19.12.2012 Views

1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

1 Chapter 1. Introduction: status and definition of compounding ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

From this it follows that a high absolute PR does not guarantee a high OPR: a naming<br />

unit reading <strong>of</strong> lower PR may be comparably more predictable than a reading <strong>of</strong> another naming<br />

unit <strong>of</strong> a higher PR, if the former can take advantage <strong>of</strong> a considerable PRG. This postulate has<br />

been confirmed in my research on a number <strong>of</strong> occasions. For illustration, the top PR reading ‗a<br />

hat with flowers on it‘ <strong>of</strong> a possible compound flower hat has the fourth highest PR (0.427)<br />

among the sample compounds, but ranked last in terms <strong>of</strong> its OPR due to tough competition on<br />

the part <strong>of</strong> the other two readings, ‗a hat made <strong>of</strong> flowers‘ <strong>and</strong> ‗a hat with flower<br />

design/pattern/ornaments‘.<br />

On the other h<strong>and</strong>, poor compatibility <strong>of</strong> the semes <strong>of</strong> the motivating units need not entail<br />

a poor OPR owing to the absence <strong>of</strong> any competition. For illustration, the top reading <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong><br />

my sample compounds age bag ‗an old bag; a bag that looks old‘ has a very low PR (0.203), but<br />

due to the absence <strong>of</strong> competing readings PR <strong>of</strong> Rank 2 = 0.017, PR <strong>of</strong> Rank 3 = 0.014), it has the<br />

highest OPR in the sample (0.744).<br />

14.3.8 Prototypical features<br />

There is an obvious tendency for the most predictable readings <strong>of</strong> compounds to be motivated by<br />

the combination <strong>of</strong> prototypical features <strong>of</strong> the motivating objects. Figurativeness, i.e., semantic<br />

shift (metaphor <strong>and</strong> metonymy), appears to be a serious obstacle to good meaning predictability. 19<br />

This assumption only applies to cases in which one or both <strong>of</strong> the motivating constituents acquire<br />

figurativeness, as it were, within the process <strong>of</strong> conceptual combination. My (2005a) data provide<br />

numerous examples, including ‗a book with a cover <strong>of</strong> a baby skin color‘, ‗a book that smells like<br />

a baby‘, ‗one‘s favorite book‘ for baby book; ‗a clumsy person with poor dancing skills‘, ‗an<br />

aggressive person‘ for ball hammer; ‗a star that sleeps on a hill‘, ‗Noah‘, ‗a famous actor who<br />

lives in Beverly Hills‘ for hill star; ‗one‘s life‘ for game wheel, ‗somebody very eccentric in<br />

460

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!