<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#330000">
"Compositional" is one of those pesky words that people use with rather
different, even though related, meanings in mind. On the one hand, some
(e.g. you, John, it seems) take it to mean "the components contribute
to the meaning". On that definition, "on the other hand" and many,
probably most other constructions, including —pace Ron— "of course" and
"nevertheless", are compositional. This can be seen as <font
color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"></span></font>a
scalar quality, so that the more of the meaning is contributed by the
components the more componential the structure is.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, some take it to mean "the contribution from the
components exhausts the meaning", i.e. "there is no meaning there other
than what is contributed by the components". Under that definition, "on
the other hand", "of course", "nevertheless" and many, probably most,
other constructions, including a surprising number of novel and nonce
constructions, if you think about them carefully, are
non-compositional. Again, this can be taken as a scalar quality, this
time the more of the meaning is not attributable to the components, the
less compositional is the meaning. In fact, the two scales wind up
being practically the same. But we are still left with opposing
meanings for "compositional" when unmodified. <br>
<br>
In effect, non-compositional meanings grab lexicographers' attention
when they become conventional. "Idiomatic" seems to mean, for most
people anyway, this combination of "(saliently) less than fully
compositional" with "conventionally so".<br>
<br>
Of course highly compositional structures can and do become
conventional. E.g. "can and do" is such a phrase, for me at least, or
(in from the first paragraph of this email) "meaning(s) … in mind",
"take it to mean", "contribute to N", "on/under that definition",
"many, probably most", "this can be seen as" "the more X … the more Y",
"the more ADJ the N is/becomes", and so forth. These are so pervasive
in our language use that Langacker's dictum makes a lot of sense: "Our
vaunted linguistic creativity typically reduces to stringing three or
four clichés together to make a sentence.<br>
<br>
It makes best sense to me (and I am far from alone in this) that
"lexical" structures are those which (a.) are fully specified
phonologically, at least to the point where you know all the phonemes,
and (b.) are well-established as conventional. If this definition is
followed, many of the above-mentioned complex structures (words,
phrases, or whatever) are lexical. Of course, they grade into syntactic
structures as different parts of the structure are made more schematic,
e.g. with the … in "meaning(s) … in mind" or "the more X … the more Y",
"the more X … the more ADJ the N is/becomes", and so forth.<br>
<br>
It becomes a judgement call for the lexicographer which complex
structures and how many of them to list in a practical work such as a
dictionary, not to mention *how* to list them alphabetically, etc. It
makes sense, given limited publication resources, to give special
attention to structures which (a.) are highly conventional (everybody
knows them and uses them constantly, and/or (b.) are highly
non-compositional, so that one who doesn't know the language would
likely miss the meaning if they can't find a dictionary entry. If you
have an electronic dictionary program like FLEx, you are less
restricted, but I find I still am practically restricted, and tend to
follow the criteria above. If a phrase, complex word, or complex stem,
is not highly conventionalized, even though it is conventional, I am
more likely to go to the bother of making an entry for it if it is
highly non-compositional/not highly compositional. <br>
<br>
(Why does a post like this always get long when you started out to
write something short and sweet?) (Note to self: should "short and
sweet" go in the dictionary?)<br>
<br>
--David Tuggy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
John Roberts wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid4576D914.7070706@sil.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Mike Maxwell wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The reason 'on the one hand' or 'on the other hand' might be considered
a lexeme is because the meaning (when used as a sentential modifier) is
non-compositional. If I say "On the other hand, it would be better to
eat chocolate ice cream", it has nothing to do with the number of hands
I do or don't have, or whether something (like melted ice cream) is on
my hand. And that unpredictable, idiomatic meanings is why it would be
listed in a lexicon, and maybe in a dictionary.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->The Longman Dictionary of English Idioms says the meaning of 'on (the)
one hand ... and on the other (hand) ...' is "in one case ... and in
another" and is used to emphasize the comparison between two opposite
statements, opinions, arguments, ideas, etc. This doesn't seem very
non-compositional to me. Firstly, there is the sense that 'on (the) one
hand' is the first of a pair of linguistic expressions and is properly
matched to 'on the other (hand)'. Secondly, there is the notion of
expressing a comparison. Thirdly, there is the notion that the
comparison is between two opposite statements, opinions, arguments,
ideas, etc. and so on. The LDEI also notes that the first expression 'on
the other hand' is often omitted and only 'on the other hand' is
expressed. I would say there is plenty of compositionality to the
meaning of 'on the other hand'.
John Roberts
</pre>
</blockquote>
<span width="1" style="color: white;"/>__._,_.___</span>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<img src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97476590/grpId=11682781/grpspId=1709195911/msgId=3621/stime=1165447951" width="1" height="1"> <br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br><br>
<div style="width:500px; text-align:right; margin-bottom:1px; color:#909090;">
<tt>SPONSORED LINKS</tt>
</div>
<table bgcolor=#e0ecee cellspacing="13" cellpadding="0" width=500px>
<tr valign=top>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbmQ4ZHIwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMTE2ODI3ODEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTY1NDQ3OTUx?t=ms&k=Science+lab+equipment&w1=Science+lab+equipment&w2=Life+science+research&w3=Life+sciences&w4=Life+science+product&w5=Life+science+company&c=5&s=125&g=0&.sig=nhMObThtY0u3dC_zdOTU4g">Science lab equipment</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbjd2OG9hBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMTE2ODI3ODEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTY1NDQ3OTUx?t=ms&k=Life+science+research&w1=Science+lab+equipment&w2=Life+science+research&w3=Life+sciences&w4=Life+science+product&w5=Life+science+company&c=5&s=125&g=0&.sig=Iijeys-hhXush45nkHI1fw">Life science research</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbDBmMGgwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMTE2ODI3ODEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTY1NDQ3OTUx?t=ms&k=Life+sciences&w1=Science+lab+equipment&w2=Life+science+research&w3=Life+sciences&w4=Life+science+product&w5=Life+science+company&c=5&s=125&g=0&.sig=BzQVPANazGzLMf63F0AEwA">Life sciences</a></tt>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign=top>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkanJrMW42BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBF9wAzQEZ3JwSWQDMTE2ODI3ODEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTY1NDQ3OTUx?t=ms&k=Life+science+product&w1=Science+lab+equipment&w2=Life+science+research&w3=Life+sciences&w4=Life+science+product&w5=Life+science+company&c=5&s=125&g=0&.sig=Zt0u9C_2RYCHGrro11mmsA">Life science product</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYjJwbnJqBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBF9wAzUEZ3JwSWQDMTE2ODI3ODEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTY1NDQ3OTUx?t=ms&k=Life+science+company&w1=Science+lab+equipment&w2=Life+science+research&w3=Life+sciences&w4=Life+science+product&w5=Life+science+company&c=5&s=125&g=0&.sig=4SCAy6h9Eoo0zrSnqnWSeg">Life science company</a></tt>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<div style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 77%; border-top: 1px solid #666; padding: 5px 0;" >
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional <br>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGxxNGJmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzExNjgyNzgxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwOTE5NTkxMQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMTY1NDQ3OTUx">Change settings via the Web</a> (Yahoo! ID required) <br>
Change settings via email: <a href="mailto:lexicographylist-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest">Switch delivery to Daily Digest</a> | <a href = "mailto:lexicographylist-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Fully Featured">Switch to Fully Featured</a> <br>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbWRiOXMwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzExNjgyNzgxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwOTE5NTkxMQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTE2NTQ0Nzk1MQ--">
Visit Your Group
</a> |
<a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
</a> |
<a href="mailto:lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">
Unsubscribe
</a>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<span style="color: white;"/>__,_._,___</span>
</body>
</html>