1 / 15

A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: the case of Romance N+N compounding

A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: the case of Romance N+N compounding. Jan Radimský University of South Bohemia ( Czech R epublic ). Introduction. Aim : to e xamine and refine hypotheses accounting for the emergence of the subordinate N+N compounds (SUB- NNs ) in Romance

orankin
Download Presentation

A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: the case of Romance N+N compounding

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: the case of Romance N+N compounding Jan Radimský University ofSouth Bohemia(Czech Republic)

  2. Introduction • Aim: to examine and refinehypotheses accounting for the emergence of the subordinate N+N compounds (SUB-NNs) in Romance • French examples • exposition photos “photography exhibition” • abonnement internet “Internet subscription” • timbre-poste“postage stamp”, lit. “stamp-post” • sauce-tomate“tomato sauce” • Initialassumptions • The emergence of SUB-NN compounds in Frenchcan be accounted for in terms of Construction Grammar: a case ofconstructionchange(Closs-Traugott, Trousdale, 2013) • SUB-NNs are extensionsofAttributive NNs(such as bourgeoisgentilhomme– “bourgeois gentleman”) thathavealwaysbeenpresent in French(Radimský, 2019) • Bothpatternsgrow up exponentially during the 2nd half of the20thCentury • The SUB-NN pattern does not seem to have any restrictions nor preferences as for the semantic relationship between N1 and N2 (Arnaud2003:64) • Research question: • Does the family-size effect of repeated forms on either the N1 or N2 position have any relevance for the emergence or the conventionalization of the NN pattern? • Plan • A brief outline ofinitial assumptions • Data analysis: Frantext, FrWac • Type frequency spectra of ATTR and SUB NNs

  3. Emergence of SUB-NNs (1) Rainer-Buridant (2015:1978)

  4. Left-headed NN construction [NiNj]Nk↔ [Ni-headNj-non-head]k SUBNNs (timbre-poste) [NiNj]Nk ↔ [SEMiREL SEMj]k COORD NNs (boulangerie-pâtisserie) • [NiNj]Nk • ↔ • [SEMiis a SEMj]k • ↔ • [SEMjis a SEMi]k Emergence of SUB-NNs (2) ATTRNNs (bourgeois gentilhomme) • [NiNj]Nk • ↔ • [SEMiis a SEMj]k • The three NN constructions are instantiations of a more general left-headed NN construction (Radimský, 2019) • SUB NNS: “nonconventional extensions” of ATTR and COORD NNs • ATTR NNs: always available, no rival pattern • The attributive “is a” relation is extended to any semantic relation “REL” • ... [the] tolerance for nonconventionality is of great importance in change: partially sanctioned extensions of an existing conventionalized construction may over time become fully sanctioned instances of a more general, schematic construction, which has changed as a result of the speaker/hearer’s experience with language (Closs-Traugott, Trousdale, 2013:16) • Empirical support: theproductivityof the three subtypes are related (both token & type frequency curves in Frantext)

  5. RelativetypefrequencyofNNs(Radimský, 2019) • Stable for over 100 years, an increase since the 1960s • Fq. of SUB-NNs follows the fq. of ATAP+COORD-NNs

  6. Process of the construction change... • Role ofsemantics of the REL in theconstructionchange? • ATTR NNs = 1 relationship: [NiNj]Nk ↔ [SEMiis a SEMj]k • SUB NNs = ... 54 different semantic relations! (Arnaud, 2003:64) • ...no apparent regularity, any semantic relationship is possible • Role of repeated forms (N1, N2)? • ATTR NNs • Typical N2s with a high type frequency in Italian (Baroni, Guevara and Pirrelli, 2009; Grandi, 2009; Radimský, 2015), maybeeven“close set” of N2s (Grandi, 2009): chiave(“key”), base (“base”), modello(“model”), simbolo(“symbol”), vittima(“victim”) • [Nisimboloj]Nk ↔ [SEMiis aSEM(simbolo)j]kluogo simbolo ([place symbol], “symbolic place”) • Rationale: their specific meaning (expresses “quality”) triggers the attributive interpretation • SUB NNs • Surprisingly also some typical N2s with a high type frequency:sicurezza– “security”, stampa– “press”, lavoro– “work” (Baroni, Guevara and Pirrelli, 2009) • Koga (2018): N1s and N2s with a significant type frequency in French SUB NNs • No theoretical rationale? • Hypothesis: • If a noun features prominently in a NN pattern, it could more easily reappear in new NNs, irrespective of the semantic relationship between N1 and N2.

  7. Data • Frantext Corpus (lemmatized section) • French fiction,127M positions, data from 1830 to 1999 • 33,800 binominals extracted (lemmatized types) • 1.631 NNs identified (353 SUB and 1,278 ATTR+COORD) • FrWaccorpus • French web corpus, 1600Mpositions • 430,000 binominals extracted (lemmatized types), token fq>3 • 3.350NNs identified (2,112 SUB and 1,238 ATTR) • Extremely low “signal-to-noise ratio” in both corpora • Manual identification of NNs is necessary

  8. Type frequencies in Frantext(“old SUB NNs”) • Based on 152 “old” SUB NNs • Max. average year of appearance: 1959 • Type fq. spectrum of N1s • 85% of N1 s have type fq. 1 • Type fq. spectrum of N2s • 84% of N2s have type fq. 1 • Extremely few nouns with higher type frequency

  9. Type frequencies in FrWac – ATTRBased on 1238 ATTR NNs • Type fq. spectrum of N1s • 67% of N1s have type fq. 1 • Type fq. spectrum of N2s • only 30% of N2s have type fq. 1 • one N2 (clé“key”) yields 18% of types (220 types) • Interpretation • Data confirm commonly shared assumptions about typical N2s with a high type frequency that “trigger” the ATTR interpretation • The opposite is observed for N1s: type frequencies per item are very low

  10. Type frequencies in FrWac – SUBBased on 2112 SUB NNs • Type fq. spectrum of N2s • Type fq. spectrum of N1s • Interpretation • There are “typical” N1s and N2s with a high type frequency • Effect of repeated forms isbalanced, thoughslightly higher for N1s • Comparing the rate of Ns with type fq.=1 in different frequency spectra: • As the vocabulary of SUB NNs grows, there is more “regularity” based on repeated N1s or N2s • Is semantics involved in any way?

  11. Stages in theconstructionchange (1) • SUB NNs as a non-conventionalextensionof ATTR NNs • General schematicpattern: [NiNj]Nk↔[Ni-head Nj-non-head]k • No further regularity, but new types seem to appear more frequently in specific contexts (business, marketing, management, IT...) • Creation of semi-schematic constructions based on a specified N1 or N2 such as papier (“paper”) or client (cf. Koga, 2018) • [[papier]iNj]Nk ↔ [SEMi REL SEMj]k • [Ni[client]j]Nk ↔ [SEMi REL SEMj]k • The relationship REL is underspecified, the same N is not necessarily associated with the same REL, cf.: • papier journal (newsprint = low-cost paper commonly used to print newspapers, lit. “newspaper paper”) • papier aluminium (aluminium foil, lit. “aluminium paper”) • papier toilette (toilet paper) • papier cadeau(wrapping paper, lit. “gift paper”) • BUT: some Ns (more frequently N1s) display typical RELs • e.g.: rayon+N2 (“department”) – refers to internal organization of a department store in sections • rayon boucherie(“meat counter”), rayon jouets (“toys department”), rayon enfant (“children’s section”), rayon [fruits et légumes] (“[fruits and vegetables] department”), rayon surgelés(“[frozen food] section”) • Notice, however,that the “sections” are referred to from different perspectives, so that N2 may denote goods(“toys”), targetcustomers (“children”) or names of respective stores (“butcher’s shop”), which would imply different RELs in a formal semantic analysis • RELisspecified, but ithas to be understood rather widely: • [[rayon]iNj]Nk ↔[sectionof a department storeidentified bySEMj]k • Such semi-schematic construction has an open-choice slot: [[rayon]iNj]Nk

  12. Stages in theconstructionchange (2) • New schematic constructions emerge... • ... as abstractions over a set of semi-schematic constructions with similar REL: • rayon+N2 (“department”) – section of a department store (type fq. = 63) • pôle+N2 (“center”) – organization specialized in one activity (type fq. = 82) • atelier+N2 (“workshop”) – workshop specialized in one activity (type fq. = 42) • service+N2 – service specialized in one activity (type fq. = 40) • rubrique+N2 – (“column”) newspaper section (type fq. = 35) • filière+N2 – (“industry”) industry specialized in one activity (type fq. = 22) • coin+N2 – (“corner, area”) area of a house or store dedicated to an activity (type fq. = 25) • Consequence: the semantics (=REL) matters, the slot on N1 becomes open-choice • [NiNj]Nk ↔ [specific subdomain of SEMi related to SEMj]k • Other possible N1s: branche(“branch, field”), espace (“space, area”), point (“point”)... • What does “open-choice” mean here? • According to the most general construction, any left-headed NN structure is possible, but in many cases still non-conventional. • If the new NN type conforms to an intermediate semi-schematic (stage 2) or schematic (stage 3) construction, it is likely to be perceived as conventional.

  13. Quantitativeaspects... • Semi-schematic constructions (stage “2”) • Hundreds of constructions based on lexically filled N1 or N2 • FrWac type fq.>10: 32 N1s and 40 N2s • Various degree of semantic regularity (REL) in each pattern • Schematic constructions (stage “3”) • Only very few cases for the time being • Semantic generalizations do not seem to be predictable • A set of semi-schematic constructions based on similar REL is necessary • Examples: • [NiNj]Nk ↔ [meal SEMi with taste/ingredient SEMj]k • NNs: sauce tomate(“tomato sauce”), arômevanille(“vanilla flavour”) • N1: sauce (22 types), arôme (10)... low type fq.: tarte, flan, fondant (= types of dessert), yaourt... • Common N2s for sweet meals help to fix the pattern • [NiNj]Nk ↔ [event SEMi dedicated to SEMj]k • NNs: soirée concert (“party+concert”), pause café (“coffee break”) • N1: soirée (“party”, 36 types), pause (“break”, 14) • N2s do not overlap – probably still not a vital pattern

  14. Results & Discussion • Accounting for the emergence of French SUB NNs • Constructional change (= stage 1) • ATT NNs construction generalized to SUB NN[NiNj]Nk ↔ [SEMi-headis a SEMj-non-head]k [NiNj]Nk↔[Ni-headREL Nj-non-head]k • Any left-headed NN is possible, but most of them are non-conventional (“tolerance for nonconventionality”, Closs-Traugott, Trousdale, 2013:16) • Conventionalization of single substantive micro-constructions • E.g.: centre-ville (“town center”), appareil photo (“camera”), version papier (“print version”), timbre-poste (“stamp“) • Constructionalization (bottom-up process, = stages 2 and 3) • Repeated forms on either N1 or N2 position in micro-constructions lead to the creation of semi-schematic constructions based on a specified N1 or N2 • Type frequency spectra change: the rate of N1s and N2s with the lowest type fq. decreases • The semantics of the REL does not seem to beso important: REL maybeunderspecified • Abstraction of new schematic patterns • Generalization over sets of semi-schematic constructions with similar REL • French: the “sub-categorization” pattern • Italian: Verbal-nexus compounds (trasportopassegeri– “passenger transport”) • The process seem to be only very recent in Romance • The generalization may be based on any REL: it is not predictable • Specific constructions (2.1.+2.2.) may yield conventional NNs • Future work: How do new semi-schematic (2.1.) and schematic (2.2.) constructions interact with the N-PREP-N pattern?

  15. References • Arnaud Pierre J. L. (2003), Les composés timbre-poste. Lyon, Presses universitaires de Lyon. • Baroni Marco, Guevara Emiliano, Pirrelli Vito (2009), Sulla tipologia dei composti N+N in italiano: přincipi categoriali ed evidenza distribuzionale a confronto. In: Ruben Benatti, Giacomo Ferrari and Monica Mosca (eds.), Linguistica e modelli tecnologici di ricerca (Atti del 40esimo Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana). Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 73-95. • Frantext 1 (2018) – base textuelle. http://www.frantext.fr/ • FrWac - Baroni, M. et al. 2009. The WaCky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. 43, no. 3, 209-226. • Grandi Nicola (2009), WhenMorphology 'Feeds' Syntax: Remarks on Noun > Adjectiveconversion in ItalianAppositiveCompounds. In: Montermini F., Boyé G., Tseng J. (eds.), SelectedProceedingsofthe 6th Décembrettes. Somerville, MA: CascadillaProceedings Project. • Koga Kentaro (2018), Un espace papeterie n’est-il pas une (simple) papeterie ?: composition binominale souscatégorisante. SHS Web Conf. , Vol. 46, 08004, Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF 2018. • Radimský Jan (2015), Noun+Noun Compounds in Italian. A corpus-based study.ČeskéBudějovice, University of South Bohemia. • Radimský Jan (2019), Les composés N-N de subordination : un paradigme émergent. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 46/1 (2019), Adam Mickiewicz University Press, pp. 167-180. • Rainer Franz & Buridant Claude (2015), From Old French to Modern French. In: Muller Peter O. (ed.), Word-formation: an international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 3. Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1975-2000. • Traugott, ElizabethC., & Trousdale, Graeme (2013), Constructionalization and constructionalchanges. Oxford, Oxford University Press,

More Related