: word as a listeme (form listed in the lexicon, necessarily memorized by speakers), word as a morphological object (build from the atoms of morphology) and word as a syntactic atom (unit insertable in syntax into head positions). Morphology is a theory not of the listemes, but of the morphological objects of a language; therefore, it is so regular and productive as syntax is (DiSciullo & Williams 1987). · There are mechanisms for importing syntactic objects to the lexicon, transforming syntactic objects (phrases) in syntactic atoms (syntactic words). Syntactic words include Romance compounds, that reproduce in their internal structure the rules of ?normal? phrases (V+N, V+Adv, N+A, etc.) (DiSciullo & Williams 1987). · From a ?syntactist? approach as the one exposed in Lieber (1992), which tries to reduce morphological principles to the general principles of grammar, the traditional opposition between derivation and compounding can be reformulated in terms of ?words created by word syntax (morphology)? vs. ?words created by proper syntax (sentential syntax)?. From this view, there would not be different principles or rules for syntax and morphology (as DiSciullo & Williams and other lexicalists theories suppose); the same principles set applies to both components, differenciated only by their atoms and products.   References Baker, M. (1995) ?Comments on the Paper by Sadock?, in: Lapointe, S., D. Brentari & P. Farrell (eds.) Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998, 188-212. Di Sciullo, A.M & E. Williams (1987) On the Definition of Word. Cambridge: MIT Press. Di Tullio, A. (1997) Manual de gramática del español. Buenos Aires: Edicial. Hernanz, M.L. & J.M. Brucart (1987) La sintaxis. Barcelona: Crítica. Kornfeld, L. (2000) ?Compuestos de la forma N+N en español?, in: Actas del Congreso de la Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística, 20-23 de septiembre del 2000 (forthcoming). Lieber, R. (1992) Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Piera, C. & S. Varela (1999) ?Relaciones entre morfología y sintaxis?, in: Bosque, I. & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa, vol. 3, chap. 67, 4367-4422. Rainer, F. & Varela, S (1992) ?Compounding in Spanish?, in: Rivista di Linguistica 4, I, 117-142. Real Academia Española [RAE] (1973) Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Val Alvaro, J.F. (1999) ?La composición?, in: Bosque, I. & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa, vol. 3, chap. 73, 4757-4841.   #piccshare_pic_options, #piccshare_pic_options > *, #piccshare_tint, #piccshare_logo { border-radius: 0; -moz-border-radius: 0; border: none; margin: 0; padding: 0; }