more on badasses

Wed Oct 13 00:30:09 UTC 1999

Yes, Larry is right about the inflection in the form cited, and that was
what I had in mind as evidence about its "separateness" (or homonymy" as
Larry says).

The stress rule I gave works lots of times (as Larry notes) but not only
doesn't from time to time (he is right), but also doesn't work
cross-dialectally, but prosody (except for poorly documented interest in
Southern front-shift stuff, never carefully looked at) is woefully ignored
in US dialect research. For example, lots of items larry cites are
"properly" compound stressed fo me, but that may be "contamination" from
the Southern Shift rule (which, as I noted, is poorly understood).

dInIs (who would stress damn near every item Larry cited "correctly,"
although, oddly, not "child prodigy" or "class reunion" [except in the odd
sense of working-class folk getting together]. but I know speakers who
would. AAAAAARGH! My dialect may be contaminated! Help me, hep me, hep
me......

>>Let's help out here for real.
>>
>>"Badass" is a compound - two words blended into one. If that's true, it
>>should have the English compound stress rule, not the adjective plus noun
>>rule.
>>
>>For example a BLUEgill (stress on first syllable) is a compund and means a
>>kind of fish. A fish with a blue GILL (stress on second element) is an
>>adjective plus noun combination, and there are plenthy of fish with blue
>>gills which are not bluegills. "Badass," as any native spaker who has the
>>item can tell you, has the unmarked stress pattern "BADass" (not "bad
>>ASS"), hence, I would be tempted to call "badass" a compound.
>>
>>Note how this does our list-partner's love affair a lot of good. A compound
>>is a single word made up of two. Love triumphs after all.
>>
>>dInIs (happy to play cupid)
>>
>>PS: Please note also that "badass" is made up of the fixed adjective form
>>"bad" which means cool, hip, imposing, powerful, etc...., not the item
>>"bad" which means unseemly, evil, not good. The form coumpounded here, for
>>example, does not inflect. "He is one bad sumbitch." but not *"Yeah and his
>>brother is one worse sumbitch." Hence, no "worseass" or "worstass."
>>
>In fact, the "bad" incorporated into this compound does inflect, but as a
>regular adjective:  "Yeah, and his brother is even baaaader".   (Nice
>evidence for homonymy as opposed to polysemy.)  But I also think we have to
>be careful to warn our partner not to count too heavily on the compound
>stress as a fail-safe diagnostic, although it helps here.  Even if
>first-element stress is an unerring guide to the presence of a compound,
>it's only a sufficient and not a necessary condition.  Without getting into
>adj+noun compounds, such noun+noun sequences as "atom bomb", "apple pie",
>and for some speakers "chicken soup" are stressed on the (non-initial)
>head, and yet by all other criteria are compounds. Other examples:  "class
>reunion", "child prodigy", "shotgun wedding".
>
> Here's a partial bibliography, culled from a fairly recent exchange on
>Linguist List on this topic:
>
>        Bauer, L. (1983). Stress in compounds: a rejoinder. English
>Studies, 64(1), 47-53.
>        Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind
>reader).  Language, 48, 633-644.
>        Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of
>English. New York: Harper and Row.
>        Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound
>stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 239-297.
>        Farnetani, E., Torsello, C., & Cosi, P. (1988). English
>compound versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse. Language and
>Speech, 31(2), 157-180.
>        Lees, R. (1963). The grammar of English
>nominalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
>        Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex
>nominals. New York: Academic Press.
>        Liberman, M., & Sproat, R. (1992). The stress and structure of
>modified noun phrases in English. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.),
>Lexical Matters (pp. 131-182). Stanford, CA: Center for Study of
>Language and Information.
>        Marchand, H. (1969). Categories and types of present-day
>English word-formation (2). Muenchen: C.H. Beck'sche
>Verlagsbuchhandlung.
>        Marchand, H. (1974). On the analysis of substantive compounds
>and suffixal derivatives not containing a verbal element. In
>D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in syntax and word-formation
>(pp. 292-322). Muenchen: Wilhelm Fink.
>        Pennanen, E. (1989). On the function and behavior of stress in
>English noun compounds. English Studies, 61, 252-263.
>        Sampson, R. (1980). Stress in English N+N phrases: a further
>complicating factor. English Studies, 61, 264-270.
>
>>Let's help out here for real.
>
>>
>
>>"Badass" is a compound - two words blended into one. If that's true,
>it
>
>>should have the English compound stress rule, not the adjective plus
>noun
>
>>rule.
>
>>
>
>>For example a BLUEgill (stress on first syllable) is a compund and
>means a
>
>>kind of fish. A fish with a blue GILL (stress on second element) is
>an
>
>>adjective plus noun combination, and there are plenthy of fish with
>blue
>
>>gills which are not bluegills. "Badass," as any native spaker who has
>the
>
>>item can tell you, has the unmarked stress pattern "BADass" (not "bad
>
>>ASS"), hence, I would be tempted to call "badass" a compound.
>
>>
>
>>Note how this does our list-partner's love affair a lot of good. A
>compound
>
>>is a single word made up of two. Love triumphs after all.
>
>>
>
>>dInIs (happy to play cupid)
>
>>
>
>>PS: Please note also that "badass" is made up of the fixed adjective
>form
>
>>"bad" which means cool, hip, imposing, powerful, etc...., not the
>item
>
>>"bad" which means unseemly, evil, not good. The form coumpounded here,
>for
>
>>example, does not inflect. "He is one bad sumbitch." but not *"Yeah
>and his
>
>>brother is one worse sumbitch." Hence, no "worseass" or "worstass."
>
>>
>
>In fact, the "bad" incorporated into this compound does inflect, but as
>a regular adjective:  "Yeah, and his brother is even baaaader".   (Nice
>evidence for homonymy as opposed to polysemy.)  But I also think we
>have to be careful to warn our partner not to count too heavily on the
>compound stress as a fail-safe diagnostic, although it helps here.
>Even if first-element stress is an unerring guide to the presence of a
>compound, it's only a sufficient and not a necessary condition.
>Without getting into adj+noun compounds, such noun+noun sequences as
>"atom bomb", "apple pie", and for some speakers "chicken soup" are
>stressed on the (non-initial) head, and yet by all other criteria are
>compounds. Other examples:  "class reunion", "child prodigy", "shotgun
>wedding".
>
>
> Here's a partial bibliography, culled from a fairly recent exchange on
>Linguist List on this topic:
>
>
>        <fontfamily><param>Palatino</param><bigger>Bauer, L. (1983). Stress in
>compounds: a rejoinder. English
>
>Studies, 64(1), 47-53.
>
>        Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind
>
>reader).  Language, 48, 633-644.
>
>        Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of
>
>English. New York: Harper and Row.
>
>        Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound
>
>stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 239-297.
>
>        Farnetani, E., Torsello, C., & Cosi, P. (1988). English
>
>compound versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse. Language and
>
>Speech, 31(2), 157-180.
>
>        Lees, R. (1963). The grammar of English
>
>nominalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
>
>        Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex
>
>nominals. New York: Academic Press.
>
>        Liberman, M., & Sproat, R. (1992). The stress and structure of
>
>modified noun phrases in English. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.),
>
>Lexical Matters (pp. 131-182). Stanford, CA: Center for Study of
>
>Language and Information.
>
>        Marchand, H. (1969). Categories and types of present-day
>
>English word-formation (2). Muenchen: C.H. Beck'sche
>
>Verlagsbuchhandlung.
>
>        Marchand, H. (1974). On the analysis of substantive compounds
>
>and suffixal derivatives not containing a verbal element. In
>
>D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in syntax and word-formation
>
>(pp. 292-322). Muenchen: Wilhelm Fink.
>
>        Pennanen, E. (1989). On the function and behavior of stress in
>
>English noun compounds. English Studies, 61, 252-263.
>
>        Sampson, R. (1980). Stress in English N+N phrases: a further
>
>complicating factor. English Studies, 61, 264-270.
>
> </bigger></fontfamily>

Dennis R. Preston
Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and Languages
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
preston at pilot.msu.edu
Office: (517)353-0740
Fax: (517)432-2736