1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In English, the lexicon is one of the many areas affected by the asymmetry in the treatment of humans and inanimates. The study focuses on compounds. We compare compounds denoting human animates to those denoting inanimates. We find that there are proportionately few compounds for humans, and that this small proportion reveals a tendency for human animate nouns to be more opaque than nouns for inanimates. We propose that this is due to the way we conceptualize humans, i.e. as more than the sum of their parts. Humans resist transparent denominations because reducing a person to one characteristic amounts to ignoring his or her essential complexity. We take this to be a manifestation of in language. Moreover, when human animate nouns compounds (in spite of their tendency to be opaque), they exhibit two semantic characteristics that are not shared by inanimate nouns. The first one is that they tend to be derogatory. This again indicates that humans cannot easily be reduced to one characteristic. If they are, denominations tend to be negatively loaded. The second one is that they often involve the representation of a (for example, a delivers newspapers, i.e. comes to someone’s place). Transparency is therefore meaningful.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00005.mig
2018-06-28
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A.
    (2003) Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauer, L.
    (1983) English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008a) Les composés exocentriques de l’anglais. In D. Amiot (Ed.), La composition dans une perspective typologique (pp.35–47). Arras: Artois Presse Université.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2008b) Dvandva. Word Structure, 1, 1–20.10.3366/E1750124508000044
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1750124508000044 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2009) A typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.343–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauer, L. , & Huddleston, R.
    (2002) Lexical word formation. In R. Huddleston & J. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.1621–1722). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer, L. , Lieber, R. , & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Booij, G. E.
    (2005) Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In W. U. Dressler et al. (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcation: Selected papers from the 11th morphology meeting, Vienna, February 2004 (pp.109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.264.08boo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.264.08boo [Google Scholar]
  9. (2009) Compounding and construction morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.201–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, J.
    (1994) Past, space and self. Cambridge, Massachussetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chauvier, S.
    (2003) Qu’est-ce qu’une personne?. Paris: Vrin.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, B.
    (1989) (2nd ed.). Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbett, G.
    (1991) Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2000) Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2012) Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139206983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139206983 [Google Scholar]
  16. Craig, C.
    (Ed.) (1986) Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Creissels, D.
    (2006) Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique (2volumes). Paris: Hermes Science Publications, Lavoisier.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W.
    (2003) (1st ed. 1990) Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Damasio, A.
    (2010) Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. London: William Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Downing, P.
    (1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842.10.2307/412913
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dressler, W. U.
    (2006) Compound types. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp.23–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gardelle, L.
    (2006) Le genre en anglais moderne (XVIème siècle à nos jours), PhD dissertation. Paris-Sorbonne University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hatcher, A. G.
    (1960) An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds. Word, 16, 356–373.10.1080/00437956.1960.11659738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1960.11659738 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hume, D.
    (2000) [1748]An inquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Katamba, F.
    (1994) English words. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203205280
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203205280 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levi, J.
    (1978) The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lieber, R.
    (1983) Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 251–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486296
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486296
  30. Lieber, R. , & Štekauer, P.
    (Eds.) (2009) The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Malmberg, B.
    (1977) Signes et symboles. Les bases du langage humain. Paris: Picard.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mignot, E.
    (2008) L’adjectif strange et le nom stranger : quelques réflexions sur les noms en –er, In G. Girard-Gillet (Ed.), Etrange / Etranger, Etudes de linguistique anglaise, CIEREC, Travaux 137. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 161–175.
  33. Mignot, E.
    (2012a) The Conceptualization of Natural Gender in English, Anglophonia32, Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 39–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2012b) Noms d’animés humains et opacité : le cas des conversions verbe - nom en anglais. In P. Frath , V. Bourdier , K. Bréhaux , E. Hilgert and J. Dunphy-Blomfield (Eds.), Res Per Nomen 3 - Référence, conscience et sujet énonciateur, Reims, Épure - Éditions et Presses Universitaires de Reims, 297–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2015) Pragmatic and stylistic uses of personal pronoun one , In L. Gardelle and S. Sorlin (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns (pp.275–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/slcs.171.14mig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.14mig [Google Scholar]
  36. Neveux, J.
    (2013) John Donne. Le sentiment dans la langue. Paris: Editions Rue d’Ulm / Presses de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Opfer, J. E. , & Gelman, S. A.
    (2011) (2nd ed.). Development of the animate inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp.213–238). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Parfit, D.
    (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Plag, I.
    (2003) Word formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  40. Scalise, S. , & Vogel, I.
    (Eds.) (2010) Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.311
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.311 [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith-Stark, T. C.
    (1974) The plurality split. In M. W. La Galy , R. A. Fox & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, April 19–21 1974 (pp. 657–671). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Stevenson, A. , & Waite, M.
    (Eds.) (2011) Concise Oxford English dictionary. Twelfth edition . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tavris, C. , & Aronson, E.
    (2007) Mistakes were made. But not by me. San Diego: Harcourt.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Warren, B.
    (1978) Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00005.mig
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00005.mig
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anthropocentrism , compounds , human nouns , opacity and transparency
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error