DOCUMENT RESUME ED 427 525 FL 025 704 AUTHOR Charteris-Black, J. Compound Nouns and the Acquisition of English Neologisms. TITLE PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 34p. PUB TYPE Reports - Research (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. Comprehension; Diachronic Linguistics; *English; English for DESCRIPTORS Academic Purposes; *English (Second Language); Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Idioms; *Language Patterns; *Morphology (Languages); *Nouns; Second Language Learning; Syntax IDENTIFIERS *Compound Nouns; *Neologism ABSTRACT A study investigated the extent to which English compound nouns are problematic for learners of English as a second language and identifies some causes of this comprehension difficulty. Subjects were 34 university students, of widely varying language backgrounds, in courses in English for academic purposes. Each was administered an instrument designed to measure comprehension of both real and invented English compound nouns. For each compound noun, a range of possible definitions, including distractors, was offered. Results suggest that the comprehension of some compound nouns is problematic because their idiomatic and syntactic opacity, in the absence of culture-specific pragmatic knowledge, constrains the identification of deleted elements. However, when the learner has sufficient exposure to the language, these difficulties are overcome readily. There is also evidence that learners use figurative strategies in dealing with idiomaticity. It is concluded that comprehension problems faced by learners of English as a second language encountering compound nouns may be very similar to those faced by native speakers. (Contains 35 references, 5 tables, and 4 figures.) (MSE) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * * * from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Compound Nouns and the Acquisition of English Neologisms. J. Charteris-Black Abstract As compounding is a source of many English neologisms, this study investigates the kr) kr) extent to which compound nouns are problematic for learners of English and identifies 71- some causes of comprehension difficulty. An elicitation instrument is developed to access the influence of idiomatic and syntactic features and lexical novelty on the comprehension of compound nouns. The findings are that the comprehension of some compound nouns is problematic because their idiomatic and syntactic opacity - in the absence of culture specific pragmatic knowledge - constrains the identification of deleted elements. However, when there is sufficient exposure these difficulties are readily overcome. There is also evidence that learners use figurative strategies in dealing with idiomaticity. The formation of opaque compound nouns involves a metaphorical process in which secondary meanings of the two elements are transferred to the compound form; in such cases, identification of premodifier and headnoun is unlikely to assist learners as there is bi-directionality of transfer. Learners should not assume that primary meanings are transferred, should look for idiomatic meaning in both elements, and identify the directionality of modification, where it exists, if they are to succeed in compound noun comprehension. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EST COPY AVAILABLE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION dl CENTER (ERIC) X This document has been PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE reproduced as AND received from the person or organization DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS originating it. BEEN GRANTED BY 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. 0.1tV-4e. fi5LZkit< Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 2 Introduction Compound neologisms such as rent boy, road rage, Gulf syndrome, and serial killer are usually understood by native adult readers of the British press but what sort of difficulties might they present to second language learners of English? Arnaud & Savignon (in Coady & Huckin 1997: 158) comment that complex lexical units require special attention by L2 learners of English since: Even though learning 3,000 words provides comprehension of 95% of occurrences, the remaining 113,000 words in Nation's (1990:16) count still pose a formidable problem. Although research suggests that a knowledge of complex lexical units is necessary for advanced learners' receptive competence, the literature (apart from mnemonics) is generally poor on the subject of learning strategies for words beyond the first two or three thousand (Arnaud & Savignon in Coady & Huckin 1997:159). This is, perhaps, surprising given that compounding is one of the most productive means of creating new words in English. An analysis of the Longman Register of New Words Vol. 1 shows that it accounts for 39.8% of new words (Ayto, in Anderman 1996:65) while a similar analysis of the Macquarie Dictionary of New Words shows that it can account for as many 54.5% (Butler, in Ayto, in Anderman 1996:66). Given, therefore, that compounding is a highly productive process of word formation, it is important to consider the types of difficulties which learners may encounter with such words and the sort of solutions they find to them. 3 3 Linguistic Characteristics of Compound Noun Formation In this paper the term compound noun is preferred to complex nominal as we are concerned with lexical items with two roots whereas the latter term also includes those with more than two roots. The process of compounding is one whereby two different words are brought together to form a new word. In most compound nouns the compound means more than the sum of its parts, and some authorities take this as their defining feature: 'If the meaning of the whole cannot be deduced from the meaning of the elements separately, then we have a compound' (Jesperson 1942:137). It is worth noting that this definition for compound nouns is very similar to other definitions of an idiom: A sequence of words which is semantically and often syntactically restricted so that it functions as a single unit. The meanings of the individual words cannot be combined to produce the meaning of the idiomatic expression as a whole. (Crystal 1992: 180) Clearly compound nouns, like idioms, are characterised by non-compositionality. However, Levi (1978: 64) argues that compound nouns vary in the extent to which they rely on idiomatic meaning and that there is a scale ranging from fully transparent to fully opaque meaning. As Fernando (1996:31) points out a number of scholars have used scales to represent idiomaticity. The structure of compound nouns usually requires a premodifier and a head noun. The function of the premodifier is to classify the head noun. Linguists, such as Levi (1978) and Zimmer (1972), have noted that the semantic role of the modifier is to isolate some truly distinctive feature of the headnoun which can lead speakers to make 4 appropriate classifications; there normally needs to be some permanent or habitual association between the premodifier and the headnoun. For example, a darkroom is a room that is habitually darkened for the purpose of photography and a serial killer is a person who murders habitually. But issues of habit are relative ones: how frequently do instances in which two elements are related have to occur in order for this association to require a linguistic sign? It is only through their conventional knowledge of what is permanent or habitual that native speakers share a perception of the association between two otherwise unrelated elements. A further characteristic of compound neologisms is that they may represent actions as nouns - a process of nominalisation which Halliday refers to as grammatical (1985) metaphor - for example, the violent actions associated with driving disputes has become nominalised in the compound neologism road rage. Many media generated compound neologisms encode such processes and in doing so aspire to give them the tangible reality of nouns. A further important consideration is the diachronic issue of how recently a word has entered the language; in this respect we can distinguish between novel compounds (e.g. road rage) and established compounds (e.g. blackmail). Orthographic criteria provide insight into diachronicity: novel compounds are usually written as two separate words, whereas established compounds are written as a single word; often there is a period of hyphenation prior to full compounding, for example we have anti- hero but antibiotic. The instability of orthography shows in inconsistency among has best seller, Cobuild dictionary writers; for example, Webster's Hypertext (1997) has bestseller. As compound nouns has best-seller and Chambers (1988) (1988) 5 5 become more established, there is a greater likelihood of the two elements becoming orthographically conjoined, although this is unlikely to effect their phonological pattern with primary stress remaining on the first element, (e.g. 'rent boy 'bootleg). Phonological stress remains the best rule of thumb to test for compound nouns. Factors Influencing the Comprehension of Compound Nouns Native Speaker Research Research into the comprehension of compound nouns by native speakers has identified their frequency and their potential for ambiguity: as Swales (1974: 129) puts it: 'The more technical and specialised the subject, the more frequent and more complicated the compound nouns'. In particular, novel compound forms require sophisticated semantic decoding (Gleitman & Gleitman in Lehrer, 1996: 71). Gerrig & Murphy (1992) claim that the interpretation of novel compound nouns by native speakers relies on the formation of complex concepts; these work by activating knowledge structures to infer the relation between the two elements. According to Bhatia (1992), native speakers encounter comprehension problems with complex nominals used in academic and professional writing; these have the dual purpose of identifying technical concepts with precision and clarity while serving to keep non- specialists at a distance. Limaye & Pompian (1991) found that nominal compounds caused comprehension problems in business and technical prose due to a failure by learners to identify the correct headword. Identification of the correct headword was also found to be a problem by Gerrig & Murphy (1992). This brief survey of the research on native speaker comprehension therefore leads us to anticipate that second language learners may also have difficulties in comprehending compound nouns. 6 6 Idiomaticity In traditional models of Ll comprehension (e.g. Grice 1975 or Searle 1975) figurative meaning violates one of the maxims of communication and therefore requires additional cognitive effort as 'listeners work out in a series of steps the implicatures behind any utterance where the intended interpretation deviates from its literal meaning' (Gibbs 1994:82). In these models, idiomatic meaning is accessed after the rejection of literal meaning (see figure one). 7 7 INPUT / SEARCH LEXICON FOR LITERAL MEANING Z N COMPREHENSION NON COMPREHENSION SEARCH IDIOM LEXICON FOR WORD MEANING 1: Comprehension of Idiomatic Meaning: The Traditional Model Figure (Bobrow & Bell 1973, Weinrich 1969) a 8 However, more recent research into the comprehension of idioms by native speakers offers two alternative models each of which contradicts the traditional model: first that idiomatic meaning is accessed in parallel with literal meanings- this is known as the lexicalisation hypothesis (Swinney & Cutler 1979). (See figure two). INPUT ROCESSING OF PROCESSING OF \ / ITERAL IDIOMATIC EANINGS MEANINGS COMPREHENSION Figure two: Comprehension in the Lexicalisation hypothesis (Swinney & Cutler 1979) Alternatively, idiomatic meaning is accessed directly (Gibbs 1980, 1985a, 1986d), this is known as the direct look-up model. (See figure three) and literal meaning is only looked for after idiomatic processing has failed 9 9 INPUT PROCESSING OF IDIOMATIC MEANINGS NON-COMPREHENSION COMPREHENSION PROCESSING OF LITERAL MEANINGS Figure 3: Comprehension of Idiomatic Meaning: The Direct Access Hypothesis (Gibbs, 1980, 1985a, 1986d) The lexicalisation hypothesis implies that idiomatic and literal meanings contribute equally to comprehension; while the direct access hypothesis implies that idiomatic meaning can be accessed directly and that literal meanings will only be looked for if idiomatic meanings do not lead to comprehension. This would cause problems for L2 learners trained to give priority to literal meanings over idiomatic ones. 1 0