Cover not available

In:Competition in Word-Formation
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano and Vincent Renner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 284] 2024
► pp. 297–325

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 10
[N1 + N2], [N + A], and [N1 + de + N2]

Is there a tripartite competition in French endocentric naming constructions?

ORCiD logo with link | Aoyama Gakuin University
Published online: 8 May 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.284.10kog
Abstract
[N1 + N2], [N1 + A], and [N1 + P + N2] constructions have a function of naming subcategories of the concept indicated by the N1. [N1 + A] and [N1 + P + N2] constructions are considered as lexicalized syntactic units, whereas [N1 + N2] constructions cannot be formed by syntactic rules. The formation of [N1 + N2] constructions is based on a model created by an analogy from existent binominal constructions. The three types of constructions under investigation can establish a tripartite competition, but such cases do not always occur, because of the conditional productivity of [N1 + N2], the lack of adjectival form and restrictions on the formation of [N1 + de + N2].
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Internal structure of the three types of construction
    • 2.1[N1 + N2]
    • 2.2[N1 + A]
    • 2.3[N1 + de + N2]
    • 2.4Lexical nature of endocentric naming constructions
  • 3.Theoretical status of the three types of construction
    • 3.1Different approaches to compounding
    • 3.2The non-restrictive approach
    • 3.3The scalar approach
    • 3.4The restrictive or lexicalist approach
    • 3.5The constructionist approach
    • 3.6Analogical formation and conditional productivity of [N1 + N2]
    • 3.7Productive constructions with a specific N2
    • 3.8Summary
  • 4.Complementarity and competition
    • 4.1[N1 + N2] and [N1 + A]: Complementarity
    • 4.2[N1 + N2] with specific N1 and [N1 + A]: Possible competition
    • 4.3[N1 + de + N2] vs. [N1 + N2] and/or [N1 + A]
    • 4.4Competition with constructions with other prepositions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1990. Pourquoi un moulin à vent n’est pas un ventilateur. Langue française 86: 103–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Figement, idiomaticité et matrices lexicales. In Le figement linguistique: la parole entravée, Jean-Claude Anscombre & Salah Mejri (eds), 17–40. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnaud, Pierre J. L. 2016. Categorizing the modification relations in French relational subordinative [NN]N compounds. In The Semantics of Compounding, Pius ten Hacken (ed), 71–93. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Bateau phare, magasin phare: composés [N1 N2]N et séquences syntaxiques N1+N2 à N2 adjectivé. Travaux de linguistique 76: 7–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartning, Inge. 1980. Remarques sur la syntaxe et la sémantique des pseudo-adjectifs dénominaux en français. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1984. Aspects syntaxiques et sémantiques des adjectifs ethniques en français. Revue Romane 19(2): 177–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartning, Inge & Noailly, Michèle. 1993. Du relationnel au qualificatif: flux et reflux. L’Information Grammaticale 58: 27–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale II. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14(4): 301–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 201–216. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosredon, Bernard. 1988. Un adjectif de trop: l’adjectif de relation. L’Information Grammaticale 37(1): 3–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosredon, Bernard & Tamba, Irène. 1991. Verre à pied, moule à gaufres: préposition et noms composés de sous-classe. Langue Française 91: 40–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène. 1874. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. [1967] Paris: A. Franck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard. 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Les adjectifs relationnels et la morphologie. In La raison morphologique: hommage à la mémoire de Danielle Corbin, Bernard Fradin (ed), 69–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. IE, Romance: French. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 417–435. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaeta, Libio & Ricca, Davide. 2009. Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Italian Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 35–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, Gaston. 1988. Degré de figement des noms composés. Langages 90: 57–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Définition des noms composés dans un lexique-grammaire. Langue française 87: 84–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Les expressions figées en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guilbert, Louis. 1971. Fondement lexicologique du dictionnaire. In Grand Larousse de la langue française, ix–lxxxi. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar and Evolution. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenge. Language 84(1): 8–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koga, Kentaro. 2018. Un espace papeterie n’est-il pas une (simple) papeterie ?: composition binominale sous-catégorisante. Actes du 6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2018. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020a. Goi to bunpou no aida de: Furansu-go fukugou meishi no seisanteki na keisei-hou (Between Lexicon and Grammar: A Productive Formation Process of French nominal compounds). Tokyo: Surugadai Shuppansha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020b. Qui dit Noël dit cadeaux : modèle, variation et idées conventionnelles. Actes du 7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2020. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loock, Rudy. 2013. The emergence of Noun + Noun constructions with a regressive order in contemporary French? Journal of French Language Studies 23(2): 259–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2(2): 254–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Competition between morphological word and multiword expressions. In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 281–305. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monceaux, Anne. 1992. Un exemple de formation productive de composés de structure nom adjectif. Langue française 96: 74–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noailly, Michèle. 1990. Le substantif épithète. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. L’adjectif en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pepper, Steve. 2023. Defining and typologizing binominal lexemes. In Binominal Lexemes in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Steve Pepper, Francesca Masini & Simone Mattiola (eds), 23–72. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Bisetto, Antonietta. 2009. The classification of compounds. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 34–53. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara & Plag, Ingo. 2011. Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua 121: 1539–1551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tamba-Mecz, Irène. 1980. Sur quelques propriétés de l’adjectif de relation. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 18(1): 119–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel & Amiot, Dany. 2019. Compounds and multi-word expressions in French. In Complex Lexical Units: Compounds and Multi-Word-Expressions, Barbara Schlücker (ed), 128–152. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villoing, Florence. 2012. French compounds. Probus 24: 29–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Arnaud, Pierre J. L.
2025. 7 Noun-noun compounds in French. In Word-Formation – Special Patterns and Restrictions, ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue