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

c. he does not motivate the individual transformations used to derive a compound from
a sentence.
As an example of (8a), Marchand (1965a:59-60) contrasts the derivation of population growth in
(3) with the derivation of wading bird from „the bird wades‟. Both deep structures have a subject
and a verb, but they end up in different parts of the compound. Lees (1966) obviously struggles
to understand this objection. In the framework he works from, the choice of a particular
derivational path in a particular context simply does not belong to the domain of linguistics. It
would be tantamount to explaining why speakers decide to use an active or a passive version of a
sentence, both of which are derived from the same deep structure. At the same time, the opposite
derivations are equally possible for Lees, but they have different properties. Thus, growth
population is countable like wading bird and bird wading is non-countable like population
growth. Marchand (1965a:61-2) suggests treating this phenomenon by means of what would
later be called „topicalization rules‟ and elaborated by Brekle (1970). Such rules determine which
element of the underlying sentence is taken as which part of the resulting compound. It is worth
noting that Kürschner (1977:134-5) considers such a mechanism superfluous.
The problem in (8b) is mentioned by Marchand (1965b) in various places, but not in
Marchand (1965a), so that Lees (1966) does not react to it. An example of the problem is
whetstone, as discussed by Marchand (1965b:123-4). The derivation of this word is parallel to
grindstone in (4). Marchand objects to Lees‟s derivation because it fails to represent the semantic
element of „purpose‟, which he considers essential for such words. The issue is arguably at least
in part a matter of the theoretical framework. Lees (1960) assumes a framework in which it is
sufficient to generate a deep structure and derive a surface structure. As long as the notion of
„purpose‟ is represented in (4a), the semantic component will be able to deal with it
94