Prosodic and orthographic signals of English compounds

Prosodic and orthographic signals of (English) compounds.

Beginning students of English are very often convinced that what we call compounds are expressions

consisting  of  two  or  more  words  spelt  with  a  hyphen  in  between,  e.g.,  old-fashioned,  world-wide,  happy-go-
lucky. However, they must feel disoriented and embarrassed to learn that compounds are frequently spelt solid,
or  just  on  the  contrary,  as  separate  words,  e.g.,  goldfish,  seasick,  widespread,  housekeep;  deputy  minister,  old
friend, common sense. It seems that the spoken language will qualify a junction for a compound in a more exact
way: namely, we tend to accept, fairly willingly, the opinion that compounds unlike free syntactic junctions are
characteristic  of  one  primary  stress,  which  is  placed  initially,  ie.  on  the  first  constituent,  e.g.,

Çcolour-blind,

Çgrindstone,  ÇHyde  Park.  Yet  again,  this  does  not  always  apply:  so-called  ‘string  compounds’,  and  not  only
these,  will not do with one stress only, and due to the rhythm the corresponding intonation contours will change
in  expected  accentuation,  e.g.,  for

Èget-me-Çnot; She is only fif

teen vs. …

Çfifteen years old. These and other

issues  will  be  dealt  with  in  this  Lesson.  We  shall  begin  with  the  phonetic  side,  of  course,  because  the  written
form is but a sort of reflection of what the compound is like in terms of its definition. The little corpus I managed
to  gather  for  this  purpose  contains  good  representatives  of  expressions  that  are  referred  to  as  compounds,
irrespective of occasional doubts on their status as raised by some linguists. In other words, it is not my primary
intention in this Lesson to argue for the status of genuine compound in each and every expression. On the other
hand  I  must  add  that  the  selection  of  samples,  however  random  it  may  have  been,  followed  the  formal,
grammatical characteristics of constituents and the syntactic functions of their co-working as compounds. Thus
the following types will be taken into consideration (now with only a couple of examples to illustrate):

1. Nominal (substantive) compounds

N + N

sunrise, dining-room, lady doctor

A + N

blackbird, lazy-bones, first night

V + N

playground, looking-glass, drawing room

Adv + N

offshoot, by-way

2. Adjectival compounds

N + A

trustworthy, snow-blind

A + A

dark-blue

Adv + A

evergreen, over-sensitive

3. Verbal compounds

V + V

hearsay, make-believe

Adv + V

overlook, ill-treat

Adv + V-ed/-ing

widespread, outlying

xxx + V-ed/-ing

machine-made, far-fetched, sea-faring, easy-going

4. Other types of compounds

class genitive + N

bird’s nest, dog’s ear

repetitive

fifty-fifty, ping-pong

back-formation

housekeep, lip-read

conversion

waterproof

multi-element

forget-me-not, bread and butter, kitchen cum scullery

string

dead-letter office, public schoolboy

miscellanea

breakdown, twenty-two, know-how

Let us now examine the expected regularity of stress position in compounds.

You have learnt already that compounds are signalled by one primary stress or double

stress, e.g.,

Çgoldfish, Çcommon Çsense. This is what Z. Harris (1951) maintained;

unfortunately,  the  latter  alternative  seems  to  cause  difficulties,  because  many  free
combinations within NPs carry double stress, too, as in a black colour. One classical example
will  show  the  difference  in  meanings  by  virtue  of  placing  two  stresses  or  only  one  stress:  a
Çblack Çbird vs. a Çblackbird. Moreover, we know of quite a few expressions which can be
read both literally and figuratively, in dependence on one or the other accentuation contour: a
Çdark Çhorse vs. a Çdark horse. Yet the problem is not solved fully  even if we accept the
opinion shared by most linguists following L. Bloomfield, namely, the opinion claiming that
the elements of a compound are linked by one stress. This works well in the majority of cases;
yet hardly  anybody would deny the status of  genuine compounds such as public house, first

night,    common  sense  /  law  /  noun,  even  fellow-man,  young  lady,  thunderstruck  /  -storm  /  -
cloud  /-bolt,  and  the  like,  although  the  first  as  well  as  the  other  elements  are  often  stressed.
Yet let us be fair to Bloomfield: he knew very well that language was liable to changes, and,
viewed  diachronically,  that  turning  down  the  presence  of  truly  double  stress  did  not
necessarily  mean  leaving  one  constituent  of  the  potential  compound  without  stress  at  all.
Suffice it to listen carefully to the intensity of stresses as pronounced spontaneously by native
speakers  in  compounds  illustrated  here-above:  one  of  the  constituents  is  in  fact  pronounced
with  a  secondary  (weak)  stress,  and  almost  always  without  any  phonetic  reduction  of
syllables.  Compare:

Çpublic [Ã] Çhouse _ Èpublic [Ã] Çhouse; (Çthunder+Çstorm) _

Çthunder Èstorm [¿:] _ Çthunderstorm [¿:]

. This is perceived more clearly in so-called string

and / or ‘more element’ compounds, the accentuation contours of which will vary due to the
sentence rhythm, e.g., (

Çdead Çletter) _ a Èdead Çletter _ a Çdead-letter Çoffice; Çbread and

Çbutter (literal meaning) vs. Èbread and Çbutter Çletter / Çplays (figurative meaning).

In the following we shall try to investigate whether there are any tendencies in regular

placing the (main, primary) stress in compounds. Respecting the practical target of the present
Lesson  (you  won’t  mind  feeling  fairly  certain  about  the  proper  stress  position,  will  you?),  I
leave  aside  “fixed  compounds”  (Jespersen’s  tem),  e.g.,  Monday  (<moon[’s]  day),  woman
(<wif+man),  window  (<wind+auga,  eye),  as  well  as  those  that  due  to  their  unexpected
pronunciation  are  commonly  considered  as  simplexes,  e.g.,  shepherd,  forehead,  boatswain,
forecastle,  etc.  Examining  “free  compounds”  (again  Jespersen’s  term),  namely  those  that
others called group / recent / original / genuine compounds (see Lesson Two), I do not see any
definite criteria to play their substantial, significant role as for the way of accentuation – from
the  synchronic  point  of  view,  of  course.  Nor  those  Bloomfield’s  syntactic  and  asyntactic
compounds  have  a  direct  relation  to  stress  placement.  Therefore  mine  is  the  following
hypothesis: the compound is characteristic of one primary (strong) stress, which tends to
be  posited  initially,  ie.  on  the  first  constituent,  unless  it  is  the  second  constituent  that
carries  a  higher  semantic  value.  The  classification  of  compounds  on  which  this  can  be
proved will be based on grammatical categories of respective constituents.

(1)

Compounds as syntactic nouns:

N+N type, e.g.,

Çgoldfish, Çair-raid, Çhouse sparrow

And also:

Çhouse

“

keeper / boat / boy / coat / fly / maid / wife / work / …

house agent

house party, hometown, homestead, homeland, rainbow, foot-bridge, silver-fox, boy-

child, blockhead, butter-fingers, bedroom, horsefly, stonefly, bulldog, apple-tree,

maid(-)servant, cow elephant, (stone wall

);

With ‘recessive stress’

: fellow-man (<

Çfellow-Çman); and also: Çlady

doctor,

Çdeputy

minister,

Çchild

wife.

A+N type, e.g.,

Çblackbird, vs. blue Çmoon

And also:

Çblackboard, bluebell, highway, shorthand, wildfire / fowl, deadlock, redbreast,

blackshirt, highbrow, lazybones, blueberry, bluebird, bluebottle, blue book,

longboat, longstop, common law, long run, long drink; longshoreman;

vs.

best

Çman, and also: long face / haul / odds / ton / wave / johns; blue film / peter / ribbon /

blood; young lady, old maid; home front / brew / help / run / rule

;

Compare, however,

Çblackboard [-¾-,-¿:-] vs. Çcupboard [-Ã-, -\-]. Mind also Çpostman [-\-] vs. Çmilkman

¾-].

Nowadays used preferably as a verb in its figurative meaning ‘to make a long speech or a question in order to

purposely slow down the business’.

I. Poldauf’s (1983) term; in Czech “ustupující přízvuk“.

Owing to the well-known conversion of word-classes, home as the first constituent can be viewed as a noun,

an adjective or even an adverb, which very probably plays its role in preferences of alternative stress

With ‘recessive stress’:

Ècommon Çsense; and also: first night, public school,

dead letter.

V+N type, e.g.,

Çdrawbridge, Çlooking-glass

And also:

Çgrindstone, playground, break-water, makeshift, scarecrow, cut-throat; drawing(-)

sitting / living room.

Adv+N type, e.g.,

Çafterthought

And also:

Çafterpains, afterbirth, afterglow, aftershave

, overcoat, underclothes, underground,

downpour, offshoot, outbreak, outlook, upkeep, by(-)5way.

V+V type, e.g.,

Çhearsay, make-beÇlieve (make-belief)

(2)

Compounds as syntactic adjectives:

N+A type, e.g.,

Çseasick

And also:

Çsnow-blind, nut-brown, milk-white, lifelong, colour-blind, waterproof, homesick;

A+A type, e.g.,

Çbitter-Çsweet

And also: brown-grey, dark-blue, red-hot, deaf-mute, dead-alive, Anglo-Saxon, serio-comic;

with occasional recessive stress if the relation is not felt as typically copulative (coordinative):

ÇAnglo-ÇSaxon

ÈAnglo-ÇSaxon, vs. Çred-Èhot (cf. milk-white, here above);

Adv+A type, e.g.,

Èall-imÇportant

And also: over-

Çripe, under-ripe, underhung, over-sensitive, but Çevergreen

(3)

Compounds as syntactic verbs:

V+V type, e.g., dare

Çsay, Çmaybe

Adv+V type, e.g., out

Çdo

And also: out

Çlive, overlook, undermine, upset, ill-treat, dry-clean.

(4)

Compounds as syntactic adjectives of participle form:

Adv+V

ing

type, e.g.,

Çoutlying vs. upÇstanding

And also:

Çincoming vs. forthÇcoming

Adv+V

type, e.g.,

Çoutstretched vs. overÇjoyed

And also:

Çdowncast, inborn, vs. underÇdone

N/A+V

ing

type, e.g.,

Çheart-rending; good- Çlooking

And also:

Çsea-faring; easy-Çgoing, self-denying, all-seeing

N/A+V

type, e.g., hand-

Çmade vs. maÇchine-made; good-Çtempered vs.

Çwidespread

And also:

Çthunderstruck, short-Çsighted (var. Çshort-sighted);

With ‘recessive stress’: home-

Çbrewed (<Ç--Ç--), homeÇmade, far-Çfetched.

(5)

Other types of compounds:

Some of the types have already been touched upon. Let us only add further examples

to document (i) string and more-element compounds, (ii) genitive+N compounds, and (iii)
repetitive compounds.

Ad (i).

One primary stress is characteristic of these, mostly placed initially, as in for

Çget-me-not, Çmerry-go-

round,

Çson-in-law; if the string contains a noun or two, however, recessive stress is used, with the stronger one

contours of respective compounds. Compare here and further: N+N (

Çhometown); N+A (Çhomesick);

A+N (home

Çhelp); Adv+V

ing / ed

(

Çhomecoming, homeÇbrewed), etc.

All compounds of after- as the first element have the initial stress except

ÈafterÇnoon.

For reasons commented upon further in the passage syntactic adjectives of participle form, e.g., longsighted,

sea-faring, are treated separately; see point (4).

Evergreen is now considered as a syntactic noun.

falling on an element close to the end, e.g.,

Èjack-o’-Çlantern, Èjack-of-Çall-trades, Èdeaf and Çdumb, Èbread

and

Çbutter. Frequently, of course, stress positions are restructured when the compound is used attributively,

e.g.,

Çpenny-in-the-Èslot maÇchine, Çbread and Èbutter Çletter, as well as A+N Èdead Çletter in Çdead-Èletter

Çoffice.

Ad (ii).

Used mostly in a figurative sense, the second element of such compounds is usually stressed, e.g.,

child’s

Çplay, bird’s nest, dog’s chance / dinner / house. There is a strong tendency, however, to drop the

genitive signal and make it a N+N compound, in which the first element receives the stress, e.g., dog’s house

Çdog house. Compare also barber(‘s) shop.

Ad (iii).

These include expressions which consist of duplicated syllables, both identical and rhyming ones, e.g.,

fifty-fifty, willy-nilly. The expected level stress is recessed in spontaneous speech, with the tendency to

È-- Ç--

contour when the compounds are used as syntactic adverbials, and to

Ç-- È-- in their attributive position. The

latter way of accentuation is also preferred whenever the compound’s meaning implies a noun. A few examples

will illustrate:

Èhelter-Çskelter (in a great hurry; disordered / disorderly), Èhiggledy-Çpiggledy (in disorder),

Èwilli-Çnilly (regardless whether wanted or not); your Çtopsy-turvy iÇdeas (confused), a Çteeny-weeny
Çdifference (very small, tiny; also teensy-weensy), Çwishy-washy Çtea / ideas (weak); Çping-pong, Çtom-tom,
ÇwhipperÈsnapper (a conceited person).

Compounds which resulted from conversion or back-formation processes are stressed

initially, unless they consist of more than two elements, e.g.,

Çhousekeep vs. Èfree-for-Çall.

The former are practically all nouns, exceptionally also verbs, the latter are all verbs:

Çcease

fire, know-how, make-up, breakdown; to

Çwaterproof; Çtypewrite, lip-read (but parÇtake <

‘take part in drinking and eating’).

You have certainly multiplied the lists of items illustrating each and every type of

compounds viewed from the formal characteristics. As I noted at the beginning, the
expressions introduced here-above are just a small sample of hundreds, maybe thousands of
others

, but a good number of prototypes, all the same, to search for tendencies of proper

ways of their accentuation.

The above-classification of types seems to be exact enough; yet a closer probe into the issue will reveal

that there is a lot of subjectivity in deciding on proper accentuation

In case the result does not go against what I

call ‘idiomaticity of expression’, everything will be all right. However, we can only wonder why, for instance,
we find alternative stress contours in such N+N compounds as country

Çtown, Çcountry music, country Çhouse,

Çcountry folk, Çcountryman, etc., when also acceptable are both country Çdance and Çcountry dance, as well as

country

Çmusic

Here many of us will be tempted to explain these “variations” as based on the fact of prosody-

working; and indeed, this holds in most cases, as we have learnt. Others, however, will look for an explanation in
the domain of meaning. Namely, it is commonplace that not every

Èblack Çbird is a Çblackbird

that the

ÇWhite

House is in fact a

Èwhite Çhouse yet what it actually denotes is a US President’s seat, that Èwoman Çdoctor

means ‘female doctor’ unlike

Çwoman doctor, which is an informal synonym to ‘gynecologist’; we speak

traditionally of

Çred brick [universities], while a Çred Çbrick refers simply, literally to the colour of that hard

piece used for building; and, last but not least, one of the bird species is called

Çredbreast (=robin), another is

known as

Çyellowhammer

(=a kind of finch, fed on emmer, ie. wild wheat), etc. Hence we may admit, as most

speakers also would, that a compound accentuates its first element. This, however, is not always the case, as
shown just here-above. The list can well be extended by quite a few geographical names in which the stress falls
not on the first but rather on the second constituent: e.g., Long

ÇIsland, South DaÇkota, New ÇYork, and

similar

After I. Poldauf 1983: 137.

To my best knowledge, there is no qualified estimate of the number of compounds; yet it will do to open a

dictionary on a random page: for instance, the entry ‘house’ occurs in no less than 45 expressions that

we would call compounds, and the same amount we can find with the entry ‘long’.

Very often an alternative stressing can be heard, reminding us of common syntactically free combinations,

namely, red

Çbreast, yellowÇhammer.

C. Hockett (1966) contrasts these with free combinations such as a

Çlong Çisland, Çsouth OÇhio, a Çnew

Çbook.

What is the conclusion concerning the tendency in placing the stress in compounds?

The only definite answer we can offer is that the expression called ‘compound’ is signalled by
one primary (strong, main) stress. Yet it is not always easy to determine which of the two (or
more) constituents will be its carrier. Admitting for the rhythmical effects, which might, and
in fact they do play their role in most cases

, the primary stress will tend to fall on the

constituent that bears the higher / highest semantic value. Logically enough, this does not
necessarily have to be the element which we regard syntactically as a main one, ie. the head.

In N+N category, and practically in most nominal compounds, it is the first element

that is endowed with distinguishing function, namely, it is felt as ‘more important’. For
example, not every bridge serves to pedestrians but only

Çfootbridge; in the school the

teacher writes not on any board but on a teaching-aid called

Çblackboard (or white-board);

not any ‘dark room’ is used for processing films but only

Çdarkroom; and if children play

outdoors,  on  a  ground  specially  destined  for  their  sporting  activities,  we  speak  of
Çplayground.  Similarly,  the  first  element  is  usually  stressed  in  compounds  of  adjectival
character,  e.g.,

Çtrustworthy, Çseasick, Çcolour-blind. Not always, though: it holds that the

primary stress will fall on the element which the speaker considers as the most important, e.g.,
all-im

Çportant, under-Çripe, over-Çsensitive.

As far as verbal compounds are concerned, the

situation is yet less obvious, less straightforward. It seems, and it holds good in most cases,
that the stress will tend to fall on the truly verbal constituent, as in out

Çdo, overÇlook, upÇset.

However, if such compounds originate by means of conversion or back-formation processes,
the stress is attracted to the first element, e.g., (to)

Çwaterproof, Çdry-clean

Çhousekeep,

Çtype(-)write, Çlip-read. From the formal point of view we can consider the participial
characteristic of the basic (head) element, namely, V

or V

ing

; however, having examined a

number of compounds of these categories I came to the conclusion that rather than respecting
this formal aspect we shall have to think in terms of prevailing verbal or nominal functions.
And indeed, there are both V

- and V

ing

-compounds accented on their first as well as second

elements; let us compare:

Çthunderstruck, widespread, downcast, outstretched, sea-faring,

heart-rending, outlying vs. hand-

Çmade, overjoyed, forthcoming, all-seeing, upstanding, etc.

Speaking of the nominal / verbal functions, what I have in mind is the category of aspect: here
we can agree on the fact that the V

-form implies (almost always) ‘perfectiveness’, while

ing

-form is unmarked, namely, it can be both perfective and imperfective. Moreover, if we

take into account the fact that the V

/ ing

compound will mostly stand in the attributive

position (of a NP), the more reason there is for one to behave much like other nominal
compounds, of the type

Çhighway, rainbow. No wonder then that the stress tends to be

posited initially. No wonder, either, that due to prosody laws working in real utterances the
expected, ie. typical stress position will vary. Therefore we can come across two alternative
ways of accentuation as indicated in dictionaries, e.g.,

Çshort-sighted or Èshort-Çsighted; and

sometimes one or the other way is specified, depending on the given compound’s syntactic
position, e.g., the

Çforthcoming season vs. No reply was forthÇcoming.

You could note that practically almost all compounds, prototypical representatives of

various formal categories, are characteristic of one primary stress, which shows a strong
tendency towards the initial position. Hence you will not be surprised to hear people say, with
preference,

Çhand-made, maÇchine-made, Çgood-looking, Çgood-tempered, Çill-tempered,

etc. Nevertheless, there are yet quite a few compounds which carry double-stress. This is

In English constituents of practically any word-class can combine to make a compound; then, however, it

depends very much on the syntactic function of the whole complex expression.

You can have more examples at hand, at least those introduced here-above in this passage.

Also dry-

Çclean, hence dry-Çcleaning, as presented in some dictionaries.

often  the  case  with  compounds  of  adjectival  function,  mostly  of  A+A-type,  sometimes  also
N+A-type. Having recalled what you learnt in previous lessons, mainly about the coordinative
and determinative relations between the constituents, you can easily find a good reason for the
preference  of  double-stress  contour.  It  is  again  the  criterion  of  semantic  value  that  plays  its
role:  if  the  speaker  regards  both  constituents  as  equally  important,  he  automatically,  as  it
were,  puts  strong  stress  on  either  one.  Examples  are

Çdead-aÇlive, deaf-mute, bitter-sweet,

red-hot, blood-red, stone-cold, knee-deep; and also in some other types, as

Çlady-Çdoctor,

first-night, public school

. Learners may be embarrassed to find that authorities often present

different contours in compounds whose elements have similar grammatical and meaningful
characteristics; suffice it to compare

Çblood-Çred with Çnut-brown, or Çsnow-Çwhite with

Çmilk-white. However, I assume that here, too, we will make do well enough with the
hypothesis of the degree of semantic value, for good measure enriched by the moment of high
expressivity. Namely, if this moment is present, the compound will carry double-stress. We
can even believe that the stress fulfils its emphatic function. Yet as we have learnt, it always
holds that the word-stress will follow the overall sentence-stress, e.g.,

Çred-Çhot vs. a Çred-

hot

Çpoker.

This was enough to say on the expected regularity of stress position in compounds

What was ascertained and analysed from the point of view of accentuation patterns meets the
hypothesis formulated at the beginning. It must again be stressed, however, that ‘compound’
cannot be defined one-sidedly in terms of stress contours only; as a matter of fact, mostly one
primary stress, posited initially into the bargain, is the consequence (or corollary) of one’s
considering the given complex of two or more original words (constituents) as one indivisible
whole. (The issue will be dealt with in detail in Lesson Five.)

Another approach to ‘compound’ emphasises the way of orthographical image of the

complex-word. I must oppose strictly this one-sided aspect, although some linguists do insist
on it: for instance, I. V. Arnoľd (1973) or W. J. Meys (1975) maintain that ‘compound’ is an
expression spelt together or hyphenated. Nevertheless, the goal of this passage is to illustrate
the  spelling  practice,  which  is  rather  a  vacillating  one  –  not  only  in  terms  of  the  respective
compounds’  formal  classification  but  also  according  to  various  dictionaries.  Having  taken
some time and trouble I managed to compare a hundred or so compounds in spellings as used
by Bloomfield and Jespersen, and also by editors of more recent dictionaries, yet only to find
that  there  were  no  definite  criteria  which  should  indulge  the  learner’s  curiosity.  Indeed,  you
may wonder why there are two or even three ways of spelling one and the same compound-
word, e.g., drawing room / drawing-room; flashing point / flashing-point / flashpoint, or why
only the hyphenated form looking-glass is recommended if this compound is similar, from its
grammatical  composition,  to  drawing  room,  or  why  we  are  used  to  spell  bedroom  solid
although  another  ‘room’  in  our  house  is  living  room,  spelt  as  two  words.  It  seems,  at  first
sight, that there is a lot of subjectivity in spelling of compounds; we have to admit, however,
that there are also certain tendencies which have their ground in the degree of unity between
the respective lexically-grammatical constituents, namely, the degree sensed intuitively by the
writer.  At  the  same  time,  any  literate  language  user  will  understand  the  genuine  working  of
the  symbol  called  ‘hyphen’:  briefly,  its  function  is  to  divide  and,  simultaneously,  to  link

Here in practice a recessive stress is preferred, ie.

Èfirst Çnight, Èpublic Çschool. See above in the passage.

Compare also Part Two, par. 1.1.2.

More information in S. Kavka: „O velkých písmenech a spojovnících v angličtině.“ [On capital letters and

hyphens in English.] Cizí jazyky ve škole XX, 1976/7, pp. 357-361.

Thus the use of hyphen is somewhere half-way between ‘spacing’ and ‘writing solid’. The
following sentences will serve as good examples

The lights went out, and entering the dark room Ann felt scared.

He emerged from the darkroom showing the photo we needed.

He was standing knee-deep in the water.

Here also He stood in front of a green-painted back door could be listed, the example of
which Zandtvoort and Jespersen would, with all probability, have said that it was a syntactic
conversion from the “underlying structure” the back door was painted green. Let us add two
or three more examples:

[easy] front-door access to the manor

dead letter vs. dead-letter office

dirty-clothes basket vs. dirty clothes-basket.

The way of spelling also seems to reflect the writer’s awareness about the novelty of the given
compound;  for  instance,  blackboard  appears  now  in  modern  dictionaries  alongside  white-
board,  spelt  with  a  hyphen,  because  such  is  the  true  colour  of  this  classroom  teaching  aid.
Finally, there is an obvious tendency of (i) solid spelling with compounds of N+N or (fairly
often)  xxx+N  elements,  these  Ns  being  either  original  or  syntactically  ‘converted’  ones;  on
the  other  hand,  (ii)  the  xxx+A  type  of  compounds  seems  to  reflect  relative  independence  of
their  constituents,  which  is  signalled  in  spelling  by  a  hyphen.  I  must  emphasise  two  facts:
first,  the  (i)  and  (ii)  types  of  compounds  are  treated  syntactically

, and second, we speak in

terms of tendencies; namely, there are quite a few “exceptions” of spellings, alternative ways
as found in dictionaries being a commonplace. Beginning learners, however, will find the
following examples fairly useful:

(i)

sunrise, goldfish, cupboard (vs. silver-fox, cow elephant);

blackbird, shorthand (vs. first night);

drawbridge, pickpocket, playground (vs. looking-glass);

overcoat, offshoot, outlook (vs. by-way);

(ii)

blood-red, snow-cold, colour-blind (vs. waterproof);

bitter-sweet, dark-blue, Anglo-Saxon;

over-sensitive, under-ripe, all-important (vs. evergreen).

On this spot I must recall one important fact, namely, the way of spelling alone does

not provide a satisfactory basis for the definition of ‘compound’. As shown in the passage on
accentuation, orthographical conventions, too, reflect the compound’s degrees of unity of
meaning

. Mine is the definite conviction that the definition of ‘compound’ has to start with

semantic criteria (the topic to be discussed

in Lesson Five

). Here only a few notes may be

In case you should have doubts about the clarity (unambiguity) of meanings, try to think about the proper role

of context. You can get a template in S. Kavka: “A Note on ‘Omnipotence’ of Context: Its Impact on

Comprehending Idiomatic Expressions.” Studia Anglica 2, Universitas Ostraviensis, 2006, pp. 7-24.

What I have in mind here is the “primary” syntactic function as shown with respective compounds in

dictionaries. Thus, if a N-compound spelt with spacing is used attributively, writers usually prefer its

hyphenated spelling, as in first night

their first-night success. Compare also similar practice in, e.g.,

a green-painted front door; a front-door entrance.

Compare Part Two, par. 1.1.1.

Semantic criteria are discussed also in Part Two, par. 1.1.8.

found interesting enough by those who wish to see links between oral and written forms of
language.

Practitioners will be disappointed to learn that there is hardly any straightforward

connection  between  accentuation  and  spelling  of  compounds.  Neither  do  grammatical
characteristics  of  the  constituents  involved  have  an  apparent  relation  to  orthography.
Expressed in concrete terms, no matter what the stress contours are, and no matter which type
(nominal,  adjectival)  of  the  compound  is  employed,  we  come  across  all  the  three  ways  of
spelling. If you take time and trouble to examine the examples out of the lists above, you will
get the point. And yet certain tendencies do exist, as the following one: hyphenated spelling is
used with string- and some more-element compounds of the type merry-go-round, son-in-law,
between  constituents  implying  coordination,  e.g.,  bitter-sweet,  Anglo-Saxon,  and  also  with
compounds  in  attributive  position,  e.g.,  a  dead-letter  office  (see  above).  We,  linguists,  not
mere practitioners, are able to understand the tendencies. As mentioned already, orthography
is  believed  to  be  but  an  imperfect  record  of  oral  speech,  and  due  to  its  property  of  being  a
relatively  permanent  vehicle  it  reflects  language  changes  with  delay.  Applied  to  our  little
story  on  compounds  it  means  that  (1)  genuine  compounds  of  one  primary  stress  placed
initially  tend  to  be  spelt  solid;  (2)  synchronically  beginning  compounds,  based  on  original
loose  combinations  and  signalled  by  so-called  recessive  stress  instead  of  double  stress  are
spelt  as  separate  words  first  and  then  with  a  hyphen.  With  a  modicum  of  simplification,  the
continuum, as it were, can be illustrated by the following chart:

loose combinations

_ _

‘word groups’

_ _

genuine compounds

ÇLondon Çbuses

Çblack Çbird

Çblackbird

Çcountry Çhouse

Ècountry Çhouse

country music

Ècountry Çmusic

Çcountry Èmusic

[made at home]

Èhome Çmade

Çhome-Èmade

dead letter

Èdead-Çletter

dark horse

Çdark Èhorse

dark room

Çdarkroom

head master

Èhead-Çmaster Çheadmaster

-o0o-

These terms are explained in Lesson Two.