Classifying modifiers in common names

Abstract

A b s tra c tComplex common names such as Indian elephant or green tea denote a certain type o f entity, viz. kinds. Moreover, those kinds are always subkinds o f the kind denoted by their head noun. Establishing such subkinds is essentially the task o f classifying modifiers that are a defining trait of endocentrically structured complex common names. Examining complex common names of different lexico-syntactic types (N N compounds, N + N syntagmas, N P /P P syntagmas, A + N syntagmas) and from different languages (particularly English, G erm an and French) it can be shown that complex common names are subject to language-independent formal and semantic constraints. In particular, complex common names qualify as name-like expressions in that they tend to be deficient in term s of formal complexity and semantic compositionality.

Improving the effectiveness of subject facets in library catalogs and beyond: a MARC-based semiautomated approach

“…At the semantic level, the head typically denotes the main category of the compound, whereas the modifier has a classifying function with respect to the head (Gunkel and Zifoun, 2009), that is, it puts the head-modifier pair in a hierarchical relationship with the class being denoted by the head. This type of relationship is called hyponymy (aka Is-A relationship), and it typically occurs between a narrower term (NT) and its BT.…”

Compounds vs. phrases

“…Yet, compounds apparently have a stronger affinity to display meaning specializations and to be read as kinds (cf. Bücking 2009;Gunkel & Zifonun 2009;Levi 1978), which can be read off from their distinct behaviors in certain constructions. For example, a phrase containing a deverbal as in Max is a sweet tálker can receive an intersective as well as a non-intersective reading, whereas the corresponding compound in Max is a swéet talker is preferentially interpreted non-intersectively (cf.…”

“…Therefore, linguistic realizations of kinds are usually lexicalized or suggest lexicalization, respectively. Following Gunkel & Zifonun (2009), it is complex common names that typically denote subkinds of the kind denoted by the head, for which they rely on a relational modifier-head connection. Crucially, such modifier-head relations, often shifted in their semantic compositionality, are typical for compounds: Modification at the lexical level prototypically introduces an underspecified, mediating function between predicates-and hence meaning specialization-while at the phrasal level an identity or intersective relation is prototypically instantiated (cf.…”

“…among others Lieber 1992, Giegerich 2006Booij 2009) as well as possibly diverging semantic and pragmatic properties of morphological and syntactic structures (cf. Wunderlich 2008;Bücking 2009;Gunkel & Zifonun 2009). In this context, nominal compounds and corresponding phrases provide a suitable test bed for investigation.…”

Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung

“…Die in Bloomfield (1933, §14.6) Neben der Nullfuge werden für das Deutsche die (nativen) Fugenelemente -s-, -n-, -en-, -er-, -eund -ens-angenommen, zum Teil in Kombination mit dem Umlaut (zur Formendistribution siehe Augst 1975, Ortner & Müller-Bollhagen 1991, Fuhrhop 1996 Wegener 2003, Nübling & Szczepaniak 2008, 2011, Szczepaniak & Nübling 2009, Michel 2009, Fehringer 2009 Rosenbach 2007, Gunkel & Zifonun 2009, 2011).…”