The English-Learning and Languages Review Ć HOMEPAGE
A critical examination of the
account of
stress
in word combinations in
by
Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy
(The false trail
of grammatical categorising 4)
Amorey
Gethin
Contents
Phrasal verb word
combinations
OXFORD Street and Edgeware ROAD
There is more than a hint of the Chomskyan illusion of the
primacy of syntax in the Cambridge Grammar of English: a comprehensive guide
(CGE). Too much of the explanation is based on grammatical categorisation. This
usually leads to nothing but an extra burden on the memory, while at the same
time giving a false impression of how language works. For instance (p.481),
under “Compound nouns”, the authors write:
The typical
(unmarked) stress pattern is with stress on the first item (e.g. screwdriver, happy
hour), which helps to distinguish noun compounds from noun modifier +
head structures, where stress is on the noun head (e.g. university degree,
government report).
This approach is the same as that of Chomsky and
The CGE’s account of stress in
word combinations is confused and self-contradictory. On page 320, under the
heading Compound heads, it says:
Structure of compound
nouns
Compound nouns consist of a noun head with another item
(most typically a noun, but it may also be an adjective or verb) placed before
it in a very close syntactic and semantic relationship. The initial item most
typically identifies a type of the class of entities denoted by the final noun.
For example, a video shop is a type
of shop; orange juice is a type of
juice:
video shop window
box blackboard
orange juice sports
centre grindstone
petrol station greyhound
The elements in compounds are closely bound to each other
syntactically and cannot normally be interrupted by other elements (e.g. a motorway petrol station, not
a petrol
motorway station). Compounds are therefore best considered as single
heads in the noun phrase. Their typical stress pattern is with
stress on the first item (petrol station, blackboard, grindstone).
Compound nouns and noun
modifiers
The borderline between compound nouns and noun
phrases acting as premodifiers of noun heads is not always clear. However,
the preferred stress pattern for compounds, with stress on the first item, is
usually an indication that the nouns are considered as an ‘institutionalised’
unit (stressed items in bold):
car park bus stop safety helmet
The noun modifier
construction has the stress on the noun head:
a fur coat that
government report
several volunteer helpers bathroom
door
Meaning of compound
nouns
The compound noun structure is extremely varied
in the types of meaning relations it can indicate. It can be used to indicate
what someone does (language teacher),
what something is for (waste-paper basket,
grindstone), what the qualities
of something are (whiteboard), how
something works (immersion heater),
when something happens (night frost),
where something is(doormat),
what something is made of (woodpile),
and so on.
The CGE says that in ‘compound
nouns’ “the initial item most typically identifies a type of the class of
entities denoted by the final noun. For example, a video shop is a type of shop; orange
juice is a type of juice”. But what the CGE distinguishes separately as ‘noun
modifiers + head structures’ also identify “types of the class of entities
denoted by the final noun”: a fur coat
is a type of coat; a government report
is a type of report; volunteer helpers
are a type of helper; a bathroom door
is a type of door.
Much of what the CGE says under
the “meaning of compound nouns” is incorrect.
The quality
(above) of something is expressed by
the first element of a word combination with the stress on the final element,
not on the first:
deep structure open debate classic example
The white in whiteboard does not express quality, nor really even colour. If we
wanted to talk about a board we intended to put up and paint white, we would
talk about a white board – stress on board.
Whiteboard is a good example
of what the CGE describes well as an ‘institutionalised’ unit. The origin of the name of the species blackbird was no doubt the fact that it is black. But the female blackbird is not black; it’s brown. But it’s
still a blackbird. On the
other hand, ravens are black birds. There are many such
‘institutionalised’ units in English; the first, stressed, element is
frequently a colour, and such word combinations are very common as the names of
bird species:
bluestocking greenhorn blue
tit
greenfinch redstart yellowhammer
Where something is, is expressed by stress on the final
element, not on the first:
sitting
room sofa kitchen table top floor flat
factory
gate front
entrance backdoor
A doormat is a mat for the
door, in the same way as a kitchen knife is a knife for use in the kitchen.
What something is made of is expressed by the first
element of combinations with the stress on the final element, not the first. If
we want to talk about something made of wood, we talk about:
a wood frame wooden box pine box
One of the CGE’s own examples, fur coat
(above), illustrates the principle. A woodpile (a pile of wood) is not made of wood in the same sense that a wood frame
is. Nor is an iron mine (a mine for
the purpose of mining iron) made of iron in the same sense that iron
filings are (an iron mine is made of all sorts of different things).
Further examples:
gold ring plastic bag cotton shirt brass
handle
And – this a
fundamental point – it is not compound nouns that have (or do not have) these
meanings. Certain meanings are expressed by one stress pattern; other meanings
are expressed by another stress pattern.
The CGE continues:
Proper names
Compound nouns are common in proper names and
titles. Most typically, these have the stress on the final noun:
The
Prime Minister
Here the CGE is contradicting
what it has just stated on the same page (see above 1,
2 and 3,
and what it states on page 481).
According to these statements, all seven of these last examples are noun
modifier constructions, not compounds. But it is not because these examples are
either compounds or noun modifier constructions that the stress is on the final
element, but because the first
element describes or identifies the final element.
Phrasal
verb word combinations
On page 321 the CGE gives
Examples of compound nouns formed from phrasal verbs:
runner-up passer-by take-over
stand-by lay-by
But runner-up and passer-by (unlike the other
three) have stress on the final element, so according to the CGE’s criteria
they are noun modifier constructions, not compounds. Actually, we here again
have a stress pattern determined by meaning. Runner-up and passer-by
are both people who do things as indicated by the suffix –er. I cannot think of many other examples of this sort of
combination that are standard usage. Hanger-on is one. But one can invent one’s
own – for example: He’s a great
unexpected turner-up. (Though
many native English-speakers would probably say turner-upper or turn-upper.)
Following the first passage
quoted from the CGE (p.481 above) there are sections I find very peculiar:
There is a wide range of
possible semantic relationships between the pre-head item and the head. These
include:
subject + verb: headache (head that aches), rainfall (rain that falls)
verb + subject: warning sign (sign that warns)
verb + object: know-all (a person who thinks they know
all), killjoy (‘kills joy’, someone
who spoils the enjoyment of others)
object + verb: carpet-shampoo (shampoos carpets), risk-taking (takes risks), hair-dryer (dries hair)
predicative complement +
subject: junk food (the food is
junk), girlfriend
prepositional
complement: raincoat (the coat is for
rain), ashtray
complement + noun: chairleg, fingertip (the tip of the
finger)
The authors define
these “semantic relationships” as if they were a series of objective
grammatical absolutes. In fact they are purely subjective attempts to describe
those relationships in grammatical terminology. Far from helping students, they
can only be a useless extra intellectual burden. A headache could just as well be (more accurately in fact) described
as noun + verb + object – an ache that afflicts the head; rainfall could be complement + noun – a fall of rain; carpet-shampoo is prepositional
complement – the shampoo is for carpets; a raincoat
is object + verb – repels rain; and so on.
The CGE continues in
the next section (still on page 481) with the same sort of grammatical analysis
of Compound adjectives. Eighteen examples
are given, but in the following list the stress markings have been added by me. The CGE’s authors make
no comment on the variation in the stress patterns (the combinations in the (a)
group below have the stress on the first element; those in the (b) group have
it on the final element):
(a)
air-sick heart-breaking white-washed English-speaking confidence-boosting
heart-broken paper-thin fat-free user-friendly right-angled
(b)
short-sighted home-made top-heavy royal-blue light-green
bitter-sweet left-handed
It is surely clear
that stress patterns have nothing to do with grammatical categories, but are
determined by meaning. However, as usual, it is impossible to describe precisely the types
of meaning involved – words are very bad describers of words. But to sum up
what the discussion above indicates, I suggest the following practical rule of
thumb:
stress is on the final element when the first element(s)
describes or identifies the final element:
fur coat upper
class John
Smith headteacher centre half
(In kitchen window and kitchen table, kitchen identifies the window and the
table.)
and on the first element(s) when that indicates the
purpose, function, goal or target of the final element - what the final element
is ‘for’ – ; where the final element is part of the first; or where somebody or
something does something to something:
raincoat shower hose language
course shirt sleeves head-hunter
(Kitchen knife says what the knife is for.)
These principles do not appear to
always be applied consistently. There are several apparent inconsistencies in
my own usage. I cannot explain why I say
evening
dress, but
evening class town planning,
but defence
spending
Foreign
Secretary, but
Foreign office trade
union, but a railway union
university professor, but university student
And while the ‘describing’ principle explains the stress
pattern in all the examples under (b) in the Compound adjective section quoted
above, I cannot explain the stress pattern in all the examples under (a).
I think one key factor that
explains discrepancies is the subjective way we experience meanings. This
subjectivity causes variations in the usage of one and the same individual, as
well as variation between different individuals. It may also lead to changes in
usage from one generation to another, or variation between different regions of
the English-speaking world. I have always said weekend, but I seem to
have noticed more and more people saying weekend. Furthermore, all meanings have to be fitted into one or other
of just two patterns. There are bound to be inconsistencies when there are
several subtle variations of meaning to be dealt with. What one might call the
‘subjective meaning’ principle offers an explanation of inconsistencies that
can never be explained by a rigid syntax-based criterion.
Finally, the
“I
think we have to turn left here, don’t we?” “No, no, not here. That’s the Edgware road.”
In other words, it is the road
that leads to Edgware. The ‘purpose’ or function of the road is to take us to
Edgware. We therefore have to stress the first element. The road might or might
not be called
On the other hand, consider a
statement like the following:
“The
historian H. A. L. Fisher was knocked down and killed by a car on an
26 April
2010
The English-Learning and Languages Review Ć HOMEPAGE