[Lexicog] part of speech for phrases

List Facilitator lexicography2004 at YAHOO.COM
Tue Jan 20 19:15:04 UTC 2004


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Moe" <ron_moe at sil.org>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] part of speech for phrases


> I agree that we need to look at lexical units using each of the three
> criteria. But my understanding is that 'part of speech' means
'inflectional
> and/or syntactic class'. Therefore phonological and semantic criteria
should
> be irrelevant. On the other hand I know of languages that permit a
different
> set of tone patterns on nouns and verbs. So phonological criteria may help
> to identify part of speech, but I don't think it is a determining factor.
I
> also believe there are phonological tests to distinguish words from
phrases,
> but this is also irrelevant to part of speech. We can apply semantic tests
> to distinguish idioms from normal phrases, but not to distinguish nouns
from
> verbs. So let's apply syntactic tests to your examples.
>
> an off duty policeman
> English spelling is inconsistent, so I would like to ignore it. 'Off duty'
> belongs to a small set of 'on/off' words (on site/off site, on line/off
> line, on the job/off the job). They can all go in an attributive slot in
the
> NP (effective on the job training). But you can't just put any PP in the
> slot (*the on horseback soldier). So this would indicate that 'off duty'
is
> not a PP, but a special construction. I would suggest that it is a
compound
> adjective, not a phrase, and should be spelled 'offduty' or 'off-duty'.
>
> by-product
> I would suggest that this is a compound noun. It has a different
> intonational and stress pattern from, 'The catalog is organized by product
> and then by manufacturer'. It is 'set' in form. You can't insert anything
> between the parts (*by your product) without a change in meaning. The test
> for inflection is inconclusive since there is no way to distinguish 'by
> product+s' from 'by-product+s'. The plural suffix is going to come last in
> both.
>
> He worked round-the-clock.
> This is interesting because your example shows 'round-the-clock' in an
> adverbial slot, but it can also be in an attributive slot in a NP: 'Since
an
> aluminum smelter can only be used once, it requires a round-the-clock
> manufacturing technique.' There are other words that have the same
> distribution pattern (run quick, a quick runner). So I would suggest that
> 'round-the-clock' is also a compound.
>
> a hit-and-run accident
> There is no way that 'hit-and-run' is a verb phrase. You can't say, '*They
> hit and ran.' You would have to say, 'They were both hit-and-run
accidents.'
> So in spite of its internal composition, it is still a single word
compound
> adjective. Some languages permit very few compound combinations. English
has
> lots.
>
> pass up
> Finally we have a true phrase. 'I was full, so I passed up dessert.' 'It
was
> such a good deal; I just couldn't pass it up.' 'Pass' is functioning as a
> verb and can be inflected. Another word can be inserted between the words
of
> the phrase. But it is not just a normal phrase because its meaning is not
> predictable. In fact 'pass up' can be used as a normal phrase with a
> different meaning: 'I'll pass it [e.g. your request] up the chain of
> command.' We call these 'phrasal verbs' in English, but they are different
> in structure from a phrase composed of a weak verb plus noun (e.g. take
> time), or a weak verb plus NP (e.g. take a break (*take break)).
>
> kick the bucket
> This is also a phrase, not a compound verb. You say, 'He kicked the
bucket,'
> not 'He kick-the-bucketed.' It doesn't have the same internal structure as
> 'pass up'. 'Kick' is not a weak verb, so it is not exactly the same as
'take
> time' but compositionally it is V+N/NP. Semantically it is an event and
> belongs to the lexical set 'die, expire, perish, be gone, pass away,
breathe
> your last' with the same basic meaning. But this is different than saying
> that it is functioning as a verb. 'Death' is also a semantic event with
the
> same basic meaning as 'die', but it doesn't function as a verb. 'Kick'
> functions inflectionally and syntactically as a verb; 'kick the bucket'
does
> not.
>
> What I've been hoping for is a set of criteria for subcategorizing various
> types of idiomatic phrases. They can be distinguished by their internal
> structure. They can be distinguished by their degree of setness (can the
> constituents be reordered, can other words be inserted, can any of the
words
> be replaced, can any of the words be inflected, etc.). They can also be
> distinguished according to their semantics, but this is like assigning the
> part of speech 'verbal noun' to 'death', or 'verbal adjective' to
'morbid'.
> Are there any other ways they can be subcategorized? I'm currently
assigning
> all idiomatic phrases the part of speech 'phr.', since I have no well
> motivated way of further categorizing them.
>
> Ron Moe
> SIL, Uganda
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Roberts [mailto:dr_john_roberts at sil.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:59 PM
> To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Lexicog] part of speech for phrases
>
>
> On 15 Jan 2004 Ron Moe said:
>
> > So here's my question: Does anyone know of something written on the
> subject
> > of labeling the part of speech for multi-word lexical items? Can anyone
> > clarify the issue or give examples from your language? For instance the
> MDF
> > manual is good on principles for determining the parts of speech of a
> > language, but says nothing about phrases.
>
> The basic problem is that there are three sets of criteria that you can
> appeal to in defining what a word is and these criteria are independent of
> defining a unit's syntactic function. You can use phonological
(phonological
> unit), morpho-syntactic (morphological unit) or lexico-semantic (lexemic
> unit) to define a word unit. These do not always converge so that all the
> criteria form a unit.
>
> For example, each of the English examples below are phrasal constructions
of
> some type but they are all unitary lexemes. 'off duty' and 'by-product'
are
> phonological words but the others are not.
>
>     'off duty' is a PP functioning as an adjective
> 'by-product' is a PP functioning as a noun
> He worked round-the-clock. 'round-the-clock' is a PP functioning as an
> adverb
> a hit-and-run accident     'hit-and-run' is a V and V phrase functioning
as
> an adjective
> 'pass up' is a V + P phrase functioning as a verb
> 'kick the bucket' is a V + NP phrase functioning as a verb
>
> On the other hand, they each function as a unitary part of speech, such as
> adjective, adverb, noun or verb. They should also all be entered in an
> English dictionary because they are unit lexemes.
>
> John Roberts
> Linguistics Consultant
> SIL WEG
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>



More information about the Lexicography mailing list