compounding and attributive modification
haspelmath at EVA.MPG.DE
Mon Jan 30 13:46:00 UTC 2006
There's a paper by Laurie Bauer (in the 2-volume handbook "Language
typology and language universals, ed. by Haspelmath et al., 695-707) on
"Compounding" in a typological perspective, where he investigates this
and related questions in a world-wide sample of 36 languages.
He finds that there seems to be a unidirectional implication from AdjN
order to ModHead order in compounds: his sample has only a single
language (from South America) with AdjN and HeadMod order (p. 697):
NAdj & HeadMod 10
NAdj & ModHead 11
AdjN & HeadMod 1
AdjN & ModHead 9
Thus, Ulwa's pattern (NAdj & ModHead) is actually the majority pattern
in Bauer's sample. But note that such typological data cannot be used
for or against a particular synchronic description anyway, because Bauer
cannot claim to have looked only at "real" adjectives, to the exclusion
of "apparent" adjectives that "in reality" are internally headed
relative clauses. Maybe "in reality" all 11 languages in Bauer's sample
are like Ulwa...
Andrew Koontz-Garboden wrote:
>Hello. Does anyone know of any literature that addresses the
>relationship between headedness in compounds and headedness in
>noun/adjective attributive modification? (Or, save that, does anyone
>simply have any idea/hunch whether there's any relationship?) What I
>have in mind is the following. In the compound in (1a), the head is
>man (ie, a frogman is a kind of man).
>b. the white house.
>Similarly for (1b), which is a kind of house.
>In the attributive construction in (2), the head is "dog" (i.e., an
>ugly dog is a kind of dog).
>(2) an ugly dog
>Someone suggested to me that there might be a relationship between
>headedness of compounds like those in (1) and attributive
>constructions in (2). So, the question I pose is: if compounds are
>right-headed, do attributive constructions tend also to be, and vice
>versa? Similarly for left-headedness?
>Among the reasons I ask is that in Ulwa, a Misumalpan language I'm
>working on, there is a mismatch in headedness of constructions like
>those in (1) and (2), as shown in (3), a kind of woman, and (4), a
>kind of man.
>(3) was sirau
> water maiden
>(4) al yuuhka
> man tall
> `a tall man'
>I have independent reasons for actually believing that what look like
>attributive constructions (ie, (4)) may instead be internally headed
>relative clauses. I'm wondering if the mismatch in headedness between
>compounding and attributive modification can be taken as a(n) (perhaps
>weak) argument. So, if anyone knows of any literature that addresses
>this question (or has evidence one way or another), I'd be grateful.
>Department of Linguistics
>Margaret Jacks Hall, Bldg. 460
>Stanford, CA 94305-2150
>andrewkg at csli.stanford.edu
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de)
Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6
Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616
More information about the Lingtyp