This study attempts to classify compound words on the basis of Cognitive Linguistics and compares their usage trends using Computational Linguistics. In order to study compound words, it is very important to study the structure of a sentence because compound word in essence, is a condensed form of a sentence. After the Chomskyan Revolution, the concept of Cognitive linguistics in the structure of a sentence came into limelight. He explains about d-structure (deep structure), which determines the logic or meaning and s-structure (surface structure) that is the phonetic part. Lees, working with Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG), treated compound words, not as separate units but as a kind of embedded sentences and hinted for possible presence of d-structure and s-structure in compound words, which this study tries to investigate. Then on the basis of the Idealized Cognitive Model proposed by Lakoff and Fauconnier, compound words have been classified into transparent, opaque and counterintuitive compound words. Using Google Books Corpus, this study also compares their usage trends. This is done using usage frequency, defined in this work, which is analogous to productivity for affixed words calculated by G. E. Booij. Each class of compound word formed on the basis of ICM is found to have different usage frequency and the possible reasons for this are discussed.
| Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 8, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14 |
| Page(s) | 216-228 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Deep Structure and Surface Structure, Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM), Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG), Counterintuitive Compound Words, Usage Frequency
| [1] | Adams, V. (2016). An Introduction to Modern English Word Formation. London: Routledge. |
| [2] | Algeo, J. (2007). Vocabulary. In Тhe Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 4, Edited by Romaine, Suzzane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [3] | Algeo, J. (2010). The origins and development of the English language. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage learning. |
| [4] | Auch, L., Gagne, C., & Spalding, T. (2020). Conceptualizing semantic transparency: A systematic analysis of semantic transparency measures in English Compound words. Methods in Psychology, 3, 100300. |
| [5] | Bauer, L. (2017). Metonymy and the semantics of word-formation. Mediterranean Morphology Meetings, 11, 1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.26220/mmm.2868. |
| [6] | Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University. |
| [7] | Benczes, R. (2006). Creative Compounding in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. |
| [8] | Bloomfeld, L. (1933). Language. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. |
| [9] | Booij, G. E. (2005). The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. New York: Oxford University Press. |
| [10] | Charteris-Black, J. (1998). Compound nouns and the acquisition of English Neologisms. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 525). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427525.pdf. |
| [11] | Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 0, 229-261. doi:https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288. |
| [12] | Chomsky, N. (2014). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
| [13] | Chomsky, N. (1969). Language and the Mind. (A. Bar-Adon, & W. Leopold, Eds.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. |
| [14] | Chomsky. N. (1968). Remarks on Nominalization. Indiana: Linguistics Club. |
| [15] | Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. |
| [16] | Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. |
| [17] | Fauconnier, G. (1984). Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [18] | Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin. |
| [19] | Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. |
| [20] | Goossens, L. (1995). Metaphtonymy. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive linguistic perspective [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 33]. Edited by Louis Goossens, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie Simon-Vanderbergen and Johan Vanparys. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 159–74. |
| [21] | Gough, P. (1984). Word recognition. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman, 225-253. |
| [22] | Hedberg, N., Sosa, J. M., & Görgülü, E. (2017). The meaning of intonation in yes-noquestions in American English: A corpus study, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13 (2), 321-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0020. |
| [23] | Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwers. |
| [24] | Jacobsen, B. (1977). Transformational-generative grammar: An introductory survey of its genesis and development. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. |
| [25] | Jean-Baptiste, M., Yuan, K. S., Aiden, A. P., Adrian Veres, Gray, M., K., Brockman, W. The Google Books Team, Pickett, J., P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Martin, A., Nowak, and Aiden, E., L. (2010). Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science. |
| [26] | Jespersen, O. (1954). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: Bradford and Dickens. |
| [27] | Katamba, F. (Ed.). (2004). Morphology Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol. 2). Routledge. |
| [28] | Kilambi, P. (2020). Deviation of English - A Subjective Study. The Literary herald, 5 (5), 19-26. |
| [29] | Knop, S. D., & Rycker, T. D. (2008). Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. |
| [30] | Kovecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. a lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Pragmatics and Beyond VII: 8, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. |
| [31] | Kumar, M. (1999). How much deep are the ‘deep structures’? From the Chomskian Perspective. Indian Philosophical Quaterly, 26 (3), 395-403. |
| [32] | Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. |
| [33] | Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. |
| [34] | Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. |
| [35] | Lees, R. B. (1968). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. 5th printing. The Hague: Mouton. |
| [36] | Levi, J. N. (1978). The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: NY: Academic Press. |
| [37] | Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds Consequences for representation, processing and impairment. Brain and Language, 61 (1), 30-44. |
| [38] | Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84 (1), 50-64. |
| [39] | Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [40] | Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word Formation (2nd ed). Munich: Beck, pp. 380-81. |
| [41] | Morris, R. (1872). Historical Outlines of English Accidence. London: Macmillan and co. |
| [42] | Motschenbacher, H., & Roivainen, E. (2020). Personality traits, adjectives and gender: integrating corpus linguistic and psychological approaches. Journal of Language and Discrimination, 4 (1), 16-50. |
| [43] | Nation, I. & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. Edited by R. Carter & M. McCarthy. Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman, 97-110. |
| [44] | Pam M. S. (2013, April 7). BLOCKING. Retrieved from https://psychologydictionary.org/blocking/. |
| [45] | Pennanen, E. V. (1972). Current Views of Word-Formation, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73, 292-308. |
| [46] | Plag, I. (2018). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [47] | Roivainen, E. (2020). Generational changes in personality: the evidence from corpus `linguistics. Psychological Reports, 123 (2), 325-340. |
| [48] | Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a Schema for Stories. In D. G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science (pp. 211-36). New York: Academic Press. |
| [49] | Scalise, S. & Vogel, I. (2010). Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding:Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. |
| [50] | Sedley, D. N. (2003). Plato's Cratylus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
| [51] | Schmidtke, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Kuperman, V. (2018). Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44 (3), 421. |
| [52] | Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The Syntax of Words (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
| [53] | The Times of India (2019, November 11). A four letter word that defined Shashi Tharoor’s famed vocabulary [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5yqO5NX7I. |
| [54] | Trips, C. (2009). Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology. The development of –hood, - dom and –ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. |
| [55] | Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J.(1996). An lntroduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman University Press. |
| [56] | Vervaeke, J., & Green, C. D. (1997). Women, fire and dangerous theories. Metaphor and Symbol, 12, 59-80. |
| [57] | Warren, B. (1992). Sense Developments. A contrastive study of the development of slang senses and novel standard senses in English [Stockholm Studies in English 80]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. |
| [58] | Xiao, R. (2017). Combining transformative generative grammar and systemic functional grammar: Linguistic competence, syntax and second language acquisition. International Journal of English and Literature, 8 (4), 37-42. |
| [59] | Yeh, R. (2011, November 13). Transformational Grammar. Noam Chomsky. http://noamchomsky2011.blogspot.com/2011/11/transformational-grammar.html. |
APA Style
Padmaja Kilambi. (2020). Compound Words’ Classification - A Cognitive Linguistic Based Study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 8(5), 216-228. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14
ACS Style
Padmaja Kilambi. Compound Words’ Classification - A Cognitive Linguistic Based Study. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2020, 8(5), 216-228. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14
AMA Style
Padmaja Kilambi. Compound Words’ Classification - A Cognitive Linguistic Based Study. Int J Lang Linguist. 2020;8(5):216-228. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14,
author = {Padmaja Kilambi},
title = {Compound Words’ Classification - A Cognitive Linguistic Based Study},
journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
volume = {8},
number = {5},
pages = {216-228},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20200805.14},
abstract = {This study attempts to classify compound words on the basis of Cognitive Linguistics and compares their usage trends using Computational Linguistics. In order to study compound words, it is very important to study the structure of a sentence because compound word in essence, is a condensed form of a sentence. After the Chomskyan Revolution, the concept of Cognitive linguistics in the structure of a sentence came into limelight. He explains about d-structure (deep structure), which determines the logic or meaning and s-structure (surface structure) that is the phonetic part. Lees, working with Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG), treated compound words, not as separate units but as a kind of embedded sentences and hinted for possible presence of d-structure and s-structure in compound words, which this study tries to investigate. Then on the basis of the Idealized Cognitive Model proposed by Lakoff and Fauconnier, compound words have been classified into transparent, opaque and counterintuitive compound words. Using Google Books Corpus, this study also compares their usage trends. This is done using usage frequency, defined in this work, which is analogous to productivity for affixed words calculated by G. E. Booij. Each class of compound word formed on the basis of ICM is found to have different usage frequency and the possible reasons for this are discussed.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Compound Words’ Classification - A Cognitive Linguistic Based Study AU - Padmaja Kilambi Y1 - 2020/10/07 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 216 EP - 228 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20200805.14 AB - This study attempts to classify compound words on the basis of Cognitive Linguistics and compares their usage trends using Computational Linguistics. In order to study compound words, it is very important to study the structure of a sentence because compound word in essence, is a condensed form of a sentence. After the Chomskyan Revolution, the concept of Cognitive linguistics in the structure of a sentence came into limelight. He explains about d-structure (deep structure), which determines the logic or meaning and s-structure (surface structure) that is the phonetic part. Lees, working with Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG), treated compound words, not as separate units but as a kind of embedded sentences and hinted for possible presence of d-structure and s-structure in compound words, which this study tries to investigate. Then on the basis of the Idealized Cognitive Model proposed by Lakoff and Fauconnier, compound words have been classified into transparent, opaque and counterintuitive compound words. Using Google Books Corpus, this study also compares their usage trends. This is done using usage frequency, defined in this work, which is analogous to productivity for affixed words calculated by G. E. Booij. Each class of compound word formed on the basis of ICM is found to have different usage frequency and the possible reasons for this are discussed. VL - 8 IS - 5 ER -
Information
Email: