FORMATION OF COMPOUND WORDS IN MODERN

ENGLISH

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….. 3
CHAPTER I Word Formation in the English Language………………………..5
1.1 The Definition of “ Word “ and its Main Characteristics…………………..5
1.2 Word Formation as Linguistic Phenomenon……………………………….7
1.3 Word Formation as Means of Enriching Vocabulary………………………10
1.4 The Characteristics of a Compound………………………………………..12
1.5 Formation Patterns of Compounds………………………………………...16
1.6 Means of Composition……………………………………………………..18
CHAPTER II Ways of Compound Words Formation…………………………..20
2.1 Compounding-One of the Main Processes of Word Formation……………...20
2.2 Meaning and Motivation of Compounds……………………………………..23
2.3 Sources of Compounds…………………………………………………….....26
2.4 Affixation…………………………………………………………………….27
2.4.1 Prefixation…………………………………………………………..28
2.4.2 Suffixation…………………………………………………………..32
2.5 Conversion……………………………………………………………………34
2.6 Derivation…………………………………………………………………….39
2.7 Blending………………………………………………………………………42
2.8 Less Productive Ways of Compound Words Formation…………………….44
2.9 The Analysis of Usage and meaning of the Compound Words in the Novel “Wuthering
Heights” by Emily Bronte……………………………………………………….44

CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………..50

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………...52
 INTRODUCTION

The existence of words is usually taken for granted by the speakers of a language. To
speak and understand a language means-among many other things-knowing the words of that
language. The average speaker knows thousands of words, and new words enter our minds and
our language on a daily basis. The present paper is about words. More specifically it deals with
the structure of compound words. This work represents a theoretical and practical investigation
on the question of compound words structure and means of word-formation in the Modern
English language. We will adress the question of how such words are related to other words and
how the language allows speakers to create new words, including compound words.
The ways in which new words are formed, and the factors which govern their
acceptance into the language, are generally taken very much for granted by the average speaker.
To understand a word, it is not necessary to know how it is constructed, whether it is simple or
complex, that is, whether or not it can be broken down into two or more constituents. We are
able to use a word which is new to us when we find out what object or notion it denotes.
The main aim of this paper is to study the ways of formation and typology of the
compound words and because when doing this the main interest is in studying the structure of
the compound words, we consider it important to present here the main patterns according to
which the compound words are formed.
Much attention is given to the classification of the compound words and a special interest
is shown in the ways of forming new compound words.
The objectives of the present paper are:
• To analyze the concept and the definition of the word given by linguists;
• To analyze the word formation both as a linguistic phenomenon and a means of enriching
vocabulary;
• To analyze different ways of formation of English compound;

• To present a full information of the theoretical material on the problem of

word-building in modern English language, showing the most productive ones;
• To describe the characteristics of a compound;

2
 • To present the main compounding patterns and the classification of the compounds in the
English language;
When working on the thesis the following methods are employed: descriptive, analytical
and of synthesis.
To realize the objectives, there were consulted many sources of linguists such as: Baurie
Laurie, Caroll J.M., Dawning P., Levitchi L.D., Melenciuc D., Salapina G., Arnold I., Kunin A.,
Orembovscaya T., I. Plag, etc.
The structure of this diploma paper is as follows: it contains an introduction where the
main objectives of it are presented, two chapters, conclusions and bibliography.
The first chapter deals with the description of the word and compound words in English,
the main focus being towards the word formation processes in general and those of compounding
in particular. The characteristics of a compound and the patters according to which they are
constructed are given, and as there is more than one classification of compounds in English,
some of the renown classifications of them are presented here. In doing this very important and
helpful proved to be the works of such well-known linguists in the field of the compounding as
Bauer L, Marshand H., Plag I. and many others.
The second chapter focuses on the ways of compound words formation. The
compounding as one of the most productive ways of words formation is described as well as all
the other ways of word formation are analyzed. Each type of word formation is provided with
examples.
In order to attain the aim the following methods were used: the contrastive method, the
statistical method and the analytical method.
The conclusions summarize the results of the research performed and the bibliography
presents the theoretical sources used in the course of the research.

3
Chapter I Word Formation in English

1.1 The Definition of “ Word “ and its Main Characteristics

When linguists speak of the vocabulary of a language, they are speaking primarily, but
not exclusively, of the word. The word has been defined from different points of view: semantic,
syntactic, phonologic and combining various approaches.
Aristotle is the first who gave a definition of word. He defined it as “the smallest
significant unit of speech”. His definition was accepted by linguists for a very long time and
many of the definitions of the word which appeared much later were directly or indirectly based
on the Aristotelian conception.
The most successful attempt to define the word by formal, structural, or semantic criteria
was made by Leonard Bloomfield who gives the following definition: “A word is a minimum
free form”.
On the other hand, Henry Sweet defined the word as “the minimum sentence”. Analyzing
these two last definitions, we can say that both of them express the same thing, because a
“minimum free form “is like a synonym of “the minimum sentence” (a free form is a form which
occurs as a sentence).
As it can be observed, there are some problems connected with the definition of the word.
Thus, T. Orembovscaya in her work “English Lexicology» mentions that one of them is the
problem of the relation between the word and the object which it names, and between the word
and the concept (which appear simultaneously). For example, when people see a new object,
they form a new concept, which can not exist without its notion. Naming a new object people
can not choose any group or sounds they like, but they must use the name already existing in the
vocabulary.
Another problem is the difference between the word and the word – combination. As for
example: the word –a nobleman and the word – combination – a noble man.
These two examples are different concerning their meaning. A nobleman, that is a man
of noble rank, may not be noble; and a noble man, that is gracious and dignified in character or
bearing, may not be a decent from a noble dynasty.

4
 Although the “word“ is the smallest part of language it has a great importance.
Sometimes, its meaning cannot be easily understood when it is used in combination with other
words. Not only the order of the words is important, but also, how it is spelt. So, than the order
of the words and its correct writing is important for understanding all meanings of a word or to
know where and how it can be placed.
In order to use correctly a word in a context we must know its characteristic features. It is
very important to know the main features of the word, because it eases our comprehension of a
word and if we know all these features it helps us avoid making mistakes when we write a
composition where we use different types of word combination or phraseological units.
A. Martinet presents the main characteristic features of the word in the following
diagram:

Characteristic features
of the word

Looseness of entire
Isolatibility Indivisibility
words

[Martinet, 1962:67]
Isolatibility – the word may become or may be used as a sentence
e.g. Fire! Where? Certainly!
Indivisibility – the word can not be as easily interrupted without a disturbance of meaning as a
sequence of words.
e.g. a lion and alive . A lion is a word- group because we can separate its elements and insert
other words between them: a dead lion. Alive is a single word, nothing can be inserted between
its elements, it is indivisible.
Looseness of entire words – is reference to the place in a sequence as compared to the parts of
the words whose place in a word can be changed.
e.g. un-gentle –man-li-ness,
The children run away. Away run the children. [Martinet, 1962:67]
Although the word is the smallest part of the vocabulary, it has been treated from the oldest
times and has its own features that help us to understand easily their meaning.
While speaking about the meaning of the word, the book “English Lexicology’’ by T.
Orembovskaya is welcome, because in this book different aspects concerning the meaning of a
word both in a context and taking it separately (individually) are treated.

5
 In her book “English Lexicology’’ T. Orembovskaya infers that ‘the meaning of the word
is the realization of the concept ’, which can take place in the lexical system existing in language.
The author gives us some types of meaning of the word. For example, on one hand, if it is
analyzed the meaning of the word from the semantic point of view, we must point out that each
word has a phonetic form, which contributes to the interchange of thoughts, and on the other
hand, sounds without meaning can not be words and parts of speech. [Orembovskaya, 1964:33-
34]
Other types of meaning of the word, presented by T.Orembovskaya in the above-
mentioned work are lexical and structural, which are analyzed together, because it acquires to
grammatical categories. The meaning of a word is conditioned by the typical syntactic
constructions in which the word is used.
e.g. the verb to enter:
1. to enter a room ( to come into )
2. to enter upon one’s duties ( to begin )
3. to enter into conversation (to get engaged )
4. to enter something into a note-book (to record )
The meanings of the word do not remain the same, they change. The changes of the
meanings of the word are very important for the enlargement of the vocabulary. In the course of
the development of the language words may change their meanings or acquire new meanings.
Such changes are connected with the development of the society, its culture and science, but they
are also conditioned by a new word, or the change of the meaning of one of the old words, if
they cause a change in the other elements of the system.
The change from specific to general which takes place in the meaning of the word is
named the extension of meaning, as it can be shown in the following example: to arrive - meant
to come by water, now it is used for coming in any way .
The contrary process, the narrowing of the meaning, is the change from abstract to
concrete, e.g. a man can be described as an authority, a failure, a frond.
Elevation of meaning is a process opposite to degradation of meaning. For example,
noble – originally belonging to the nobility, of high birth, now it is applied to high moral
qualities. [Orembovskaya, 1964: 33-37]
So, it is very important to know the meaning of the word. If we know it, it will make our
work easier, for example when we write a composition or when we read an old or modern
literary work. Knowing the majority of meanings of a word we also enrich our vocabulary and
become professionals in the domain of linguistics. Also, if we know more meanings of a word

6
we can easy comprehend the language used in literary books and in the journals of different
human activity.

1.2 Word Formation as Linguistic Phenomenon

Any discussion of word formation makes two assumptions: that there are such things as
words, and that at least some of them are formed.
The linguistic literature cites various types and ways of forming words. Earlier books
used to mention morphological, syntactic and lexico-semantic types of word-formation. At
present the classification of the types of word-formation do not, as a rule, include lexico-
semantic word-building.
In linguistics, word formation is the creation of a new word. A word is a unit of
language that carries meaning and consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or
less tightly together, and has a phonetical value. Typically a word will consist of a root or stem
and zero or more affixes. A word consisting of two or more stems joined together form a
compound. Word formation is sometimes contrasted with semantic change, which is a change in
a single word's meaning. The line between word formation and semantic change is sometimes a
bit blurry; what one person views as a new use of an old word, another person might view as a
new word derived from an old one and identical to it in form. Word formation can also be
contrasted with the formation of idiomatic expressions, though sometimes words can form from
multi-word phrases. [Bauer, 2005:11]
Word-formation, according to „English Lexicology” [Melenciuc D., 2002:74] is the
system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material
available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.
Kunin A.B. [1940:24] defines word-formation in the following way: „word-formation is
that branch of lexicology which studies the derivative structure of existinf words and the patterns
on which a language, in this case the English language, builds new words.” It is self-evident that
word-formation proper can deal only with words which are analyzable both structurally and
semantically, i.e. with all types of complexes. The study of the simple word as such has no place
in it. Simple words however are very closely connected with word-formation because they serve
as the foundation, the basic source of the parent units motivating all types of derived and
compound words.
Nowadays, the term „word formation” does not have a clear cut, universally accepted
usage. It is sometimes referred to all processes connected with chaining the form of the word by,
for example, affixation, which is a matter of morphology. In its wider sense word formation
denotes the processes of creation of new lexical units. Although it seems that the difference

7
between morphological change of a word and creation of a new term are quite easy to perceive
there is sometimes a dispute as to whether blending is still a morphological change or making a
new word.
There are, of course, numerous word formation processes that do not arouse any
controversies and are very similar in the majority of languages:
• Compounding is a process in which two different words are joined together to denote
one thing. For example flower-pot is a compound made of two words: flower and pot, but
it does not denote two things, it refers to one object. Some English compounds include:
windmill, waterfall, fingerprint, scarecrow. Compounds are pronounced as one unit, but
sometimes difficulties in writing arise: some compounds are written with hyphens: full-
time, good-looking; some are written separately: bank account, mini skirt; and some can
be written in both ways.
• Blending is very similar to compounding, but it is characterized by taking only parts of
words and joining them. Famous English examples include: smog which combines smoke
and fog; motel made of motor and hotel, Spanglish which is combination of Spanish and
English; and quesstimate, from quess and estimate.
• Clipping is shortening or reducing long words. It is very common in English which can
be seen on the following examples: information is clipped to info, advertisement to
advert or ad, influenza to flu, telephone to phone.
• Coinage is creation of a totally new word. This word formation process is not frequent,
however large corporations attempt to outdo one another to invent short eye-catching
names for their products. Some examples of these could include: aspirin or xerox.
Sometimes the products that the companies want to sell simply take over the mane of the
creator or inventor. In such case the new word is called an eponym. Some well known
eponyms include: sandwich, hoover. They are very frequently used in science where
units of measurement are named after people, like: hertz, volt, (degree) Celsius.
• Borrowing is taking a word from one language and incorporating it into another. The
English language has been very absorbent and took over words from all over the world,
some of them include: biology, boxer, ozone-from German; jackal, kiosk, yogurt-from
Turkish; pistol, robot-from Czech. There is also a special type of borrowing called calque
or loan translation. Here there is a direct translation of the elements that a term consists of
in the source language into the target language. For example, the English word
worldview is thought to be the calque of the German Weltanschauung, antibody calques
German Antikorper.

8
 • Acronim is a word formed from initial letters of a few words in a phrase or a name.
Some acronyms are pronounced by saying each letter separately, as in CD, DVD, VCR,
IBM, FBI. Some are pronounced as words, like NATO, laser, AIDS, scuba.
• Backformation is a process in which a word changes its form and function. Word of one
type, which is usually a noun, is reduced and used as a verb. To show it on an example:
the English word arms meaning weapon was backformed to arm to mean provide
weapons, similarly edit was backformed from editor, ot typewrite from typewriter.
• Conversion is a change in function of a verb without changing its form. Nouns start to be
used as verbs like: bottle-to bottle, bottling: I’m bottling the compote; butter-to butter,
buttered: I’ve buttered the bread. Also verbs can become nouns: must-a must: Watching
this film is a must; quess-a quess: It was a lucky quess.
• Derivation is probably the most common word formation process in the English
language. It is achieved by adding affixes: prefixes-are added at the beginning of a word,
suffixes added to the end of a word, or infixes which are inserted inside a word, but
infixes are unusual in English. English prefixes include for example re-, un-, mis-, pre-,
dis-; suffixes include for instance –ful, -less, -able, -or. It seems that infixes in English
are confined to curse words. [Crystal D., 2005:121]
The above mentioned word formation processes are the most frequent or important in the
English language, but it is rarely the case that only one process occurs in one word. Words can
be loaned and then backformed, later on gaining an affix. There are practically no boundaries to
those processes other than human ingenuity.

1.3 Word formation as a Means of Enriching Vocabulary

Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from two angles-
synchronically and diachronically. It is necessary to distinguish between these two approaches,
for synchronically the linguist investigates the existing system of the types of word-formation
while diachronicallybhe is concerned with the history of word-builing. Diachronically it is the
chronological order of formation of one word from some other word that is relevant. On the
synchronic plan a derived word is regarded as having a more complex structure than its
correlated word regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simpler base or a more
complex base. While analyzing and describing word-formation synchronically it is not enough to
extract the relevant structural elements from a word, describe its structure in terms of
derivational bases, derivational affixes ansd the type of derivative patterns, it is absolutely
necessary to determine the position of these patterns and their constituents within the structural
semantic system of the language as a whole.

9
 A synchronic description of the English vocabulary deals with its present-day system and
its patterns of word-formation by comparing words simultaneously existing in it.
If word-formation is the creating of new words after structural and semantic formulas and
patterns let us proseed in describing how this works in the language. For example the noun
driver is formed after the pattern v+-er, i.e. a verbal stem+the noun-forming suffix –er. The
meaning of the derived noun driver is related to the meaning of the stem drive-„to direct the
course of a vehicle” and the suffix –er meaning „an active agent”: a driver is „one who drives”.
Likewise compounds rezulting from two or more stems joined together to form a new
word and also build on quite definite and structural and semantic patterns and formulas, for
instance, adjectives of the snow-white type are build according to the formulas n+a, etc. It can
easily be observed that the meaning of the whole compound is also related to the meanings of
the component parts. The structural patterns with the semantic relations they signal give rise to
regular new creations of derivatives, e.g. sleeper, giver, smiler, tax-free. In conformity with
structural types of words described above the following two types of word-formation may be
distinguished: word-derivation and word-composition (or compunding). [Melenciuc D., 2002:
74]
Words created by word-derivation have in terms of word-formation analysis only one
derivational base and one derivational affix, e.g. cleanness (from clean), to overestimate (from to
estimate), openhandedness (from opemhanded), etc. Some derived words have no derivational
affixes, because derivation is achieved through conversion, e.g. to paper (from paper), a fall
(from to fall), etc. Words created by word-composition have at least two-bases, e.g. lamp-shade,
ice-cold, day-dream, hot-bed.
The basic ways of forming words in word-derivation, for instance, are affixation and
conversion. It should be noted that the understanding of word-formation as expounded here
excluded semantic word-building as well as shortening, sound- and stress-interchange. These are
the minor ways of word-formation. By semantic word-building some linguists understand any
change in word-meaning, e.g. stoke-„the lower part of the trunk of tree”; „something lifeless or
stupid”. The majority of linguists understand this process only as a change in the meaning of a
word that may result in the appearance of homonyms, as in the case with flower-„a blossom” and
flour-„the fine meal”. The application of the term word-formation to the process of semantic
change and to the appearance of homonyms due to the development of polysemy seems to be
debatable for the following reasons:
As semantic change does not, as a rule, lead to the introduction of a new word into the
vocabulary, it can scarcely be regarded as a word-building means. Actually, the appearance of
homonyma is not a means of creating new words, but it is the final result of a long and laborious

10
process of sense-development furthermore, there are no patterns after which homonyms can be
made in the language. Finally, diverging sense-development results in a semantic isolation of
two or more meanings of a word, whereas the process of word-formation proper is characterized
by a certain semantic connection between the new word and the source lexical unit. For these
reasons diverging sense-development leading to the appearance of two or more homonyms
should be regarded as a specific channel through which the vocabulary of a language is
replenished with new words and should not be treated on a par of the processes of word-
formation, such as affixation, conversion and composition. The shortening of words also stands
apart from the above two-fold division of word-formation. It can not be regarded as part of either
word-derivation or word-composition for the simple reason that neither the derivational base nor
the derivational affix can be singled out from the shortened word.
For the same reasons, such ways of coining words as acronimy, blending, lexicalization
and some others should not be treated as means of word formation. The sound- and stress-
interchange may be regarded as ways of forming words only diachronically, because in Modern
english not a single word can be coined by changing the root-vowel of a word or by shifting the
place of the stress. Sound-interchange as well as stress-interchange has turned into a means of
distinguishing primarily between words of different parts of speech and as such is rather wide-
spread in Modern English, e.g. singing-song, to live-life, etc. It also distinguishes between
different word-forms, e.g. man-men, wife-wives, to leave-left. Sound-interchange falls into two
groups: vowel-interchange and consonant-interchange. By means of vowel-interchange we
distinguish different parts of speech: e.g. full-to fill, blood-to bleed. In some cases vowel-
interchange is combined with affixation, e.g. long-length, strong-strength. The type of
consonant-interchange typical of Modern english is the interchange of a voiceless fricative
consonant in a noun and the corresponding voiced consonant in the corresponding verb, e.g. use-
to use, house-to house, advice-to advice. There are some particular cases of consonant-
interchange, e.g. to speak-speech, to break-breach. Consonant-interchange may be combined
with vowel-interchange, e.g. bath-to bathe, life-to life. Many English verbs of Latin-French
origin are distinguished from the corresponding nouns by the position of stress. Here are some
well-known examples of such pairs of words: ′export (n)-to ex′port (v); ′import (n)-to im′port
(v); ′conduct (n)-to con′duct (v). Stress-interchange is not restricted to pairs of words consisting
of noun and a verb. It may also occur between other parts of speech, for instance, between
adjective and verb, e.g. ′frequent (a)-to fre′quent (v); ′absent (a)-to ab′sent (v).

1.4 The Characteristics of a Compound

11
 Although compounding is the most productive type of word formation process in
English, it is perhaps also the most contoversial one in terms of its linguistic analysis.
Compounding is a field of study where intricate problems abound, numerous issues remain
unresolved and convincing solutions are generally not easy to find.
Let us start with the problem od definition: what exactly do we mean when we say that a
given word is a compound? To answer this question we first examine the internal structure of
compounds. The definition of a compound as being a combination of two words to form a new
word contains two crucial assumptions: the first being that compounds consist of two (and not
more) elements and the second being that these elements are words. Both assumptions are in
need of justification.
There are compounds which question the idea that compounding involves only two
elements. For example, take into consideration the following examples taken from a user’s
manual for a computer printer: power source requirement, engine communication error,
communication technology equipment. The definition seems to suggest that compounding
involves only two words, but there are compounds with four, five or even more members, e.g.
university teaching award committee member. But all these words may be combined by two
words and in such a way the definition can be formulated in such a way that compounds are
binary structures. [Ingo Plag, 2002:173]
What is also important to note is that-at least with noun compounds-new words can be
repeatedly stacked on an existing compound to form a new compound. Thus if there were a
special training for members of the university teaching award committee, we could refer to that
training as the university teaching award committee member training. Thus the rules of
compound formation are able to repeatedly create the same kind of structure. This property is
called recursivity, and it is a property that is chiefly known from the analysis of sentence
structure. For example, the grammar of English allows us to use subordinate clauses recursivily
by putting a new clause inside each new clause, as in e.g. John said that Betty knew that Harry
thought that Janet believed...and so on. Recursivity seems to be absent from derivation, but some
marginal cases such as great-great-great –grandfather are attested in prefixation. There si no
structural limitation on the recursivity of compounding, but the longer a compound becomes the
more difficult it is for the speakers/listeners to process, i.e. produce and understand correctly.
Extremely long compounds are therefore disfavored not for structural but for processing reasons.
The structural cohesion and integrity of a compound may depend upon unity of stress,
solid or hyphenated spelling, semantic unity, unity of morphological and syntactic functioning
or, more often, upon the combined effect of several of these, or similar phonetic, graphic,
semantic, morphological or syntactic factors.

12
 The integrity of a compound is manifested in its indivisibility, the impossibility of
including another word or word-group between its elements. If, for example, speaking about a
sunbeam we can insert some other word between the article „a” and the noun, e.g. a bright
sunbeam, a bright and unexpected sunbeam, because the article „a” is a separate word, no such
insertion is possible between the stems „sun” and „beam”, for they are not words but
morphemes. [Arnold, 1986:76]
The vast majority of compounds are interpreted in such a way that the left-hand member
somewhat modifies the right-hand member. Thus, a film society is a kind of society (namely one
concerned with films), a parks commissioner is a commissioner occupied with parks, to deep-fry
is a verb designating a kind of frying, knee-deep in She waded in knee-deep water tells us
something about how deep the water is, and so on.
We can thus say that such compounds exhibit what is called a modifier-head structure.
The term head is generally used to refer to the most important unit in complex linguistic
structures. In our compounds it is the head which is modified by the other member of the
compound. Semantically, this means that the set of entities possibly denoted by the compound
(i.e. all film societies) is a subset of the entities denoted by the head. (i.e. all societies).
With regard to their head, compounds in English have a very important systematic
property: their head always occurs on the right-hand side (the so-called right-hand head rule).
[Williams, 1981:248] The compound inherits most of its semantic and syntactic information
from its head. Thus, if the head is a verb, the compound will be a verb (e.g. deep-fry), if the head
is a count noun, the compound will be a count noun (e.g. beer bottle), if the head has feminine
gender, the compound will have feminine gender (e.g. head waitress).
Another property of the compound head is that if the compound is pluralized the plural
marking occurs on the head, not on the non-head. Thus, parks commissioner is not the plural of
park commissioner; only park commissioners can be the plural form of park commissioner. In
the existing compound parks commissioner, the plural interpretation is restricted to the non-head
and not inherited by the whole compound.
Some compounds are made up of a determining and a determined part, which may be
called „determinant” and the „determinatum”, according to Marchand H. [1960]. The second
stem, in our case „beam”, is the basic part, the determinatum. The determinant „sun” serves to
differentiate it from other beams. The determinatum is the grammatically most important part
which undergoes inflection (e.g. sunbeams, brothers-in-law, passers-by).
There are non-idiomatic compounds with a perfectly clear motivation: the meanings of
the constituents add in creating the meaning of the whole and name the referent either directly or
figuratively, for example, the word „seaman” was not difficult to understand at first, it meant „a

13
man professionally connected with the sea”. The word differentiated in this way a sailor from the
rest of mankind. When aviation came into being the same formula with the same kind of
motivation was used to coin the compound „airman” and also „aircraft” and „airship” to name
the machines designed for air-travel, differentiating them from seagoing craft. „Spaceman”,
„spacecraft” and „spaceship” built on the model of „airman”, „aircraft” and „airship” are well
understood even when heard for the first time. The semantic integrity of the compounds seaman,
airman, spaceman, aircraft, spacecraft, airship and spaceship is based on the fact that, as the
conquest of sea, air and outer space advanced, new notions were created, notions possessing
enough relevant distinctive features to ensure their separate existence. The logical integrity of the
combinations is supported by solid spelling and by the unity of stress. Such transparent
compounds can be transformed into free phrases: air-mail = mail conveyed by air.
The semantic integrity of a compound is, on the other hand, very often idiomatic in its
character, so that the meaning of the whole is not a mere sum of its elements. A compound is
very different in meaning from a corresponding syntactic group. Thus, a „blackboard” is very
different from a „black board”. Its essential feature is being a teaching aid: not every board of a
black colour is a blackboard. A blackboard may be not a board at all but a piece of linoleum or
some other material. Its colour is not necessarily; it may be brown or somewhat else. Thus,
blackboard = a board which is black. A „chatterbox” is not a box, it is a person who talks a great
deal without saying anything important: the combination is used only figuratively. The same
metaphorical character is observed in the compounds: „slowcoach”- a person who acts and
thinks slowly (not a vehicle); a „fuss-pot”- a person easily-exited and nervous about trifles;
„blackleg”- a „strike breaker”; „blackmail”- „getting money or some other profit from a person
by threats”; „bluestocking”- „a woman affecting literary tastes and learning”.
The analysis of the semantic relationship existing between the constituents of a
compound presents many difficulties.
Many compounds may be explained in different ways: thus „spacecraft” may be analysed
as „a craft travelling in space” (place) or „a craft designed for travelling in space” (purpose).
Other different relations are expressed by the same determinant: ear-ache (place)- „an
ache in the ear”; earmark (comparison)- „a mark like an ear”; earlobe (part)- „a lobe of the ear”;
eardrop (purpose)- „a drop for the ear” (medicine); ear-ring (place or purpose). Compare also:
lip-reading- „interpretation of the motion of the lips” (instrumental relations); lip-service-
„superficial service from the lips only” (comparison); lipstick- „a stick of cosmetics for rouging
lips” (purpose).
The compounds also tend to have a stress pattern that is different from that of phrases.
This is especially true for nominal compounds. While phrases tend to be stressed phrase-finally,

14
i.e. on the last word, compounds tend to be stressed on the first element. This systematic
difference is captured in the so-called nuclear stress rule (phrasal stress is on the last word of
the phrase) and the so-called compound stress rule (stress is on the left-hand member of a
compound), formalized in Chomsky and Halle [1968:17]
e.g. a) noun phrases: the green cárpet, this new hóuse, such a good jób
b) nominal compounds: páyment problems, installátion guide, spáce requirement.
This sistematic difference between the stress assignment in noun phrases and in noun
compounds can even lead to minimal pairs where it is only the stress pattern that distinguishes
between the compound and the phrase (and their respective interpretations):
noun compound noun phrase
bláckboard a black bóard
„a board to write on” „a board that is black”
gréenhouse a green hóuse
„a glass building for growing plants” „a house that is green”
óperating instructions operating instrúctions
„instructions for operating smth” „instructions that are operating”
instálling options installing óptions
„options for installing smth” „the installing of options”
While the compound stress rule makes correct predictions for the vast majority of
nominal compounds, it has been pointed out (e.g. by Liberman and Sprout [1992], Bauer [1998])
that there are also numerous exceptions to the rule.
In the above paragraph we have explored the basic general characteristics of compounds.
We have found that compounds can be analyzed as words with binary structure, in which roots,
words and even phrases are possible elements. We also saw that compounds are right-headed and
that the compound inherits its major properties from its head. Furthermore, compounds exhibit a
regular compound-specific stress pattern that differs systematically from that of phrases.

1.5 Formation Patterns of Compounds

In English, as in many other languages, a number of different compounding patterns are
attested. Not all words from all word classes can combine freely with other words to form
compounds. In this paragraph we will try to determine the inventory of possible compounding
patterns and see how these patterns are generally restricted.
One possible way of establishing compound patterns is to classify compounds according
to the nature of their heads. Thus there are compounds involving nominal heads, verbal heads
and adjectival heads. Classifications based on syntactic category are of course problematic

15
because many words of English belong to more than one category (e.g. walk can be a noun and a
verb, blind can be an adjective, a verb and a noun, green can be an adjevtive, a verb and a noun,
etc.), but other possible classifications, based on, for example, semantics, involve an even greater
degree of arbitrariness. For example, Brekle [1970] sets up about one hundred different semantic
classes, while Hatcher [1960] has only four.
According to the part of speech they form the compounding types may be defined as
follows:
Noun+noun: ash-tray, country-club;
Verbal noun+noun: night-flying, book-binding;
Noun+verb: nose-bleed, sunshine;
Preposition+noun: she-goat, he-bear;
Letter+noun: X-ray, T-shirt;
Letter+numeral: B12 (vitamin);
Verb+noun: fishing-rod, meeting-place; cut-throat, pick-pocket;
Verb+verb: make-believe, makeshift;
Verb+adverb: cut-back, turn-round;
Adjective+noun: grandmother, deaf-mute;
Adverb+adverb: out-back;
Adverb+verb: well-being, overhear;
Noun+adjective: snow-white, heart-sick;
Adjective+noun: open-air, high level;
Preposition+noun: uphill, off-year;
Adverb+adjective: evergreen, overanxious;
Adjective+verb: whitewash, highlight.
As seen from the above the impression is that nouns, verbs and adjectives can combine
rather freely in compounding.
An interesting pattern revealing the influence of extra-linguistic factors on word-
formation and vocabulary development are such compounds as camp-in, ride-in, teach-in, work-
in and the like. „The Barnhart Dictionary of New English” treats the second element as a
combining form of the adverb in and connects the original appearance of this morpho-semantic
pattern with the civil-rights movement of the 60s. It was used to nominate such public
demonstrations of protest as riding in segregated buses (ride-in), praying in segregated churches
(kneel-in), bathing in segregated swimming pools (swim-in).

16
 The pattern is structurally similar to an older type of compounds, such as breakdown,
feedback or lockout but differs from them semantically including as its semantic invariant the
meaning of public protest.
Somewhat later the word teach-in appeared. The name was used for long meetings,
seminars or sessions held at universities for the purpose of expressing criticism on important
political issues and discussing them. Then any form of seminar patterned on the university
teach-ins was also called by this term. And similar terms were coined for other cases of staging
public protest. E.g. lie-in and die-in when blocking traffic.
The third stage in the development of this pattern proved to be an extension to any kind
of gathering of hippies, flower children and other groups of young people: laugh-ins, love-ins,
sing-ins. A still further generalization of meaning may be observed in the compound call-in and
its American version phone-in „period of time on radio or television programme during which
questions, statements, etc. from the public are broadcast.”
Compounds that conform to grammatical patterns current in present-day English are
termed syntactic compounds, e.g. seashore. If they fail to do so, they may be called asyntactic,
e.g. baby-sitting.
1. Syntactic compounds are compounds whose components are placed in the order that
resembles the order of words in free phrases arranged according to the rules of present
day syntax. For example, the order of stems in such compounds as slow-coach (a + n),
know-nothing ( v + n), door-handle (n + n) reminds of the order and arrangement of the
corresponding words in free phrases like a slow coach (A + N), to know nothing (V + N),
a stone wall (N + N).
2. Asyntactic compounds are compounds whose stems are not placed in the order in which
the corresponding words can be used in free phrases under the rules of syntax. For
example, it is known that in free phrases adjectives cannot be modified by adjectives,
neither can adjectives or participles be modified by nouns, yet this kind of asyntactic
arrangements of stems is often found in compounds, e.g. red-hot, pale-blue (combination
of two adjective stems), oil-rich, tear-stained (noun stem placed before adjective or
participle stems).
In the first type the functional meaning and distribution coincide with those of the
elements of a free phrase, no matter how different their lexical meaning may be. This may be
shown by substituting a correspondent compound for a free phrase.
Compare: A slow coach moves slowly.
A slow-coach moves slowly.
Though different in meaning, both sentences are grammatically correct.

17
1.6 Means of Composition
From the point of view of the means by which the components are joined together
compound words may be classified into:
1) Words formed by merely placing one constituent after another in a definite order
which thus is indicative of both the semantic value and the morphological unity of the
compound, e.g. rain-driven, house-dog, pot-pie (cf. dog-house, pie-pot). This means of linking
the components is typical of the majority of Modern English compounds in all parts of speech.
As to the order of components, coordinative compounds are often classified as:
a) asyntactic compounds in which the order of bases runs counter to the order in which the
motivating words can be brought together under the rules of syntax of the language. For
example, in variable phrases adjectives cannot be modified by preceding adjectives and noun
modifiers are not placed before participles or adjectives, yet this kind of asyntactic arrangement
is typical of compounds, e.g. red-hot, bluish-black, pale-blue, rain-driven, oil-rich. The
asyntactic order is typical of the majority of Modern English compound words;
b) syntactic compounds whose components are placed in the order of words in free phrases
arranged according to the rules of syntax of Modern English. The order of the components in
compounds like blue-bell, mad-doctor, blacklist (A+N) reminds one of the order and
arrangement of the corresponding words in phrases a blue bell, a mad doctor, a black list
(A+N), the order of compounds of the type door-handle, day-time, spring-lock (N+N)
resembles the order of words in nominal phrases with attributive function of the first noun
(N+N), e.g. spring time, stone-steps, peace movement.
2) Compound words whose constituent parts are joined together with a special linking -
element – the linking vowels [ou] and occasionally [i] and the linking consonant [s\z] - which is
indicative of composition as in, e.g., speedometer, tragicomic, statesman. Compounds of this
type can be both nouns and adjectives, subordinative and additive but are rather few in number
since they are considerably restricted by the nature of their components. The additive compound
adjectives linked with the help of the vowel [ou] are limited to the names of nationalities and
represent a specific group with a bound root for the first component, e.g. Sino-Japanese, Afro-
Asian, Anglo-Saxon.
In subordinative adjectives and nouns the productive linked element as also [ou] and
compound words of the type are most productive for scientific terms. The main peculiarity of
compounds of the type is that their constituents are nonassimilated bound roots borrowed mainly
from classical languages, e.g. electro-dynamic, filmography, technophobia, videophone,
sociolonguistics, videodisc.

18
 A small group of compound nouns may also be joined with the help of linking consonant
[s\z], as in sportsman, landsman, saleswoman, bridesmaid. This small group of words is
restricted by the second component which is, as a rule, one of the bases man-, woman-, people-.
The commonest of them is man-.

CHAPTER II Ways of Compound Words Formation

2.1 Compounding - as One of the Main Processes of Word –Formation

According to the on-line site “Research in Lexicology” compounding is another common
word formation process. It is probably the most common one in today’s English because it is so
productively used in technical languages. Compound words form an important part of natural
language. It is important that many natural languages are highly productive with compounds, and
translations resources can not include entries for all compounds. Compounds may be content
bearing words in natural language sentences and therefore important for the recovered result.
In his book “A Course in Modern English. Lexicology“ R. S.Ginzburg concludes that the
process of formation of new words by compounding takes various forms. On the one hand, R.S.
Ginzburg affirms that the compound -words are built spontaneously according to productive
distributional formulas of the given period. Once this process of building verb by compounding
adverbial and verbal stems was productive, and as a result were formed numerous verbs as
outgrow, offset, inlay, but now this process of building new compound verbs is not productive.
On the other hand, R.S.Ginzburg points out that a compound can be the result of a gradual
process of semantic isolation and structural combination of free- word groups. Such compounds
as forget – me – not, bull’s eyes, mainland, etc. were formed isolated in the course of time.
Most of the syntactic compound nouns of the (a + n) structure, e.g. blackboard, mad – doctor,
are the result of such semantic structural isolation of free word – groups. [Ginzburg, 1969:158 ]
I. Arnold distinguishes two important peculiarities of English compounds. Firstly, both
immediate constituents of an English compound are free forms, that is, they can be used as
independent words with a distinct meaning of their own. It can be illustrated by the following list
of words frequently used in speech: afternoon, anyway, birthday, mother-in-law,
motherland, note-book, etc.
The second feature to which attention should be paid is that the regular pattern for the
English language is a two-stem compound, which can also be testified by the examples
mentioned above. An exception to this rule is observed when the combining element is

19
represented by a form-word stem, as in bread-and-butter, good-for-nothing, deaf-and-dumb,
etc.
One more specific feature of English compounding is the important role of the attributive
syntactic function. For example, “We change it at the last minute more than once.”
It often happens that elements of a phrase united by their attributive function become
further united phonetically by stress and graphically by a hyphen, or even solid spelling. For
example, common sense and commonsense advice, old age and old-age pensioner.
Other syntactical functions unusual for the combination can also provide structural
cohesion. The process may be, and often is, combined with conversion. [Arnold, 1986:63-65]
According to L. Bauer, the process of formation of new words by compounding is very
important in present day. It usually lightens the comprehension of some words, which are used
separately, but they can be used in compounding in order to understand their meaning without
difficulties. Also the process of word – composition is necessary in language because it
embellishes the “face“ of language, not only in literature, but also in new industry ( where
thinking to new renovations take place important exchanges than in appearance of new tools
(machineries ) and their new names .
Compounding is the process of putting two words together to form a third. [Bauer,
1970:II] On the other hand , L. D. Levitchi gives the following definition of compounding :
“Composition is a devise by means of which new words are formed as a result of the semantic –
grammatical combination of two or more words “. [1970:53]
Although these two definitions define the same process of word – formation,
compounding, they have some differences. The Bauer’s definition is too simple; it denotes this
process as a simple combination of two words, which form a third. It is not mentioned the kind
of combination, while Leviţchi’s definition is more grammatical. Levitchi affirms that, the
composition is not only a simple combination of two or more words in order to form a new word,
but it is a semantic – grammatical combination. So, we can state that Leviţchi’s definition is
clearer and more comprehensive than Bauer’s definition.
I.Arnold in her book “The English Word” points out that the compounding is one of the
oldest methods of word-formation in all Indo-European languages, especially developed in
Germanic languages. English has made use of compounds in all periods of its existence. Some
compounds preserve their type in present-day English; others have undergone phonetic changes
due to which their stem ceased to be homonymous to the corresponding free forms. Some times
the compound is altered out of all recognition. Thus, in the name of the flower daisy, or in the
word woman composition as the basis of the word’s origin can be discovered by etymological
analysis only: daisy < OE dæ es ea e (day’s eye), woman < OE wīfan (woman person). Other

20
examples can be: husband < OE husbonda (master of the house), gossip < OE odsibb (person
related to one in God). [1976:79-8]
Besides the old stem-compounds and the word-compounds that are their descendants,
according to Greenough, there are also many compounds which belong to a later stage of
linguistic development, being formed by the growing together of phrases or syntactic complexes.
Of this kind are all verbs compounded with prepositions or similar particles. These prefixes were
originally adverbs, which, from being habitually used with verbs, have become necessary to the
sense, and have accordingly united with the verb to make a single unit. Thus we have the native
verbs undergo, outdo, withstand, etc.
Native phrase-compounds are besides (for by-side), betimes (for by-times), outlaw,
outdoor, and so on.
If the phrase is very old, its component parts may be no longer recognizable, and we have
a simple word, not a compound at all. Thus wassail is the Anglo-Saxon wes hāl! ‘be well!’ a
sentence used in drinking for health. The same result is often produced when a foreign phrase is
adopted into English (aid-de-camp, bas-relief, belles letters), but there are phrases which can
be recognizable only by the etymologist (alarm is the Italian call ‘to arms!’ --- all’ arme!; hoax
which was formally slang, and is still undignified, though accepted into legitimated vocabulary,
is a shortening of hocus pocus. So is to focus, for ‘to drug’. [Greenough, 1961:187-189]
Composition was a favorite devise in the Old English period, it was a characteristic
element. In “Beowulf”, for example, the author used five compound - words in the first ten lines
(people – kinds, spear – armed, mead – bench, whale – path, afterward ) . In his poem
“Judith”, Cynewulf used a great number of compound words, impressive through graphicalness
and the force of semantic condensation ( e.g. wael – gifre fugel ( “bird greedy for slaughter” ),
wring – feere (“dewy – winged”)). Special mention should be made of metaphorical compounds
(e.g. a ship was a “ sea – swam “, the sea was the “swam – track “ ).
Another period which favored composition (sometimes to exaggeration) was the
Renaissance. Edmund Spenser, “ the first conscious inventor of a definite poetical vocabulary”,
has studied his “The Faerie Queen” with a great number of compounds, as for example : hell –
bread breast (flacăra crescută în iad), illfaste (urit la chip), water – sprinkles (stropi de apă),
blood thirsty (setos de sînge) and others. Another writer who used compounds in his work was
W. Shakespeare. He left his contemporaries behind in the mastery with which he combined
words, e.g. silver – white, heaven – kissing hill, all – shaking thunder in “Hamlet”.
The period which followed is Classicism. P.B. Shelley employed compounding as
epithet. In “Ode to the West Wind” the withered leaves of autumn are like “pestilence – stricken
multitudes “(mulţimi ciumate). In the poem “To Night” the night’s mantle is “ star – inwrought

21
“ (brodată cu stele) and in the poem “The Cloud” the cloud unmakes its “ wind – built tent “
(cortul ridicat de vînt). If Shelley used visual and acoustic epithet then John Keats is that who
used musical epithet – compounds, as for examples deep – delved earth (pămînt săpat adînc),
leaden eyed despairs (deznădejdi cu ochi de plumb ), fast – fading violets (toporaşi care se trec
repede), wild – ridged mountains (crestele sălbatice ale munţilor), moss – lain Dryads (muşchi
întins al deşertului ) - (“Ode to Psyche”).
An interesting kind of compounds are found in the works of the original thinker of the
XIXth century, Thomas Carlyle, who in his work “Sartor Resartus” and especially in the third
chapter, used the following compounds as: solid – grown, Flesh – Garment, hunger – bitten,
dead – looking, self – growth and so on .
Compounds are not absent from the works of contemporary writers. Good examples of
compounding are shown in “The Congo” by Rachel Linsay. Some of them are : skull – faced
(cu faţa ca un craniu ), torch – eyed (cu ochii ca nişte torţe), hand – maimed (cu mîna
schilodită), vine – snared trees (pomi prinşi în lanţurile vieţii), foam – flanked (tivit de spume).
Compounds did not develop only in literature, but also in the domain of industry. After
the Industrial Revolution (the second half of XVIIIth century) a great number of compound words
of a technical scientific character appeared. For example, in “English – German Dictionary” by
Muret – Sanders there are 197 technical scientific compounds with the word air. (e.g. air –
borne, air – tight, air – conditioning, aircraft, airfield, air force, airline, airmail, airship, air –
strip, etc. ) [Levitchi, 1970:60 -62 ]
As, we have seen the compounding is used in many spheres of human activity, culture
and industry as well. The use of compound words can also be seen as a method of enrichment of
the vocabulary.
From the stylistic point of view, we can say that it is one of the main methods of
enriching the vocabulary, flourishing the style of the author and to create a more beautiful aspect
to the literary work. In this case the meaning of the word it is used depends just on the context
and on the desire of the author.

2.2 Meaning and Motivation of Compounds

Semantically compound words are generally motivated units. The meaning of the
compound is the first of all derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components. The
semantic peculiarity of the derivational bases and the semantic difference between the base and
the stem on which the latter is built is most obvious in compound words. Compound words with
a common second or first component can serve as illustrations. The stem of the word board is
polysemantic and its multiple meanings serve as different derivational bases, each with its own

22
selective range for the semantic features of the other component, each forming a separate set of
compound words, based on specific derivative relations. Thus the base board meaning ‘a flat
piece of wood square or oblong’ makes a set of compounds chess-board, notice-board, key-
board, diving-board, foot-board, sign-board; compounds paste-board, car-board are built on the
base meaning ‘thick, stiff paper’; the base board-meaning ‘an authorized body of men’, forms
compounds school-board, board-room. The same can be observed in words built on the
polysemantic stem of the word foot. For example, the base foot – in foot-print, foot-pump,
foothold, foot-bath, foot-wear has the meaning of ‘the terminal part of the leg’, in foot-lights,
foot-stone the bases foot – has the meaning of ‘the lower part’, and in foot-high, foot-wide, foot-
rule – ‘measure of length’. It is obvious from the above-given examples that the meanings of the
bases of compound words are independent and that the choice of each is delimited as in variable
word-groups by the nature of the other component of the word. It thus may well be said that the
combination of bases serves as a kind of minimal inner context distinguishing the particular
individual lexical meaning of each component. In this connection we should also remember the
significance of the differential meaning found in both components which becomes especially
obvious in a set of compounds containing identical bases.
The lexical meanings of the bases alone, important as they are, do not make the meaning
of the compound word. The meaning of the compound is derived not only from the combined
lexical meanings of its components, but also from the meaning signaled by the patterns of the
order and arrangement of its component parts.
A mere change in the order of bases with the same lexical meanings brings about a
drastic change in the lexical meaning of the compound or destroys it altogether. As an
illustration let us compare life-boat – ‘a boat of special construction for saving lives from wrecks
or along the coast’ with boat-life – ‘life on board the ship’; a fruit-market – ‘market where fruit
is sold’ with market-fruit – ‘fruit designed for selling’; board-school with school-board, etc. Thus
the structural or distributional pattern in compound words carries a certain meaning of its own
which is largely independent of the actual lexical meaning of their component parts. It
follows that the lexical meaning of a compound is derived from the combined lexical
meanings of its components and the structural meaning of its distributional pattern.
The structural meaning of the derivational pattern of compounds may be abstracted and
described through the interrelation of its component elements. In analyzing compound
adjectives, e.g. duty-bound, wind-driven, mud-stained, we observe that their underlying pattern
N+V conveys the generalized meaning of instrumental or agentive relations which can be
interpreted as ‘done by’ or ‘with the help of something’; the lexical meanings of the bases supply
the individual action performed and the actual doer of the action or objects with the help of

23
which the action is done – duty-bound may be interpreted as ‘bound by duty’, wind-driven as
‘driven by wind’, mud-stained as ‘stained with mud’.
The derivational patterns in compounds may be monosemantic as in the above-given
examples, and polysemantic. If we take the pattern N+A→A which underlies such compound
adjectives as snow-white, world-wide, air-sick, we shall see that the pattern has two different
meanings which may be interpreted:

a) through semantic relations of comparison between the components as in world-wide –

‘wide as the world’, snow-white –‘as white as snow’ etc. and

b) through various relations of adverbial type (circumstantial) as in road-weary – ‘weary of

the road’, colour-blind – ‘blind to colours’ etc.
The structural patterns N+N→N that underlies compound nouns is also polysemantic and
conveys different semantic relations of resemblance, e.g. needle-fish, bowler-hat, instrumental or
agentive relations, e.g. steamboat, windmill, sunrise, dogbite.
The polysemy of the structure often leads to a certain freedom of interpretation of the
semantic relations between the components and consequently to the polysemy of the compound.
For example, it is equally correct to interpret the compound noun toy-man as ‘a toy having shape
of a man’ or ‘a man who makes toys, a toy-maker’, the compound clock-tower may likewise be
understood as a ‘tower with a clock fitted in’ or ‘a tower that serves as or is at the same time a
clock’.
It follows that the meaning of a compound is made up of the combined lexical meaning
of the bases and the structural meaning of the pattern. The semantic centre of the compound is
the lexical meaning of the second component modified and restricted by the meaning of the first.
The semantic centers of compounds and the semantic relations embedded in the structural
patterns refer compound words to certain lexico-semantic groups and semantic sets within them
as, for example:

1) compound words denoting action described as to its agent, e.g. sunrise, earthquake,
handshake;

2) compounds denoting action described as to its time or place, e.g. day-flight, street-
fight;

3) compounds denoting individual objects designed for some goal, e.g. bird-cage, table-
cloth, diving-suit;

4) compounds denoting objects that are parts of the whole, e.g. shirt-collar, eye-ball;

5) compounds denoting active doers, e.g. book-reader, shoe-maker, globe-trotter.

24
 The lexical meanings of both components are closely fused together to create a new
semantic unit with a new meaning which is not merely additive but dominates the individual
meanings of the bases and is characterized by some additional semantic components not found in
any of the bases. For example, a hand-bag is essentially ‘a bag, designed to be carried in the
hand’, but it is also ‘a woman’s bag to keep money, papers, face-powder and the like’; a time-
bomb is ‘a bomb designed to explore at some time’, but also ‘after being dropped or placed in
position’. The bulk of compounds are completely motivated like sky-blue, foot-pump, tea-taker.
Motivation in compound words may be partial, but again the degree will vary. Compound words
like a hang-bag, a flower-bed, handcuffs, a castle-builder are all only partially motivated, but still
the degree of transparency of their meanings is different: in a hang-bag it is the highest as it is
essentially ‘a bag’, whereas handcuffs retain only a resemblance to cuffs and in fact are ‘metal
rings placed round the wrists of a prisoner’; a flower-bed is neither ‘a piece of furniture’ nor ‘a
base on which something rests’ but a ‘garden plot where flowers grow’; a castle-builder is not a
‘builder’ as the second component suggests but ‘a day-dreamer, one who builds castles in the
air’.
There are compounds that lack motivation altogether, i.e. the native speaker doesn’t see any
obvious connection between the word-meaning, the lexical meanings of the bases and the
meaning of the pattern, consequently, he cannot deduce the lexical meaning of the word, for
example, words like eye-wash –‘something said or done to deceive a person’, fiddlesticks –
‘nonsense, rubbish’, an eye-servant – ‘a servant who attends to his duty only when watched’, a
night-cap – ‘a drink taken before going to bed at night’ all lack motivation. Lack of motivation
in compound words may be often due to the transferred meanings of bases or of the whole word
as in a slow-coach – ‘a person who acts slowly’ (colloq.), a sweet-tooth – ‘one who likes sweet
food and drink’ (colloq.). Such words often acquire a new connotational meaning (usually non-
neutral) not proper to either of their components. Lack of motivation may be often due to
unexpected semantic relations embedded in the compound.
Sometimes the motivated and the non-motivated meanings of the same word are so far
apart that felt as two homonymous words, e.g. a night-cap: 1) ‘a cap worn in bed at night’ and 2)
‘a drink taken before going to bed at night’ (colloq.); eye-wash: 1) ‘a liquid for washing the
eyes’ and 2) ‘something said or done to deceive somebody’ (colloq.); an eye-opener: 1)
‘enlightening or surprising circumstance’ (colloq.) and 2) ‘a drink of liquor taken early in the
day’ (U.S.)

2.3 Sources of Compounds

The actual process of building compound words may take different forms:

25
 1) Compound words as a rule are built spontaneously according to productive distributional
formulas of the given period. Formulas productive at one time may lose their productivity
at another period. Thus at one time the process of building verbs by compounding
adverbial and verbal stems was productive, and numerous compound verbs like, e.g.
outgrow, offset, inlay (Adv + V) were formed. The structure ceased to be productive and
today practically no verbs are built in this way.
2) Compounds may be the result of a gradual process of semantic isolation and structural
fusion of free word-groups. Such compounds as forget-me-not –‘a small plant with blue
flowers’; bull’s-eye –‘the centre of a target’; ‘a kind of hard, globular candy’; mainland
–‘a continent’ all go back to free phrases which became semantically and structurally
isolated in the course of time. The words that once made up these phrases have lost.
Within these particular formations, their integrity, the whole phrase has become isolated
in form, specialized in meaning and thus turned into an inseparable unit – a word having
acquired semantic and morphological unity. Most of the syntactic compound nouns of the
(A+N) structure, e.g. bluebell, blackboard, mad-doctor, are the result of such semantic
and structural isolation of free word-groups; to give but one more example, highway was
once actually a high way for it was raised above the surrounding countryside for better
drainage and ease of travel. Now we use highway without any idea of the original sense
of the first element.

2.4 Affixation
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational affixes
to different types of bases.
Normally, prefixes and suffixes in compound words are joined with a second element
without a hyphen, unless doing so would double a vowel or triple a consonant: antianxiety,
anticrime, antiwar but anti-intellectual; childlike, taillike but bell-like. Even so, many common
prefixes, such as co-, de-, pre-, pro-, and re-, are added without a hyphen although a double
vowel is the result: coordinate, preeminent, reenter. A hyphen is also used when the element
following a prefix is capitalized or when the element preceding a suffix is a proper noun: anti-
American, America-like. The hyphen is usually retained in words that begin with all-, ex-
(meaning “former”), half-, quasi- (in adjective constructions), and self-: all-around; ex-
governor; half-life but halfhearted, halfpenny, halftone, halfway; quasi-scientific but a quasi
success; self-defense but selfhood, selfish, selfless, selfsame. Certain homographs require a
hyphen to prevent mistakes in pronunciation and meaning: recreation (enjoyment), re-creation
(new creation); release (to let go), re-lease (to rent again).

26
 There is a specific group of morphemes whose derivational function does not allow one to
refer them unhesitatingly either to the derivational affixes or bases. In words like half-done,
half-broken, half-eaten and ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-dressed the Immediate Constituents half-
and ill- are given in linguistic literature different interpretations: they are described both as
bases and as derivational prefixes. The comparison of these Immediate Constituents with the
phonetically identical stems in independent words ill and half as used in such phrases as to
speak ill of smb, half an hour ago makes it obvious that in words like ill-fed, ill-mannered,
half-done the Immediate Constituents ill- and half- are losing both their semantic and
structural identity with the stem of the independent words. They are all marked by a different
distributional meaning, which is clearly revealed through the difference of their collocability
as compared with the collocability of the stems of the independently functioning words. As to
their lexical meaning they have become more indicative of a generalizing meaning of
incompleteness and poor quality then the individual meaning proper to the stems of
independent words and thus they function more as affixational morphemes similar to the
prefixes out-, over-, under-, semi-, mis- regularly forming whole classes of words. Besides,
the high frequency of these morphemes in the above-mentioned generalized meaning in
combination with the numerous bases built on past participles indicates their closer ties with
derivational affixes than bases. Yet these morphemes retain certain lexical ties with the root-
morphemes in the stems of independent words and that is why are felt as occupying an
intermediate position, as morphemes that are changing their class membership regularly
functioning as derivational prefixes but still retaining certain features of root-morphemes. That
is why they are sometimes referred to as semi-affixes. To this group we should also refer well-
and self- (well-fed, well-done, self-made), -man in words like postman, cabman, chairman,
-looking in words like foreign-looking, alive-looking, strange-looking.

2.4.1 Prefixation
Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. The interpretation of the
terms prefix and prefixation now firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain
evolution. For instance, some time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of
word-composition (or compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes as
compared with suffixes led the linguists to identity prefixes with the first component part of a
compound word.
At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word-derivation
regarding prefixes as derivational affixes, which differ essentially both from root-morphemes
and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs concerning the

27
 interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes, which
commonly occur as first component parts of words. H. Marchand [1969:35-40], for instance,
analyses words like to overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs, the first components of
which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar way he interprets words like income,
onlooker, and outhouse qualifying them as compounds with locative particles as first
elements.
There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation.
According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives the greatest
number are verbs -42.4%, adjectives comprise 33.5% and nouns make up 22.4%. Let
us give some examples:
• prefixal verbs : to enrich, to disagree, to underdo, to co-exist, etc.;
• prefixal adjectives: anti-war, biannual, uneasy, super-human, etc.;
• prefixal nouns: ex-champion, co-author, disharmony, subcommittee, etc.
It is of interest to mention that the number of prefixal derivatives within a certain part of
speech is in inverse proportion to the actual number of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes
make adjectives and 42 -nouns.
Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification involves
two types of prefixes are to be distinguished:
1) those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional), e.g. un-,
dis-, re-, pre-, post-, etc.;
2) those correlated with functional words (prepositions or preposition-like adverbs), e.g.
out-, over-, up-, under-, etc.
Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semibound morphemes, which implies that
they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes,
e.g. ‘over one’s head’, ‘over the river’ (to overlap, to overpass); ‘to run out’, ‘to take smb. out’ (to
outgrow, to outline); ‘to look up’, ‘hands up’ (upstairs, to upset); ‘under the same roof’, ‘to go
under’ (to underestimate, undercurrent), etc.
It should be mentioned that English prefixes of the second type essentially differ from
the functional words they are correlated with:
a) like any other derivational affixes they have a more generalized meaning in comparison
with the more concrete meanings of the correlated words; they are characterized by a unity of
different denotational components of meaning-a generalized component common to a set of
prefixes and individual semantic component distinguishing the given prefix within the set.
b) they are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words they are
correlated with;
28
c) they form regular sets of words of the same semantic type;
d) they tend to develop a meaning not found in the correlated words;
Of late some new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English have yielded
interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among linguists, that prefixes
modify only the lexical meaning of words without changing the part of speech is not quite correct
with regard to the English language. In English there are about 25 prefixes, which can transfer
words to a different part of speech in comparison with their original stems. Such prefixes should
perhaps be called convertive prefixes, e.g. to begulf (gulf n), to debus (bus n); to embronze
(bronze n), etc. If further investigation of English prefixation gives more proofs of the convertive
ability of prefixes, it will then be possible to draw the conclusion that in this respect there is no
functional difference between suffixes and prefixes, for suffixes in English are also both
convertive (hand - handless) and non-convertive (father - fatherhood, horseman -
horsemanship).
Some recent investigations in the field of English affixation have revealed a close
interdependence between the meanings of a polysemantic affix and the lexico-semantic group to
which belongs the base it is affixed to, which results in the difference between structural-semantic
derivational patterns the prefix forms. A good illustration in point is the prefix en-. When within
the same structural pattern en-+n→V, the prefix is combined with noun bases denoting articles of
clothing, things of luxury, etc. it forms derived verbs expressing an action of putting or placing
on, e.g. enrobe (from robe), enjewel (from jewel), enlace (from lace), etc.
When added to noun bases referring to various land forms, means of transportation,
containers and notions of geometry it builds derived verbs denoting an action of putting or
placing in or into, e.g. embed (from bed), entrap (from trap), entrain (from train), encircle (from
circle), etc.
In combination with noun bases denoting an agent or an abstract notion the prefix en-
produces causative verbs, e.g. enslave (from slave), endanger (from danger), encourage (from
courage), etc.
Unlike suffixation, which is usually more closely bound up with the paradigm of a certain
part of speech, prefixation is considered to be more neutral in this respect. It is significant that in
linguistic literature derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-
forming, etc. Prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical
order or subdivided into several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or function and
never according to the part of speech.
Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made
between prefixes of native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

29
 1) according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been
mentioned above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that
most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming
different structural and structural-semantic patterns. A small group of 5 prefixes may be referred
to exclusively verb-forming (en-, be-, un-, etc.).
The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in
nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22patterns);
2) as to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into: a)
deverbal, e.g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.; b) denominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-
president, etc. and c) deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc. It is of interest to note that the
most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un- and the base
built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling,
unseen,etc.;
3) semantically prefixes fall into mono- and polysemantic;
4) as to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in
linguistic literature:
a) negative prefixes, such as: un-, non-, in-, dis-, a-, e.g. ungrateful (grateful),
unemployment (employment), non-politician (politician), non-scientific (scientific),
incorrect (correct), disloyal (loyal), disadvantage (advantage), amoral (moral), asymmetry
(symmetry), etc.
It may be mentioned in passing that the prefix in- occurs in different phonetic shapes
depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme
in question has several allomorphs, namely il- (before [l]), im- (before [p,m]), ir- (before [r]), in-
in all other cases, e.g. illegal, improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.;
b) reversative or private prefixes, such as un-, de-, dis-, e.g. untie,(tie), unleash
(leash), decentralize (centralize), disconnect (connect), etc.;
c) perjorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate (calculate),
misinform (inform), maltreat (treat), pseudo-classicism (classicism), pseudo-scientific
(scientific), etc.;
d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell (tell),
foreknowledge (knowledge), pre-war (war), post-war (war), post-classical (classical), ex-
president (president), etc.;
e) prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuilt (built), rewrite (write), etc.;

30
 f) locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. superstructure (structure),
subway (way), inter-continental (continental), trans-atlantic (atlantic), etc. and some other
groups;
5) when viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those
characterized by neutral stylistic reference and those possessing quite a definite stylistic
value. As no exhaustive lexico-stylistic classification of English prefixes has yet been
suggested, a few examples can only be adduced here. There is no doubt, for instance, that
prefixes like un-, out-, over-, re-, under and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes,
e.g. unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, underestimate, etc. On the
other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literary-bookish character of such prefixes as
pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure,
ultra-violet, unilateral, bifocal, etc.
Sometimes one comes across pairs of prefixes one of which is neutral, the other is
stylistically colored. One example will suffice here: the prefix over- occurs in all functional
styles, the prefix super- is peculiar to the style of scientific prose.

6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive,

productive and non-productive.

2.4.2 Suffixation

Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify
the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a different part of speech. There are
suffixes however, which do not shift words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of
this kind usually transfers a word into a different semantic group, e.g. a concrete noun
becomes an abstract one, as is the case with child - childhood, friend - friendship, etc.
Of interest is also the group- suffix -manship consisting of the suffixes -man and -ship. It
denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something to perfection, e.g. authormanship,
quotemanship, lipmanship, etc. But statesmanship, or chairmanship built by adding the
suffix -ship to the compound base statesman- and chairman- respectively).
There are different classifications of suffixes in linguistic literature, as suffixes may be
divided into several groups according to different principles:
1) The first principle of classification that might say, suggests itself is the part of speech
formed. Within the scope of the part-of-speech classification suffixes naturally fall into several
groups such as:
a) noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e.g. -er, -dom, -ness,
-ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justification, etc);

31
 b) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adjectives, e.g. -able, -less, -ful,
-ic, -ous, etc. (agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc);
c) verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs, e.g. -en, -fy, -ize (darken,
satisfy, harmonize, etc.).
d) adverb suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.g. -ly, -ward (quickly,
eastward).
2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the lexico-grammatical
character of the base the affix is usually added to. Proceeding from this principle one may
divide suffixes into:
a) deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e.g. -er, -ing, -ment, -able, etc.
(speaker, reading, agreement, suitable, etc.);
b) denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e.g. -less, ish, -ful, -ist, -some,
etc.(handless, childish, mouthful, violinist, troublesome, etc;
c) de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e.g. -en, -ly, -ish,
-ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness, etc.).
3) A classification of suffixes may also be based on the criterion of sense expressed by a set
of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified into various groups within
the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those denoting:
a) the agent of an action, e.g. -er, -ant (baker, dancer, defendant, etc.);
b) appurtenance, e.g. -an, -ian, -ese, etc. (Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese,
Japanese, etc.);
c) collectivity, e.g. -age, -dom, -ery (ry), etc. (freightage, officialdom, peasantry, etc.);
d) diminutiveness, e.g. -ie, -let, -ling, etc. (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, squirreling,
wolfling, etc.)
4) Still another classification of suffixes may be worked out if one examines them from the
angle of stylistic reference. Just like prefixes, suffixes are also characterized by quite a definite
stylistic reference falling into two basic classes:
a) those characterized by neutral stylistic reference such as -able, -er, -ing, etc.;
b) those having a certain stylistic value such as -oid, -i/form, -aceous, -tron, etc.;
Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of different lexico-stylistic
layers e.g. agreeable, steerable (steerable spaceship); dancer, transmitter, squealer;
meeting, monitoring (the monitoring of digestive processes in the body), etc. As for
suffixes of the second class they are restricted in use to quite definite lexico-stylistic layers of
words, in particular to terms, e.g. rhomboid, asteroid, cruciform, etc.
5) Suffixes may be also classified as to the degree of their productivity.

32
 As it can be noticed from all the above examples not all suffixes lead to the formation of
compounds but only some of them. In this respect it should be pointed out that prefixation is a
more productive way of forming compounds than the suffixation.

2.5 Conversion

The process of coining a new word in a different part of speech and with a different
distribution characteristic but without adding any derivative element, so that the basic form of
the original and the basic form of the derived words are homonymous, is variously called con-
version, zero derivation, root formation, transposition or functional change.
The essence of the phenomenon may be illustrated by the following example: His voice
silenced everyone else. The word silence exists in the English language as a noun, and a verb
may be formed from the same stem without adding any affix or without changing the stem in any
other way, so that both basic forms are homonymous. Their distribution on the other hand is
quite different. In our example silence not only takes the functional verbal suffix -ed but
occupies the position of a verbal predicate having voice as a subject and everyone else as its
object. Its lexico-grammatical meaning is also that of a verb. The difference between silence n
and silence v is morphological, syntactic and semantic: the original and the resulting word are
grammatically different; a new paradigm is acquired and the syntactic functions and ties are
those of a verb. Compare also: silence one's critics; silence enemy guns.
The term basic form as used in the above definition means the word form in which the
notion denoted is expressed in the most abstract way. For nouns it is the Common case singular,
for verbs, the Infinitive.
Each of the five terms given above for the type of the word-formation process itself, i.e.
conversion, zero derivation, root formation transposition or functional change, has its
drawbacks.
The term conversion is in a way misleading as actually nothing is converted: the original
word continues its existence alongside the new one. As to zero derivation, it does not permit us
to distinguish this type from sound interchange (food n – feed v) where no derivative morpheme
is added either. The term root formation is not always suitable as the process can involve not
only root words, but also words containing affixes and compounds (as was the case with the
word silence above; compare also audition v, featherbed v). The terms functional change or
transposition imply that the process in question concerns usage, not word-formation. This
immediately brings us into an extremely controversial field. Accepting the term functional
change one must admit that one and the same word can belong to several parts of speech

33
simultaneously. The majority of the Soviet linguists are convinced of the impossibility of a word
belonging at the same time to several parts of speech, because this contradicts the basic
definition of a word as a system of forms. In what follows the term conversion will be used in
preference to the other four, because in spite of its deficiencies it is more widely accepted to
denote this word-forming process.
As a type of word-formation, conversion exists in many languages. What is specific for
the English vocabulary is not its mere presence, but its intense development.
The study of conversion in present-day English is of great theoretical interest, as
nowhere, perhaps, are the interdependence of vocabulary and grammar and the systematic
character of language so obviously displayed. Studying it, one sees the dependence of word-
building types on the character of word structure already frequent in the language.
The main reason for the widespread development of conversion in present-day English is
no doubt the absence of morphological elements serving as classifying signals, or, in other
words, of formal signs marking the part of speech to which the word belongs.
Many affixes are homonymous and therefore the general sound pattern does not contain
any information as to the possible part of speech.
Conversion is a way of word-building which consists in turning a word of a certain part
of speech into a word of another part of speech. When a word has several forms, it is mostly the
main one that is converted into another part of speech. And so, the essence of conversion is that
a form of a word is interpreted as a word of another part of speech, that is, it gets the
corresponding meaning, grammatical categories, functions, a place in the sentence and a
capacity of combining with certain words and word-building.
As no prefixes or suffixes take part in conversion, it results in the creation of
homonymous couples: table — to table, doctor — to doctor.
Every part of speech taking part in conversion has its own regularities and specific
features. The activity of conversion in different parts of speech and the choice of words taking
part in it vary greatly.
Conversion is an extremely productive way of producing new words in English. There do
not appear to be morphological restrictions on the forms that can undergo conversion, so that
compounds, derivatives, acronyms, blends, clipped forms and simplex words are all acceptable
inputs to the conversion process. Similarly, all form classes seem to be able to undergo
conversion, and conversion seems to be able to produce words of almost any form class,
particularly the open form classes (noun, verb, adjective, adverb). This seems to suggest that
rather than English having specific rules of conversion (rules allowing the conversion of
common nouns into verbs or adjectives into nouns, for example) conversion is a totally free

34
process and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as the need
arises. Certainly, if there are constraints on conversion they have yet to be demonstrated. The
only partial restriction that I am aware of is that discussed by Marchand. Marchand points out
that derived nouns rarely undergo conversion, and particularly not to verbs. This is usually
because of blocking. To take one of Marchand's examples, a derived noun like arrival will not
be converted into a verb if that verb means exactly the same as arrive, from which arrival is
derived. In cases where blocking is not a relevant concern, even derived nouns can undergo
conversion, as is shown by the series a sign > to sign > a signal > to signal and to commit >
commission > to commission.
The commonness of conversion can possibly be seen as breaking down the distinction
between form classes in English and leading to a system where there are closed sets such as
pronouns and a single open set of lexical items that can be used as required. Such a move could
be seen as part of the trend away from synthetic structure and towards analytic structure which
has been fairly typical of the history of English over the last millennium. This suggestion is, of
course, highly speculative.
It is fairly obvious that in the case of a noun and a verb not only are the so-called initial
forms (i.e. the infinitive and the common case singular) phonetically identical, but all the other
noun forms have their homonyms within the verb paradigm, e.g. (my) work – work; (the)
dog's (head) – (many) dogs - (he) dogs, etc.
It will be recalled that, although inflectional categories have been greatly reduced in
English in the last eight or nine centuries, there is a certain difference on the morphological level
between various parts of speech, primarily between nouns and verbs. For instance, there is a
clear-cut difference in Modern English between (he noun doctor and the verb to doctor—each
exists in the language as a unity of its word-forms and variants, not as one form doctor. It is true
that some of the forms are identical in sound, i.e. homonymous, but there is a great distinction
between them, as they are both grammatically and semantically different.
If we regard such word-pairs as doctor—to doctor; water—to water; brief-—to brief
from the angle of their morphemic structure, we see that they are all root-words. On the
derivational level, however, one of them should be referred to derived words, as it belongs to a
different part of speech and is understood through semantic and structural relations with the
other, i.e. is motivated by it. Consequently, the question arises: what serves as a word-building
means in these cases? It would appear that the noun is formed from the verb (or vice versa)
without any morphological change, but if we probe deeper into the matter, we inevitably come
to the conclusion that the two words differ in the paradigm. Thus it is the paradigm that is used

35
as a word-building means. Hence, we may define conversion as the formation of a new word
through changes in its paradigm.
It is necessary to call attention, to the fact that the paradigm plays a significant role in
the process of word-formation in general and not only in the case of conversion. Thus, the noun
cooker (in gas-cooker) is formed from the word to cook not only by the addition of the suffix
-er, but also by the change in its paradigm. However, in this case, the role played by the
paradigm as a word-building means is less obvious, as the word-building suffix -er comes to the
fore. Therefore, conversion is characterized not simply by the use of the paradigm as a word-
building means, but by the formation of a new word so1e1y by means of changing its
paradigm. Hence, the change of paradigm is the only word-building means of conversion. As a
paradigm is a morphological category conversion can be described as a morphological way of
forming words.
The following indisputable cases of conversion have been discussed in linguistic
literature:
1) formation of verbs from nouns and more rarely from other parts of speech;
2) formation of nouns from verbs and rarely from other parts of speech.
Opinion differs on the possibility of creating adjectives from nouns through conversion.
In the so-called "stone wall" complexes the first members are regarded by some linguists as
adjectives formed from the corresponding noun-stems by conversion or as nouns in an
attributive function by others or as substantival stems by still others so that the whole
combination is treated as a compound word. In our treatment of conversion on the pages that
follow we shall be mainly concerned with the indisputable cases, i.e. deverbal substantives and
denominal verbs.
Conversion has been the subject of a great many linguistic discussions since 1891 when
H. Sweet first used the term in his New English Grammar. Various opinions have been
expressed on the nature and character of conversion in the English language and different
conceptions of conversion have been put forward.
The treatment of conversion as a morphological way of forming words accepted in the
present book was suggested by the late Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky in his works on the English
language.
Other linguists sharing, on the whole, the conception of conversion as a morphological
way of forming words disagree, however, as to what serves here as a word-building means.
Some of them define conversion as a non-affixal way of forming words pointing out that the
characteristic feature is that a certain stem is used for the formation of a different word of a

36
different part of speech without a derivational affix being added. Others hold the view that
conversion is the formation of new words with the help of a zero-morpheme.
The treatment of conversion as a non-affixal word-formation process calls forth some
criticism, it can hardly be accepted as adequate, for it fails to bring out the specific means
making it possible to form, for instance, a verb from a noun without adding a derivational affix
to the base. Besides, the term a non-affixal word-formation process does not help to distinguish
between cases of conversion and those of sound- interchange, e.g. to sing—song; to feed—
food; full—to fill, etc, which lie outside the scope of word-formation in Modern English.
The conception of conversion as derivation with a zero-morpheme, however, merits
attention. The propounders of this interpretation of conversion rightly refer to some points of
analogy between affixation and conversion. Among them is similarity of semantic relations
between a derived word and its underlying base, on the one hand, and between words within a
conversion pair,

e.g. 1. action – doer of the action:

to walk—a walker (affixation),

to tramp—a tramp (conversion);

2. action – result of the action:

to agree—agreement (affixation),

to find—a find (conversion), etc.

They also argue that as the derivational complexity of a derived word involves a more
complex semantic structure as compared with that of the base, it is but logical to assume that the
semantic complexity of a converted word should manifest itself in its derivational structure, even
though in the form of a zero derivational affix.

There are also some other arguments in favour of this interpretation of conversion, which
for lack of space cannot be considered here.

If one accepts this conception of conversion, then one will have to distinguish between
two types of derivation in Modern English: one effected by employing suffixes and prefixes, the
other by using a zero derivational affix.

There is also a point of view on conversion as a morphological-syntactic word-building

means, for it involves, as the linguists sharing this conception maintain, both a change of the
paradigm and a change of the syntactic function of the word, e.g. I need some good paper for
my rooms and He is papering his room. It may be argued, however, that as the creation of a
word through conversion necessarily involves the formation of a new word-stem, a purely

37
morphological unit, the syntactic factor is irrelevant to the processes of word-formation proper,
including conversion.

Besides, there is also a purely syntactic approach commonly known as a functional

approach to conversion. Certain linguists and lexicographers especially those in Great Britain
and the USA are inclined to regard conversion in Modern English as a kind of functional change.
They define conversion as a shift from one part of speech to another contending that in Modern
English a word may function as two different parts of speech at the same time. If we accept this
point of view, we should logically arrive at the conclusion that in Modern English we no longer
distinguish between parts of speech, i.e. between noun and verb, noun and adjective, etc., for one
and the same word cannot simultaneously belong to different parts of speech. It is common
knowledge, however, that the English word-stock is subdivided into big word classes each
having its own semantic and formal features. The distinct difference between nouns and verbs,
for instance, as in the case of doctor—to doctor to conversion cannot be justified and should be
rejected as inadequate. The discussed above, consists in the number and character of the
categories reflected in their paradigms. Thus, the functional approach to conversion cannot be
justified and should be rejected as inadequate.

2.6 Derivation
It follows from the foregoing discussion that within conversion pairs one of the two
words has a more complex semantic derivation: which of the two words within a conversion pair
is the derived member?
The first criterion makes use of the non-correspondence between the lexical meaning of the
root-morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem in one of the two words making up a
conversion pair.
In cases like pen n – pen v, father n – father v etc. the noun is the name
for a being or a concrete thing. Therefore, the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme
corresponds to the part-of-speech meaning of the stem. This type of nouns is regarded as having
a simple semantic structure.
The verbs pen, father denote a process, therefore the part-of-speech meaning of
their stems does not correspond to the lexical meaning
of the roots which is of a substantival character. This distinction accounts
for the complex character of the semantic structure of verbs of this type.
it is natural to regard semantically simple as the source of the semantically complex, hence we
are justified in assuming that the verbs pen, father are derived from the corresponding nouns.

38
 This criterion is not universal being rather restricted in its application. It is reliable only
when there is no doubt that the root-morpheme is of a substantival character or that it denotes a
process (e.g. to father, to pen, a fall, a drive, etc. But there are a great many conversion pairs in
which it is extremely difficult to exactly determine the semantic character of the root-morpheme,
e.g. answer v – answer n; match v – match n, etc. The non-correspondence criterion is
inapplicable to such cases.
The second criterion involves a comparison of a conversion pair with analogous word-
pairs making use of the synonymic sets, of which the words in question are members. For
instance, in comparing conversion pairs like chat v – chat n: show v – show n; work v – work
n, etc. with analogous synonymic word-pairs like converse – conversation; exhibit –
exhibition; occupy – occupation; employ – employment, etc. we are led to conclude that the
nouns chat, show, work, etc. are the derived members. We are justified in arriving at this
conclusion because the semantic relations in the case of chat v – chat n; show v – show n; work
v – work n are similar to those between converse – conversation; exhibit – exhibition; employ –
employment. Like the non-correspondence criterion the synonymy criterion is considerably
restricted in its application. This is a relatively reliable criterion only for abstract words whose
synonyms possess a complex morphological structure making it possible to draw a definite
conclusion about the direction of semantic derivation. Besides, this criterion may be applied only
to deverbal substantives (v – n) and not to denominal verbs (n – v).
Of more universal character is the criterion based o n derivational relations within the
word-cluster of which the converted words in question are members. It will be recalled that the
stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations of different degrees.
If the centre of the cluster is a verb, all derived words of the first degree of derivation have
suffixes generally added to a verb-base. The centre of a cluster being a noun, all the first-degree
derivatives have suffixes generally added to a noun-base.
Proceeding from this regularity it is logical to conclude that if the first-degree derivatives
have suffixes added to a noun-base, the centre of the cluster is a noun, and if they have suffixes
added to a verb-base, it is a verb. It is this regularity that the criterion of semantic derivation
under discussion is based on. In the word-cluster hand n – hand v – handful – handy – handed
the derived words have suffixes added to the noun-base which makes it possible to conclude that
the structural and semantic centre of the whole cluster is the noun hand. Consequently, we can
assume that the verb hand is semantically derived from the noun hand. Likewise, considering
the derivatives within the word-cluster float n – float v – floatable – floater – floatation –
floating we see that the centre is the verb to float and conclude that the noun float is the derived
member in the conversion pair float n – float v. The derivational criterion is less restricted in its

39
application than the other two described above. However, as this criterion necessarily involves
consideration of a whole set of derivatives it can hardly be applied to word-clusters which have
few derived words.
Of very wide application is the criterion of semantic derivation based on semantic
relations within conversion pairs. It is natural to conclude that the existence within a conversion
pair of a type of relations typical of, e.g., denominal verbs proves that the verb is the derived
member. Likewise, a type of relations typical of deverbal substantives marks the noun as the
derived member. For instance, the semantic relations between crowd n – crowd v are
perceived as those of an object and an action characteristic of the object, which leads one to the
conclusion that the verb crowd is the derived member; likewise, in the pair take v – take n the
noun is the derived member, because the relations between the two words are those of an action
and a result or an object of the action – type 4 relations of deverbal substantives, etc. This
semantic criterion of inner derivation is one of the most important ones for determining the
derived members within a conversion pair, for its application, has almost no limitations.
To sum up, out of the four criteria considered above the most important are the
derivational and the semantic criteria, for there are almost no limitations to their application.
When applying the other two criteria, their limitations should be kept in mind. As a rule, the
word under analysis should meet the requirements of the two basic criteria. In doubtful cases
one of the remaining criteria should be resorted to. It may be of interest to point out that in case
a word meets the requirements of the non-correspondence criterion no additional checking is
necessary.
Of late a new criterion of semantic derivation for conversion pairs has been suggested.
It is based on the frequency of occurrence in various utterances of either of the two member-
words related through conversion. According to this frequency criterion a lower frequency
value testifies to the derived character of the word in question. The information about the
frequency value of words although on a limited scale can be found in the available dictionaries
of word-frequency with semantic counts.
To give an illustration according to M. West's A General Service List of English Words,
the frequency value of four verb – noun conversion pairs in correlative meanings taken at
random is estimated as follows:

to answer( V=63%) – answer (N=35%),

to help (V=61%) – help (N=l%),
to sample (V=10%) – sample (N=90%),
to joke (V=8%) – joke (N=82%).

40
 By the frequency criterion of semantic derivation in the first two pairs the nouns
(answer and help) are derived words (deverbal substantives), in the other two pairs the verbs
(to sample and to joke) are converted from nouns (denominal verbs).
Of interest is also the transformational criterion of semantic derivation for conversion
pairs suggested in linguistic literature not so long ago. The procedure of the transformational
criterion is rather complicated; therefore only part of it as applied to deverbal substantives is
described here.
The transformational procedure helping to determine the direction of semantic derivation
in conversion pairs is the transformation of nominalization (the nominalising transformation). It
is applied to a change of a predicative syntagma into a nominal syntagma.
By analogy with the transformation of predicative syntagmas like "The committee elected
John" into the nominal syntagma "John's election by the committee" or "the committee's election
of John" in which the derivational relationship of elect and election is that of a derived word
(election) to its base (elect) the possibility of transformations like

Roy loves nature → Roy's love of nature

John visited his friend→ John's visit to his friend

She promised help→ her promise of help

proves the derived character of the nouns love, visit, promise.

Failure to apply the nominalising transformation indicates that the nouns cannot be
regarded as derived from the corresponding verb base.

e.g. She bosses the establishment→ her boss of the establishment

I skinned-the rabbit→ my skin of the rabbit

He taxied home→ his taxi home

2.7 Blending

It should be mentioned first that such a form of word building as shortening in English
lead to the formation of quite a few compound words. A curious derivational compound with a
clipping for one of its stems is the word teen-ager. The jocular and ironical name Lib-Labs
(Liberal Labiur MP’s, i.e. a particular group) illustrates clipping, composition and ellipsis and
imitation of reduplication all in one word.
Among these formations there is a specific group that has attracted special attention of
several authors and was even given several different names: blends, blendings, fusions or
portmanteau words. The last term is due to Lewis Carroll, the author of “Alice in Wonderland”

41
and “Through the looking Glass”. One of the most linguistically conscious writers, he made a
special technique of using blends coined by himself such as chorle (v)<chuckle + short; mimsy
(a)<miserable + flimsy; galumph (v)<gallop + triumph; slithy (a)< slimy + lithe. Humpty
Dumpty explaining these words to Alice says “You see it’s a portmaneau –there are two
meanings packed up into one word”.
Blending is one of the most beloved of word formation processes in English. It is
especially creative in that speakers take two words and merge them based not on morpheme
structure but on sound structure. The resulting words are called blends.
The process of formation is also called telescoping, because the words seem to slide into
one another like sections of a telescope. Blends may be defined as formations that combine two
words and include the letters or sounds they have in common as a connecting element.
Compare also snob which may have been originally an abbreviation for sine nobilitate, written
after a name in the registry of fashionable English schools to indicate that the bearer of the name
did not belong to nobility. One of the most recent examples is bit, the fundamental unit of
information, which is short for binary digit. Other examples are: the already mentioned
paratroops and the words bloodalyzer and breathalyzer for apparatuses making blood and
breath tests, slimnastics (blend of slim and gymnastics).
The analysis into immediate constituents is helpful in so far as it permits the definition of
a blend as a word with the first constituent represented by a stem whose final part may be
missing, and the second constituent by a stem of which the initial part is missing. The second
constituent when used in a series of similar blends may turn into a suffix. A new suffix -on is, for
instance, well under way in such terms as nylon, rayon, silon, formed from the final element of
cotton.
Depending upon the prototype phrases with which they can be correlated two types of
blends can be distinguished. One may be termed additive, the second restrictive. Both involve
the sliding together not only of sound but of meaning as well. Yet the semantic relations which
are at work are different. The first, i.e. additive type, is transformable into a phrase consisting of
the respective complete stems combined by the conjunction and, e.g. smog<smoke and fog –‘a
mixture of smoke and fog’. The elements may be synonymous, belong to the same semantic field
or at least be members of the same lexico-grammatical class of words: French + English>
Frenglish; compare also the coinage smaze<smoke + haze. The word Pakistan was made up of
elements taken from the names of the five western provinces: the initials of the words Panjab,
Afghania, Kashmir and Singh, and the final part of Baluchistan. Other examples are:
brunch<breakfast and lunch; transceiver<transmitter and receiver; Niffles<Niagara Falls.

42
 The restrictive type is transformable into an attributive phrase where the first element
serves as modifier of the second: cine (matographic pano) rama>cinerama. Other examples
are: medicare<medical care; positron<positive electron; telecast<television broadcast. An
interesting variation of the same type is presented by cases of superposition, formed by pairs of
words having similar clusters of sounds which seem to provoke blending, e.g. motel<motorist’s
hotel: the element -ot- is present in both parts of the prototype. Further examples are:
shamboo<sham bamboo (imitation bamboo); atomaniac<atom maniac; slanguage<slang +
language; spam<spiced ham. Blends, although not very numerous altogether, seem to be on the
rise, especially in terminology and also in trade advertisement.

2.8 Less Productive Ways of Compound Words Formation

Clipping
Clipping is a type of abbreviation of a word in which one part is „clipped'” off the rest,
and the remaining word now means essentially the same thing as what the whole word means or
meant. For example, the word rifle is a fairly modern clipping of an earlier compound rifle gun,
meaning a gun with a rifled barrel. (Rifled means having a spiral groove causing the bullet to
spin, and thus making it more accurate.) Another clipping is burger, formed by clipping off the
beginning of the word hamburger. (This clipping could only come about once hamburg+er was
reanalyzed as ham+burger.)
Novel creation
In novel creation, a speaker or writer forms a word without starting from other
morphemes. It is as if the word if formed out of 'whole cloth', without reusing any parts.
Reduplication
Reduplication is a minor type of word-formation by which a compound word is created
by the repetition of 1) one word like go-go; 2) of two almost identical words with a change in the
vowel’s such as ping-pong; 3) of two almost identical words with change in the initial
consonants, as in teenyweeny. Most of the reduplicatives are informal.

2.9 The Analysis of Usage and meaning of the Compound Words in the Novel “Wuthering
Heights” by Emily Bronte
In this subchapter we are going to analyze the compounds that occur in the novel
„Wuthering Heights” by Emily Bronte. It is obvious that the majority of the occurring
compounds are compound nouns and compound adjectives but there are also compound adverbs
and compound verbs.

43
 Firstly, we have analyzed the compounds according to the structural point of view and
according to their pattern constituents.
Compound Nouns. If we analyze them according to Levitchi’s classification from the point of
view of patterns of formation we have the following types of compound nouns:
N+N. This is the structure where both of the patterns of a compound noun are nouns.
e.g. “… for the space of half a year, the gunpowder lays as harmless as sand,…” (p. 89)

“…, and planted ourselves on a flower-pot under the drawing-room window…” (p. 153)

“…with his cambric pocket-handkerchief.” (p. 62)

“…, about the huge fire-place, …”(p. 20)

“… towards which my landlord advanced,…” (p. 22)

Adj+N. These are the compound nouns, where the first pattern element is adjective and the
second one is noun.

e.g. “…; I kissed Hareton, said good-bye;…”(p. 87),

“But she uttered falsehoods, didn’t she? “(p. 98)

“…, wordy style that a schoolboy might use to a fancied, incorporeal sweetheart.” (p. 193)
“After playing lady’s-mind to the newcomer,…” (p. 58)
“…on the English highway?” (p. 88)
Adv+N. This kind of compound nouns is formed by an adverb (first pattern component) and by
a noun (the second one).
e.g. …, he added , making a clutch at me, “ who looks out-and –outer”. (p. 54)
After Arnold’s classification of the compound’s constituents we have the following types
of compound nouns:
 formed without connecting elements
e.g. “… the blood run out and soaked the bed-clothes:…” (p. 36)
“…the son of the fortune-teller… “(p. 55)
“…I would not kiss her good-night at first:…” (p. 192)
“…, whether they be good-tempered or cross.” (p. 165)
 formed with linking elements represented by prepositions, as it is in the first two
sentences or conjunctions as it is in the last two sentences :
e.g. “Mrs. Heathcliff is my daughter-in-law…”(p. 27),
“…Mrs. Earnshow undertook to keep her sister-in-law…”(p. 56).
“Having no desire to be entertained by a cat-and-dog combat,…” (p. 41)
“…: scarcely one chapter had escaped a pen-and-ink commentary…”(p. 33)
44
 According to the structure of the compound’s constituents we have the following types of
compound nouns:
 consisting of simple stems
e.g. “On that break hill-top the earth was hard with a black frost,…”(p. 23),
“…rising and reaching from the chimney-piece tow of the painted canisters.”(p. 25)
“… full of snail-shells and pebbles,…” (p. 102)
“ … a rotten hazel-nut before I cross the threshold!” (p. 108)
 where at least one of the constituents is a derived stem
e.g. After playing lady’s mind to the newcomer, …(p. 58)
… the house-keeper, a matronly lady…(p. 23).
 Where at least one of the constituents is a compound stem
e.g. …and finishing the remainder of the purification with his cambric pocket-handkerchief.
(p. 62)
Compound Adjectives. This type of compound words is the second one according to the
number of their employment.
According to Levitchi’s classification from the point of view of the patterns of formation
we have the following types:
Adj+Adj. These are all the compound adjectives whose constituents are both adjectives.
e.g. …he was really half-dead with fatigue,…(p. 45)
…, shrieking as if witches were running red-hot needles into her.(p. 103)
N+Adj. This kind of compound adjectives is formed by two stems, one being noun (the first one)
and another one --- adjective (the second one).
e.g. …my fingers closed on the fingers of a little, ice-cold hand! (p. 36)
“I knew Mrs. Linton’s nature to be headstrong… (p. 118)
Adv+Past participle. This kind of compound adjectives is formed by two stems (adverb and
past participle).
e.g. and who can be ill-naturated and bad-tempered…(p. 89)
…my particular care --- the scoured and well-swept floor. (p. 59)
N+Indefinit participle. This is a kind of compound adjective, which consists of a noun and the
indefinite participle of a verb.
e.g. Miss Cathy rejected the peace-offering of the terrier…(p. 172)
He’s not a rough diamond --- a pearl-containing oyster…(p. 98)
N+Past participle. There are few compound adjectives of this kind.
e.g. She was nearly heartbroken when he run off. (p. 91)

45
 That was my first idea on observing an elf- locked, brown-eyed boy…(p. 103)
Compound Verb. This is another kind of compound words found in the novel “Wuthering
Heights”. It is formed by an adverb and a verb.
e.g. …, as he had outstripped me a long way,…(p. 183)
Compound Adverbs.
e.g. …, the wind blew strong from the north-east,…(p. 113)
…; and you need half-an-hour’s donning. (p. 59)
If in the previous pages we have analyzed the compound words from the structural point
of view, now , we propose to analyze them from the phonetical one.
As we have mentioned in the theoretical chapter, all the words have one stress, different
according to the word motivation. But when we bring together two or more words to make up a
compound word, the stress changes. It is possible that the new word to have just one stress
(usually on the first syllable) or to have two stress patterns (one of them being stronger then the
second one). For example we have the following compounds:
1)… the multitude of bluebells… (p. 196)
bluebell ['blu:bel] → blue [blu:] + bell [bel]
2)We were busy with the hay in a far-away field,… (p. 65)
far-away['ƒα:rəwei] → far ['ƒα:] + away [ə'wei]
3)…, and the becks and brooks are all brim-full. (p. 123)
brim-full ['brim ƒul ] → brim [brim] + full [ƒul ]
4) …, and who can be ill-naturated and bad-tempered (p. 89)
ill-naturated ['il'neit∫ərd] → ill [il] + naturated ['neit∫ərd]
5) … , having no weapon to raise in self-defence, … (p. 36)
self-defence ['selƒdi'ƒens] → self [selƒ] + defence [di'ƒens]
6) ..., and a couple of horse-pistols,…(p. 20)
horse-pistols [ 'hο:s pistl] → horse [hο:s] + pistol ['pistl]
As we have seen, the majority of the new-formed compound words acquire a new stress
pattern. There are cases when the stress falls on the first component, while the second one
remains unstressed as in far-away and bluebell. There are also cases when the stress of the new
words remains the same, comparing it with those of the words that form it. That means there are
compound words with two high stresses (self-defense and ill-naturated). It is not excluded the
case when the stress of the new compound word to be absolutely different from those of the
words that form it. That means we have compounds where the stress changes from high into low
(horse-pistols and brim-full).

46
 It is very important to pay attention to the stress of a compound word, because we can
make mistakes when we pronounce them, and as a result, they can be interpreted like a free
phrase. Such an example we have in the following phrase: “You cold blood can not be worked
into a fever: …” (p. 110) In this case, the word combination “cold blood” should not be
confused with the compound word “cold-blooded”. The adjective “cold” (in other context) can
be replaced with another adjective (hot, scoring, burning, boiling) or it can be used at the degree
of comparison.
As it has been mentioned in the previous chapter, the meaning of a compound word
depends both on the meaning of the words it is formed and on the way these words are placed.
But there are cases when a new-formed compound word has nothing to do with the meaning of
its components, acquiring a new meaning valid just for this compound.
Analyzing the selected compounds from the novel “Wuthering Heights”, we can say that the
meaning of the majority of them is based on the lexical level. For example we have chosen the
following compound words:
1) “Linton was engaged in timidly rebuffing the advances of a friendly sheep-dog.” (p. 181) In
this example the word “sheep” is the determinant and “dog” is determinantum. Thus, a sheep-
dog is a dog used to tend, drive or guard sheep.
2) …, and planted ourselves on a flower-pot under…” (p. 53) In this case, there is also a
determinant --- flower, and a determinantum --- pot. So, the compound flower-pot is an
earthenware or plastic pot in which plants are grown.
We have also such compounds whose meaning has nothing to do with the meanings of its
constituents. For example we have “… wordly style that a schoolboy might use to a fancied,
incorporeal sweetheart” (p. 193). In this case the compound has acquired a new meaning,
absolutely different from the meaning of its pattern stems. Thus, a sweetheart is a person that
one loves; a darling.
But, there are some cases when the meaning of a compound is more difficult to guess.
For example “I invoked Earnshow from among the garden-beds;…(p. 249). In this case a
garden-bed is not a kind of furniture placed in the garden, as the lexical meaning of the second
word suggests, but it is a layer of ground where plants grow. The same situation is in the
following example “… but he was really half-dead with fatigue,…” (p. 45), where the meaning
of the compound half-dead is not suggested by the second word (that he was nearly to die), but
it expresses the meaning of being exhausted of tiredness.
According to the semantic criteria, we have chosen all three types of compounding
named on the theoretical level. Between the endocentric compounds we can mention the
following examples:

47
1) “… at the farmhouse I visited in coming from Peniston Crag.” (p. 184)
2) “…, sucking a stick of sugar-candy,…” (p. 234)
3) “…, turning over some papers in his pocket-book;…” (p. 132)
As it has been mentioned on the theoretical chapter, this kind of compound is a hyponym
of the grammatical head. As a result a farmhouse is a kind of dwelling house on a farm, a
sugar-candy is a kind of candy made of sugar and a pocket-book is a kind of book, a small
notebook.
Examples of exocentric compound can be the following:
1) “…, among a heap of old toys, tops and hoops, and shuttlecocks.” (p. 210)
2) “…, the last bud from the multitude of bluebells…” (p. 196)
Corresponding to the theory, it results that the compound shuttlecock is not a sort of
cocks, but an object hit back and forth between players in badminton, original consisting of a
cork with feathers stuck in it, now usually made of plastic. And a bluebell is not also a type of
bell or a bell colored in blue, but it is a plant of the lily family bearing blue bell-shaped flowers.
Finally, we have also selected some types of appositional compounds. For example we
have: “…and , while the dairy-maid filled his can,…” (p. 193). So, a dairy-maid is both a type
of maid and also a dairy.
So, analyzing all compound words from the novel “Wuthering Heights”, we have come
to the following conclusion: the majority of the occuring compounds are compound nouns and
compound adjectives, followed by the compound adverbs and compound verbs. According to
their structure we can say that the greatest number of used compound nouns are those formed of
two nouns (n+n), and the compound adjective with the structure adj+adj.
Concerning the meaning of the compound words from the novel, we deduced that there
are compounds used with different kinds of meaning, but the prevailing are those with the lexical
one, if we pay attention to their motivation and change of the stress of the components that form
them. In order to understand all entire English compound we should pay attention to all its
meanings given by the explanatory dictionary. We should also pay attention to the context in
which compounds are used, thus easing the comprehension between the compound words and
free phrases.

48
 Conclusions
The definition of every basic notion represents a very difficult task; the definition of a
word is one of the most difficult tasks in linguistics, because even the simplest word possesses
different characteristics and aspects. A word may be described as the basic unit of the language
and it has a sound form because it represents a certain arrangement of phonemes; it has its
morphological structure, representing also a certain arrangement of morphemes; and when it is
used in actual speech it may occur in different word forms, different syntactic functions and
signal various meanings. Being the central element of any language system, the word is a sort of
focus for the problems of phonology, lexicology, syntax, morphology and also for some other
sciences that have to deal with language and speech, such as philosophy and psychology, and
probably quite a few other branches of knowledge.
And if the word seems to be difficult to define, then the definition of a compound word
will be even more difficult. The most acceptable definition of a compound word is that it consists
of at least two words which occur in the language as free forms. In a compound word the
immediate constituents obtain integrity and structural cohesion that make them function in a
sentence as a separate lexical unit.
Nowadays, the term „word formation” does not have a clear cut, universally accepted
usage. It is sometimes referred to all processes connected with the formation of the word.
The research performed revealed the following results:
1. Word formation denotes the processes of creation of new lexical units;
2. The word formation processes that are common to the majority of languages are the
following: compounding, blending, clipping, coinage, borrowing, acronim,
backformation, conversion, derivation;
3. The meaning of compound words is derived from the combined lexical meaning of the
components and meaning of the derivational pattern;
4. There are compounds involving nominal heads, verbal heads and adjectival heads;
5. Derivational patterns in compound words may be mono- and polysemantic, in which case
they are based on different semantic relations between the components;

49
 6. Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is the formation of words by adding derivational
affixes (prefizes and suffixes) to base;
7. There are two types of prefixes: those not correlated with any independent word and
those correlated with functional words;
8. The suffixes are classified into noun-, verb-, adjective-, and adverb-suffixes;
9. Compounding is the most productive type of word formation process in English;
10. The most often met types of compounds in literary works are compound nouns of the
type noun + noun and compound adjectives of the type adj. + adj.
As the topic we chose to research is very complex and manifold, we cannot say
that the results of the research are exhaustive. There is still more to be researched and
analyzed. Nevertheless, the present paper gives an insight into the very nature of
compounding by presenting different opinions of renown scholars in the field.

50
 Bibliography
1. Akhmanova O., Lexicology:Theory and Method, Moscow, 1972
2. Adams V., An Introduction to Modern English Word Formation, London: Longman,
1973
3. Adams V., Complex Words in English, London: Pearson Education, 2001
4. Aitchison J., Language Change: Progress or Decay?, Cambridge University Press, 1991
5. Allen M., Morphological Investigations, University of Connecticut, 1978
6. Arnold I.V., English Lexicology, Moskva, 1986
7. Arnold I.V., The English Word, Moscova, 1973
8. Anderson S.R., Typological Distinctions in Word Formation, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985
9. Bartolik L., Nominal Compounds in Technical English, Oregon, 1978
10. Bauer L., When is a sequence of two nouns a compound?, English Language and
Linguistics, 1998
11. Bauer L., Word Formation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983
12. Bloomfield L., Language, New York: Holt, 1933
13. Brown K.R., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition), 2005
14. Carstairs-McCarthy A., An Introduction to English Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2002
15. Chomsky N. & Halle M., The Sound Pattern of English, New York: Harper and Row,
1968
16. Crystal D., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Cambridge University Press,
2005
17. Dik S.C., Studies in Functional Grammar, London-New York: Academic Press, 1980
18. Dik S.C., The Theory of Functional Grammar, Vol.II: Complex and Derived
Constructions, Berlin: Mouton, 1997
19. Downing P., On the Creation and Use of English Compound Noun, Language, 1977
20. Garsia Velasco D. & Hengeveld K., New Perspectives on Argument Structure, Berlin:
Mouton, 2002

51
21. Ginzburg R.S., Readings in Modern English Lexicology, Leningrad, 1969
22. Greenough J., Words and their Ways in English Speech, New York, 1961
23. Hatcher A.G., An Introduction to the Analysis of English Noun Compounds, Word 16,
1960
24. Hengeveld K., A New Architecture of a Functional Discourse Grammar, Berlin: Mouton,
2004
25. Hengeveld K., Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Berlin: Mouton,
2005
26. Jespersen O., A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (Vol.VI:
Morphology), London, 1961
27. Kastovsky D., Word Formation: a Functional View, Folia Linguistica 16, 1982
28. Kastovsky D., The Problem of Productivity in Word-Formation, Linguistics 24, 1986
29. Keneth J.W., The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993
30. Kunin A.V., English Lexicology, New York, 1939
31. Ladd D. Robert, English Compound Stress, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1984
32. Leech J, Semantics, Penguin Books, 1974
33. Levi J.N., The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals, New York: Academic Press,
1978
34. Levitchi Leon D., Limba engleza contemporana. Lexicologie, editura Didactica si
Pedagogica, Bucuresti, 1970
35. Marchand H., The Categories and Types of Present Day English Word Formation,
Munchen, 1969
36. Martinet A., A Functional View of Language, Oxford, 1962
37. Melenciuc D., English Lexicology, Chisinau, 2002
38. Nida E., Morphology, the Descriptive Analysis of Words, Michigan, 1945
39. Orembovskaya T., English Lexicology, editura Tsodna , Tbilisi, 1964
40. Palmer H.E., A Grammar of English Words, London, 1968
41. Plag I., Word-Formation in English, Cambridge: University Press, 2003
42. Ryder M.E., Ordered Chaos: the Interpretation of English Noun-Noun Compounds,
University of California Press, 1994
43. Salapina G., Limba engleza contemporana. Lexicologie, editia a II –a , Timisoara , 1974
44. Selkirk E.O., English Compounding and the Theory of Word Structure, Cambridge MA:
MIT Press, 1981
45. Selkirk E.O., The Syntax of Words, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1982
46. Smirnitsky A.I., English Lexicology, Moscow, 1956

52
47. Warren B., Semantic patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds, 1978
48. Zimmer K.E., General Observations about Nominal Compounds, Stanford University,
1971

53