Synthese

, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 161–204 | Cite as

Compound Nominals, Context, and Compositionality

Article

Abstract

There are good reasons to think natural languages are compositional. But compound nominals (CNs) are largely productive constructions that have proven highly recalcitrant to compositional semantic analysis. I evaluate existing proposals to treat CNs compositionally and argue that they are unsuccessful. I then articulate an alternative proposal according to which CNs contain covert indexicals. Features of the context allow a variety of relations to be expressed using CNs, but this variety is not expressed in the lexicon or the semantic rules of the language. This proposal accounts for the diversity of contents CNs can be used to express while preserving compositionality. Finally, I defend this proposal against some recent anti-contextualist arguments.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V. Adams, An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman (1973).Google Scholar
  2. C. Barker, Possessive Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications (1995).Google Scholar
  3. L. Bauer, ‘On the Need for Pragmatics in the Study of Nominal Compounding’. Journal of Pragmatics 3 (1979) 45-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Bauer, English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1983).Google Scholar
  5. H. Cappelen and E. Lepore, ‘Indexicality, Binding, Anaphora, and A Priori Truth’. Analysis 62 (2002) 271-281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. H. Cappelen and E. Lepore, ‘Context Shifting Arguments’. Philosophical Perspectives 17 (2003) 25-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. H. Cappelen and E. Lepore, Insensitive Semantics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers (2005).Google Scholar
  8. H. H. Clark, ‘Making Sense of Nonce Sense’. In: G. B. Flores d’Arcais and R. Jarvella (eds.) The Process of Language Understanding. New York: Wiley (1983) pp. 297-331Google Scholar
  9. C. Corum, ‘Anaphoric Peninsulas’. CLS 9 (1973) 89-97Google Scholar
  10. P. Downing, ‘On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns’. Language 53 (1977) 810-842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D. Dowty, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel (1979).Google Scholar
  12. A. Garnham, Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis (2001).Google Scholar
  13. C. L. Gagné, ‘Lexical and Relational Influences on the Processing of Novel Compounds’. Brain and Language 81 (2002) 723-735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. R. J. Gerrig and G. L. Murphy, ‘Contextual Influences on the Comprehension of Complex Concepts’. Language and Cognitive Processes 7 (1992) 205-230Google Scholar
  15. L. R. Gleitman and H. Gleitman, Phrase and Paraphrase: Some Innovative Uses of Language. New York: W. W. Norton (1970).Google Scholar
  16. D. Kaplan, ‘Demonstratives’. In: J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1989a) pp. 481-565Google Scholar
  17. D. Kaplan, Afterthoughts. In: J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1989b) pp. 565-614Google Scholar
  18. M. Krifka, F. J. Pelletier, G. N. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Link and G. Chierchia, ‘Genericity: An Introduction’. In: G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.) The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1995) pp. 1-124Google Scholar
  19. R. Lahav, ‘Against Compositionality: The Case of Adjectives’. Philosophical Studies 57 (1989) 261-279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. R. B. Lees, The Grammar of English Nominalization. The Hague: Mouton (1960).Google Scholar
  21. J. L. Levi, The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press (1978).Google Scholar
  22. D. Lewis, ‘Index, Context, and Content’. In: S. Kanger and Sven Öhman (eds.) Philosophy and Grammar. Boston: D. Reidel (1980) pp. 79-100Google Scholar
  23. R. Lieber, Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1992).Google Scholar
  24. H. Marchand, The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (1969).Google Scholar
  25. M. Moortgat, ‘Compositionality and the Syntax of Words’. In: J. Groendijk, D. Jongh de and M. Stokhof (eds.) Foundations of Pragmatics and Lexical Semantics. Dordrecht: Foris (1987) pp. 41-62Google Scholar
  26. G. Nunberg, ‘Indexicality and Deixis’. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (1993) 1-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. B. Partee, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles’. In: J. Groenendijk, D. Jongh de and M. Stokhof (eds.) Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Dordrecht: Foris (1986) pp. 115-143Google Scholar
  28. B. Partee, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’. CLS 25 (1989) 342-356Google Scholar
  29. F. J. Pelletier, ‘Context Dependence and Compositionality’. Mind and Language 18 (2003) 148-161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. F. J. Pelletier and L. K. Schubert, ‘Mass Expressions’. In: D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic Vol. 10. Dordrecht: D. Reidel (2003) pp. 265-350Google Scholar
  31. P. Postal, ‘Anaphoric Islands’. CLS 5 (1969) 205-239Google Scholar
  32. F. Recanati, Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers (1993).Google Scholar
  33. F. Recanati, Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004).Google Scholar
  34. M. Reimer, ‘Do Adjectives Conform to Compositionality?’. Philosophical Perspectives 16 (2002) 183-198Google Scholar
  35. M. E. Ryder, Ordered Chaos: The Interpretation of English Noun–Noun Compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press (1994).Google Scholar
  36. R. M. Sainsbury, ‘Two Ways to Smoke a Cigarette’. Ratio 14 (2001) 386-406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. E. O. Selkirk, The Syntax of Words. Cambridge: MIT Press (1982).Google Scholar
  38. R. Sproat, ‘On Anaphoric Islandhood’. In: M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.) Theoretical Morphology. San Diego: Academic Press (1988) pp. 291-301Google Scholar
  39. R. Sproat and G. Ward, ‘Pragmatic Considerations in Anaphoric Island Phenomena’. CLS 23 (1987) 321-335Google Scholar
  40. J. Stanley, ‘Context and Logical Form’. Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (2000) 391-434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. J. Stanley, ‘Making it Articulated’. Mind and Language 17 (2002) 149-168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. J. Stanley and Z. G. Szabó, ‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’. Mind and Language 15 (2000) 219-261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Storto, G.: 2003, Possessives in Context: Issues in the Semantics of Possessive Constructions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  44. Z. G. Szabó, ‘Adjectives in Context’. In: I. Kenesei and R. M. Harnish (eds.) Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (2001) pp. 119-146Google Scholar
  45. J. R. Taylor, Possessives in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1996).Google Scholar
  46. G. Ward, R. Sproat and G. McKoon, ‘A Pragmatic Analysis of So-called Anaphoric Islands’. Language 67 (1991) 439-474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. E. J. Wisniewski, ‘When Concepts Combine’. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4 (1997) 167-183Google Scholar
  48. E. J. Wisniewski and B. C. Love, ‘Relations versus Properties in Conceptual Combination’. Journal of Memory and Language 38 (1998) 177-202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmer, K.: 1971, ‘Some General Observations about Nominal Compounds’, Working Papers on Linguistic Universals 5, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, pp. C1–C21.Google Scholar
  50. Zimmer, K.: 1972, ‘Appropriateness Conditions for Nominal Compounds’, Working Papers on Linguistic Universals 8, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations