Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:46:13.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repetitions which are not repetitions: the non-redundant nature of tautological compounds1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2014

RÉKA BENCZES
RÉKA BENCZES*
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Department of Central and Eurasian Studies, 1011 E. 3rd St., Bloomington, IN 47405–7005, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In English morphological literature, the term ‘tautological compound’ has been typically used to refer to two distinct – but closely related – phenomena: (1) compounds composed of a hyponym and a superordinate term (such as oak tree); and/or (2) compounds based upon two synonymous units (such as subject matter). Such combinations are one of the quirkiest – and least researched – phenomena of English compounding. Their oddity can be attributed to two main factors. First, as their name, ‘tautological compound’ implies, at face value such combinations can be considered as prime examples of the redundancy of language. Second, they do not follow normal compound-forming rules in the sense that both constituents can function as the semantic head (as opposed to ‘normal’ English compounds, which follow the Right-Hand Head Rule).

Perhaps it is the quirkiness of tautological compounds that accounts for the fact that not much has been said about them in traditional accounts of compounding, which typically relegate them to a marginal area of the English language. However, there is more to tautological compounds than meets the eye. What the present study wishes to demonstrate is that the term ‘tautological compound’ is a misnomer, as such combinations are far from being tautological or redundant in their meaning. Accordingly, the article first clarifies the notion of tautological compound, and then aims to give an account of the various roles that such combinations play in language, thereby demonstrating their non-tautological and non-redundant nature – in order to assign this much-neglected category to its proper, well-deserved place within English word formation.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 431 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am indebted to Kate Burridge for her invaluable comments. I also wish to thank my two anonymous reviewers for their excellent suggestions.

References

Allan, Keith. 1987. Hierarchies and the choice of left conjuncts (with particular attention to English). Journal of Linguistics 23 (1), 51–77.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith & Burridge, Kate. 1991. Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, The. 1988. Bronx, NY: H. W. Wilson Co.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1978. The grammar of nominal compounding: With special reference to Danish, English and French. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2008. Dvanda. Word Structure 1, 1–20.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2010. Co-compounds in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22 (3), 201–19.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Renouf, Antoinette. 2001. A corpus-based study of compounding in English. Journal of English Linguistics 29 (2), 101–23.Google Scholar
Benczes, Réka. 2012. Just a load of hibber-gibber? Making sense of English rhyming compounds. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32 (3), 299–326.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Maurice. 1920. Notes on the Divyāvadāna. Journal of the American Oriental Society 40, 336–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brekle, Herbert E. 1978. Reflections on the conditions for the coining, use and understanding of nominal compounds. In Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Meid, Wolfgang (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Linguists, 68–77. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Carr, Charles T. 1939. Nominal compounds in Germanic. Oxford: St Andrews University Publications.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2009. First language acquisition, 2nd edn.Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Lane. 1904. Pleonastic compounds in Coleridge. Modern Language Notes 19 (7), 223–4.Google Scholar
Darian, Steven. 1979. The role of redundancy in language and language teaching. System 7 (1), 47–59.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2005. Word-formation in Natural Morphology. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 267–84. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Emerson, Oliver Farrar. 1919. Middle English Clannesse. PMLA 34 (3), 494–522.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1998. Compounding. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 66–84. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fay, Edwin W. 1913. Composition or suffixation? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 45 (2), 111–31.Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan A., Wilcox, Sharon A. & Clark, Eve V.. 1989. Conceptual and lexical hierarchies in young children. Cognitive Development 4, 309–26.Google Scholar
Gessler, Nicholas. 1998. Skeuomorphs and cultural algorithms. In Porto, V. W., Saravanan, N., Waagen, D. & Eiben, A. E. (eds.), Evolutionary Programming VII: 7th International Conference, EP98 San Diego, California, USA, March 25–27, 1998 Proceedings, 229–38. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Gustaffson, Marita. 1975. Binomial expressions in present-day English. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Harbus, Antonina. 2003. The situation of wisdom in Solomon and Saturn II. Studia Neophilologica 75 (2), 97–103.Google Scholar
Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1952. Modern appositional compounds of inanimate reference. American Speech 27 (1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 2011. Collocations in law texts in Late Middle English: Some evidence concerning adverbs ending in -lī. Studia Neophilologica 83 (1), 54–66.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part VI: Morphology. London: Bradford and Dickens.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis. 2005. English words: Structure, history, usage, 2nd edn.London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. 2003. Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica 15 (2), 371–84.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8, 113–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach, 2nd, revised edn.Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 1988. Binomial meaning in texts. Journal of English Linguistics 21 (1), 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, The. 1989. 2nd edn; online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent. 2008. On the semantics of English coordinate compounds. English Studies 89 (5), 606–13.Google Scholar
Reppert, J. D. 1954. Tautological compounds. Word Study 30 (1), 8.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn B., Gray, Wayne D., Johnson, David M. & Boyes-Braem, Penny. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics, 3rd edn.Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Twardzisz, Piotr. 2011. Metaphors in commercial contracts. In Alm-Arvius, Christina, Johannesson, Nils-Lennart & Minugh, David C. (eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival, 237–53. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1977. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willetts, R. F. 1960. Χρυσώνητος. Glotta 39 (1–2), 71–3.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar
Woods, Frank L. 1957. Nominal compounds of the Old High German ‘Benedictine Rule’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 56 (1), 42–51.Google Scholar