This paper investigates the properties of compounds with right-hand elements that have the form of present-participles, i.e. ing-forms. After a survey of the recent literature on argumental relations in compounds in which the ing-form is an event nominalisation, the paper looks at compounds embedded before another noun. Evidence from attested patterns is used to argue that argumental relations in such sequences can be explained via the embedding of different constructions

Popova, Gergana

Goldsmiths Research Online

MMM11 Online proceedings 2018 Koutsoukos, Audring & Masini (Eds.) English compounds with ing-form heads  Gergana Popova Goldsmiths, University of London g.popova@gold.ac.uk 1. Introduction  This paper arose from an interest in compounds whose right-hand element, typically the head in English compounds, is a form which would traditionally be labelled “participle”, i.e. either the present participle or ing-form as in student reading, or a passive participle or ed-form as in student led (seminar). All English verbs have ing-forms and ed-forms, so these are often considered part of the verbal paradigm (Bauer, Lieber & Plag 2013: 62). Both forms are part of constructions which can also be seen to be part of the verbal paradigm (progressive and perfect). But both also have a range of other functions, so in some contexts labels like “noun” (for ing-forms) or “adjective” (for both ing and ed forms) might be more appropriate to their use (see also Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 78-83). This makes “participle” a problematic term and so in most cases where no claim is made about syntactic categories the labels ing-form or ed-form will be preferred. What follows is devoted entirely to compounds whose second element is an ing-form, and so the discussion will touch upon the range of functions that can be performed by an ing-form when compounded with another element. Compounds with an ing-form as a second element have been called synthetic, since they have, alongside other forms, a deverbal second element (see Lieber 1983 and 2004, for example). Some of these X-Ving compounds are also argumental, i.e. the left-hand element X (usually a N(oun)) is an argument of the verb from which the ing-form (i.e. Ving) is derived.  This paper assumes that it is possible and advantageous to model compounds as constructions, i.e. form-meaning pairings, as in Booij (2010) and Hilpert (2015). Another assumption made here as in Hilpert (2015) is that constructions enter into relationships with each other, e.g. the ing-form or the ed-form-headed compound constructions can inherit some properties from the ing-form or the ed-form themselves.   Two more specific questions will be explored here: What are the possible types of compound constructions headed by an ing-form? What are the relationships between these types and how can such relationships account for the possibility/impossibility of constructions?   The next section summarises some observations about compounds headed by an ing-form from the research literature relevant to the current study, which is presented in section 3.  2. Some properties of compounds headed by an ing-form The initial observation that prompted this research was that compounds with an ed-form element or an ing-form element seem to be possible with a wider range of elements as a left-hand element than suggested in much of the literature. The research was subsequently restricted to compounds with an ing-form as a right-hand element (henceforth often referred to with the shorthand X-Ving). Given this interest and starting point, the data for this investigation was gathered from corpus searches, in most cases the BNC, but also COCA. Searches aimed to explore what can precede or follow an ing-form and so the search strings were along the lines of *-*ing or *-*ing _NN*. As in the approach employed by Hilpert (2015), a hyphen was included in the searches as a way of limiting the results to compounded forms. This of course meant that results were partial. However, as the aim was simply to find 76 English compounds with -ing forms  what patterns were attested, without attention to frequency and distribution, no compensatory mechanism for this was sought. The data returned by the searches was investigated manually, looking for instantiated patterns. The research reported here is similar to an extent to the research reported in Lieber (2016). The results of that study will be directly relevant and will be summarised next.   As mentioned above already, ing-forms are generally recognised to have three functions: nominal use, adjectival use and verbal use. The same three functions have been discerned in compounds headed by ing-forms, see for instance below (all examples from the BNC). Further discussion and examples can be found in Lieber (1983).    (1) So, no doubt as a result of some string-pulling from Bletchley, Harold’s local    recruiting office was instructed by the War Office to recruit him into the Intelligence    Corps. (BNC)     (2)  . . . The journey through the lava forest ends at the town, a fish-smelling old port,    and in need of a coat of paint, yet vibrant and friendly.   (3) The male will not tolerate any disturbance from his prospective mate while he is    nest-building.    What restrictions there are on the left-hand element in a X-Ving compound has been scrutinised in earlier studies, e.g. Roeper and Siegel (1978), Lieber (1983), Lieber (2016), and references therein. Various constraints have been put forward, summarised succinctly in Lieber (2016: 517). Amongst those relevant to X-Ving nominalisations with event interpretation she lists the prohibition of the left-hand element being a subject of the event underlying the Ving nominalisation, the tendency for the left-hand element in a compound to be the “closest sister” of the verbal base (citing Selkirk 1982), and the condition that all internal arguments of the verb should be satisfied within the compound, as well as the impossibility of event properties with synthetic compounds (citing Borer 2013, see original for further details). Lieber (2016) tests these restrictions against corpus data and concludes that the possibilities are more varied than previously observed. She gives the following examples showing that the N in an N-Ving compound can be interpreted not only as the object of V, but also as the subject of V (the examples below are adapted from Lieber (2016: 529-530); see original for full examples and sources):    (4) Grapheme-phoneme correspondence is used during braille reading by beginning    readers, less-skilled readers, and skilled readers when the text is relatively difficult.    (5) It has been reported that both announced and unannounced quizzes increase    attendance (...), increase student reading of assigned material (. . .) and increase    studying in between exams (. . .)  As the above show, the left-hand element in an X-Ving compound can have both object and subject reading. Not only is the range of the first element in a compound wider than previously attested, but as (Lieber 2016: 529-530) points out, arguments of the underlying event can be expressed both within the compound and in its external syntax.  The availability of the arguments of the underlying verb to the ing-nominals is taken as evidence that the nominal has inherited the argument structure of the verb, and so Lieber  MMM11 Online Proceedings 77     (2016: 520) points out that complex event readings are available to N-Ving compounds and gives the following examples:    (6) The significance of positive, competent role modelling by teachers to assist students    in forming desired practices is both known and accepted.     (7) Soil Eating by Animals to Correct Mineral Deficiencies    The lack of restrictions on the argumental configurations of X-Ving compounds is accounted for by Lieber (2016) via the assumption that the ing-nominalisation inherits the argument structure of the base verb:  readi ↔ [Ei(SUBJ,OBJ)]     ⇓     readingi ↔ [Ei(SUBJ,OBJ)]  Assuming this argument structure for the ing-nominalisation, Lieber’s (2016) analysis then runs as follows (adapted): The N non-head in an N-Ving nominal compound is co-indexed to the highest available argument by default, or otherwise to the semantically compatible argument in Ving’s argument structure:    (8) a.  studentj-readingi ↔ [Ei(SUBJj,OBJ)]    b.  braillej-readingi ↔ [Ei(SUBJ,OBJj)]   The left-hand element in the compounds above links to the subject in (8a) because this is the preferred option, but to the object in (8b) because linking to the subject is semantically odd (braille can’t be the agent of a reading event). 3. This study  The current study extends the focus on X-Ving compounds to look at those cases where the X-Ving compound is embedded before another noun, i.e. it looks at cases where we have X-Ving N. In many of these cases the X in X-Ving is also a noun, so we have a sequence of three elements with the middle being an ing-form. These are structures like the following:   (9) There is PCB-burning capacity in Sweden, Finland, Germany and France, of which    only the last is, like Britain, prepared to import such waste. (BNC)     (10) ... So too were fee-fixing agreements covering securities dealing.     (11) Unfortunately, more and more schools are moving towards decision-making   structures that will actually assist this diverted focus. (BNC)    As can be seen from these examples, the N in the embedded N-Ving sequence can be an object of the underlying event, even though the N-Ving sequence itself may resist eventive modification (i.e. we can’t say *frequent decision-making structures). The N underlying the N-Ving sequence can also be interpreted as the underlying subject, as in the examples below: 78 English compounds with -ing forms    (12) Before the hypotheses could be tested, MANOVA was used to determine if a    significant difference existed between the experimental and control groups in    student reading level and level of metacognition. (COCA)     (13) The primary goals of an independent student reading policy are to improve literacy    achievement among adolescents and cultivate a lifelong habit of reading a variety of    genres (. . .) (COCA)  We can derive this behaviour by assuming that the construction inherits from two constructions simultaneously, or that two constructions are joined together. The first construction is the one we already encountered when discussing X-Ving compounds with eventive semantics. The other construction is the N1N2 compound construction, where N1 is said to be in some semantic relation to N2. Crucially, however, the N2 is not an argument of the event underlying the compounded N-Ving. The noun in the N-Ving compound can be the subject of the underlying event, as sketched below:   studentj -readingi  [Ei(SUBJj,OBJ)] + N1 N2 [N1 in some Relation to N2]     ⇓     [[studenti-readingi] N2 ] [Ei(SUBJj) in some relation to N2]  Alternatively, the noun in the N-Ving compound can be the object of the underlying event:   braillej -readingi  [Ei(SUBJ,OBJj)] + N1N2 [N1 in some Relation to N2]     ⇓     [[braillej-readingi] N2] [Ei(OBJj) in some relation to N2]  However, we sometimes find cases where the rightmost N in the N-Ving N structure is also an argument of the underlying event. Such constructions are illustrated by the following examples:   (14)  I have encountered Arena-reading Young Conservatives who get on The Smiths    and Sex Pistols (. . .) (BNC)    (15) In ‘harem’-forming societies the non-reproductive male population may form a    ‘bachelor’ section of the social unit (. . .) (BNC)    When we have such argumental N-Ving N sequences, where both the N preceding the Ving and the N to the right of Ving can be interpreted as arguments of the event underlying the deverbal ing-form, we can interpret the rightmost nouns as subject and the left-hand noun as object, but, it would seem, not the other way round. So we can say book-reading student, but we can’t say *student-reading book.   MMM11 Online Proceedings 79      This would not be surprising if we think of the compound N-Ving as a modifier. According to Bauer, Lieber and Plag (2013: 310), when used as modifiers, Ving participles from transitive verbs tend to be “strongly subject-referencing”, i.e. tend to be predicated of the subject of the underlying event, which licenses reading student, swimming fish, annoying neighbour. In other words, in such constructions we have a participle which inherits some event semantics from the underlying verb and is able to bind the underlying subject to the noun it modifies:   [Vi-ing Nj] ↔ [Ei(SUBJj)]   A compounded N-Ving construction can be embedded in such a construction, but only if the rightmost noun binds the underlying subject, leaving the leftmost noun to bind an underlying object where relevant. This is sketched below:   braillej-readingi [Ei(SUBJ,OBJj)] + Vi-ing Nj  [Ei(SUBJj)]     ⇓     [[braillej-readingi] Nk] [Ei(SUBJk,OBJj)]  The paper started with the observation that V-ing forms can be nominal, adjectival, or verbal and that the same is true of the compounded X-Ving forms. So far, however, we have encountered mostly N-Ving forms which can be nominal, or possibly adjectival, but we haven’t seen any candidates for a verbal use of a N-Ving construction. This paper will have little to say about such constructions. However, some possible instances were found in the BNC or via Google searches:   (16) The male will not tolerate any disturbance from his prospective mate while he is    nest-building. (BNC)     (17) I was fire-watching in the coal yard. (BNC)     (18) You are not gun-running or anything, are you?     (19) I was track-running and playing rugby, yet my father never received one sports    report from school, he said. (BNC)     (20) My old woman is house-hunting, she’d like this.    The question, of course, arises whether we are dealing here with the progressive construction, or with a predicative use of an adjectival X-Ving construction.1 What might weigh the scales towards a progressive interpretation at least in some of the examples above is, for example, the embedding of the N-Ving construction after a temporal while in (16), the modification for                                                    1 Special thanks to the MMM11 audience for discussion of this point. 80 English compounds with -ing forms  place in (17), and the coordination with a clear progressive in (19). At the same time the examples above do not permit modification by very or too, or a replacement of the verb be with a verb like seem, which would indicate adjectival status (see Huddleston and Pullum 2002). If a progressive interpretation turns out to be valid, then it would appear that in the progressive construction too the left-hand element in the compound can be an argument of the event underlying the verb (contra observations in Lieber 1983). Such candidates for progressive constructions with an argumental relationship between the left-hand element and the Ving form are not easy to find. This isn’t surprising given the paucity of compounds headed by verbs in English generally (see Plag 2003, for example). 4. Conclusion This paper looked at compounds with an ing-form head. If understood as constructions, the properties of such compounds can be modelled as falling out of a network of such constructions. As in previous research, constructions are assumed to inherit properties from each other. For example, inheritance by the participle of the eventive semantics of the verb and the verb’s argument structure provides an explanation for the freedom in interpretation of N-Ving argumental nominal compounds. However, this paper also assumes that properties of constructions are additionally dependent on some relationship of embedding or conjoining. Such a merger of the N-Ving argumental construction with other constructions can help explain the different patterns of argument interpretation in N-Ving N sequences. Acknowledgements Special thanks are owed to the audience of MMM11 for useful questions, observations and comments and to Bas Aarts for reading an earlier version of the paper. I am also grateful to the editorial team of the proceedings for their time and meticulous attention to detail. Any remaining errors remain the responsibility of the author. References  Bauer, L., Lieber, R., and Plag, I. (2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Booij, G. (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, H. (2013) Taking Form. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26(1): 1-36.  Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Lieber, R. (1983) Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 251-285.  Lieber, R. (2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Lieber, R. (2016) On the interplay of facts and theory: Revisiting synthetic compounds in English. In: D. Siddiqi & H. Harley (Eds.), Morphological Metatheory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,  513-536. Roeper, T. & Siegel, M. E. A. (1978) A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2): 199-260.  Selkirk, E. (1982) The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  

English Compounds with ing-form heads

https://research.gold.ac.uk/22793/1/2874-4966-1-SM.pdf

English Compounds with ing-form heads

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Goldsmiths Research Online