Microsoft Word - Contens verjin Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika 19 Comparative Analysis of Armenian and English Syndetic Analytical Word-Formation Structures with Noun Component Sirarpi Karapetyan Kh. Abovyan Armenian State Pedagogical University Abstract The syndetic or conjunctional analytical word-formation structures with noun component are very productive in the Armenian and English languages from the point of view of forming new words. The paper is devoted to the comparison and contrast of the structural, grammatical and semantic peculiarities of the syndetic (conjunctional) analytical word-formation structures in Armenian and English. In Armenian they are mainly formed with the help of the conjunction “ու”, rarely with the conjunction “և”. In English these units are generally formed with the help of the conjunction “and” and belong to the type of the so-called phrase compounds. Besides the conjunctional compounds, phrasal compounds also include the so called syntactic compounds which resemble segments of speech corresponding to the syntactic and word order rules of the English language, e.g. Jack-of-all-trades “a person who can do many different kinds of work”, lily-of the-valley “a European plant of the lily family”; this type does not have its typological equivalent in Armenian. The examples of syndetic analytical structures provided in this paper are mainly taken from English and Armenian dictionaries. Key words: analytical structures, compound, phrase, word-formation, comparative analysis, typology, noun, component. Introduction The comparative-typological analysis of the Armenian and English languages gives an opportunity to study their similarities and differences in a more in- depth and detailed way and arrive at more exact conclusions concerning their Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 20 structures. The structural and functional issues of languages can be best investigated from the point of view of comparative typology. There are both commonalities and differences between the word-formation structures of the Armenian and English languages. They are rich in word-building and morphological patterns; there are patterns composed of nominal, adjectival, adverbial, numeral and other bases. The patterns derived from nominal bases play an essential role both in English and Armenian, so this can be considered a common typological feature for both languages. Owing to its expansive semantic peculiarities, the noun, as a part of speech, enters into relationships forming patterns not only with nouns, but also with words belonging to other parts of speech. The Structural and Semantic Similarities and Differences of Armenian and English Syndetic Analytical Word-Formation Structures In general all the analytical structures in Armenian, including the syndetic analytical structures which have a value of one word, should be called բաղադրություն “composition” rather than բարդություն “compound”. We should not include analytical word-formation structures into “compound words” in Armenian since they are formed by an independent means of word-formation, juxtaposition. Thus, all the analytical compositions formed in the result of juxtaposition should be called հարադրություններ “juxtapositions” (as opposed to both compound and affixed words) and their components should be called հարադիրներ “juxtaposed components” (Hovsepyan 2009:107). As it has already been mentioned, in Armenian the majority of the syndetic analytical constructions are formed with the help of the coordinating conjunction “ու”, those with the conjunction “և” are fewer in number. Thus, the conjunction “ու” is not merely a syntactic unit of language, it also has a word-building function in Armenian. According to A. Margaryan, it was long ago noted in Armenian linguistic literature that it is the conjunction “ու” which expresses the closest connection and relation between words and from this point of view it differs even from its synonymous conjunction “և” (Margaryan 1986:11). In the course of the historical development of the Armenian language, the conjunction Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika 21 “և” gradually lost its word-formation significance as opposed to the conjunction “ու” which gained a greater role in forming analytical compositions, because the latter is more typical of colloquial language and, consequently, forms structures typical of colloquial speech. The formations with the conjunction “և” are, just on the contrary, typical of literary Armenian. The syndetic analytical structures in Armenian are mainly formed with words belonging to the same part of speech, among which the constructions with the pattern noun + ու + noun prevail. They can be singular and plural, they are declined, they get the possessive marker s’ and other grammatical markers, and it is their second component which undergoes grammatical changes, e. g. վար ու ցանք, վար ու ցանքի, վար ու ցանքով, վար ու ցանք (ը), վար ու ցանքերը, etc. Only the formations composed of the nouns «մայր» and «հայր» are exceptions to this rule, i. e. the first component is also declined, e. g. մայր ու աղջիկ, մոր ու աղջկա, մոր ու աղջկանից, մոր ու աղջկանով, հայր ու տղա, հոր ու տղայի, հոր ու տղայից, հոր ու տղայով, etc. In other cases, although the first component is not declined, it equally expresses the meanings of declension and number of the second component (Margaryan 1986:48). Phrase Compounds In English the syndetic analytical structures belong to the type of the so- called phrase compounds. The question is whether or not phrase compounds should be considered structures which have a value of one word. They can also be considered structures formed in the result of the fixation and lexicalization of the syntactic combinations. We can claim that these formations, just like in Armenian, fall somewhere between word-combinations and compound words. However, they are examined as separate types of compound words since they have the value of one word; hence, from here comes the term phrase compound. One type of these compound structures is mainly formed with the help of the coordinating conjunction “and”, e. g. bubble-and-squeak “cooked cabbage fried with cooked potatoes and often meat”, milk-and-water “lacking the will or ability to act effectively”, pepper-and-salt “flecked or speckled with intermingled dark and light shades”, etc. (Bauer 1983:207). Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 22 Another type of the phrase compounds in English is represented by the so- called syntactic compounds (Bloomfield 1984:233-234), which resemble segments of sentences or speech; they have a structure typical of sentences and correspond to the syntactic and word-order rules of the English language, e. g. jack-o´-lantern «a lantern made from a hollowed-out pumpkin», state-of-the- art, etc.. First of all, let us compare the compositions with the conjunction “and” in the languages under investigation. According to the degree of proximity of the components of syndetic analytical structures, it is possible to divide analytical structures with noun components into three types: structures the components of which are related in meaning and structures with synonymous and antonymous components. Thus, the syndetic analytical compositions in two languages can be divided into the following three types; a) Analytical structures with components having related meanings: arts and crafts, bed and board “lodging and food”, bread and butter “a person's livelihood or main source of income”, bread and wine “the sacrament of the Eucharist”, cakes and ale “lively enjoyment”, doom and gloom “a general feeling of pessimism”, law and order, man and boy “from childhood”, milk and honey “prosperity”, oil and water “incompatible or not blending together”, etc. In Armenian we have the following examples; աղոթք ու աղաչանք, անձրև ու քամի, բակ ու դուռ, բառ ու խոսք, թաթ ու կրունկ, թուղթ ու գիր, խոսք ու զրույց, կար ու կութ, հանդ ու ձոր, հարց ու փորձ, հաց ու պանիր, շող ու շաղ, շուն ու գայլ, ոտ ու ձեռ, վարպետ ու բանվոր, ցախ ու ցաք, քար ու կշեռք, etc. b) Analytical structures with synonymous components: command and control “the running of an armed force or other organization”, house and home “a person's home, possessions”, hue and cry “a loud clamour or public outcry”, hum and haw “hesitation”, pot and pan “husband”, rag and tatter “full of or characterized by rags and tatters, ragged”, etc.. In Armenian we have the following examples; անեծք ու նզովք, բաղ ու բախչա, բանտ ու զնդան, բար ու բերք, գանգատ ու բողոք, գութ ու կարեկցանք, դաշտ ու դուրան, դաս Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika 23 ու խրատ, դեղ ու դարման, դեպք ու դիպված, դող ու էրոցք, եռանդ ու ջանք, լույս ու ճրագ, խաղ ու տաղ, ծոմ ու պաս, կուշտ ու բոլոր, etc. c) Analytical structures with antonymous components: alpha and omega, boom and bust, day and night, ebb and flow, left and right, life and death, light and shade, wax and wane “increases and decreases”, etc.. In Armenian we have, e.g., աղքատ ու հարուստ, ամառ ու ձմեռ, անեծք ու օրհնանք, առք ու վաճառք, գիշեր և ցերեկ, դար ու դուրան, խինդ ու լաց, ծեր ու մանուկ, ծով ու ցամաք, մահ ու կյանք, սուտ ու ճիշտ, ստրուկ ու տեր, վերջ ու սկիզբ, վիշտ ու ժպիտ, տեր ու ծառա, տիվ ու գիշեր, etc. Very often these structures (especially in English) have a metaphorical meaning, e. g. cat and mouse “a series of cunning manoeuvres designed to thwart an opponent”, chalk and talk “a traditional teacher-centered education”, dog and bone “a telephone”, etc. In the languages under investigation we can seldom come across syndetic analytical structures in which the noun is juxtaposed to other part of speech, e. g. a) N + Verbal stem; e. g. cash and carry “a system of wholesale trading whereby goods are paid for in full at the time of purchase and taken away by the purchaser”, tax and spend “a political policy of increasing taxes”, etc., in Armenian we have, e. g. ահ ու զարկ, ահ ու սաստ, ահ ու փախ, դավ ու խաբ, շարժ ու ձև, etc. b) Verbal stem + N; e. g. hit-and-miss “done or occurring at random”, run and gun “denoting fast, free-flowing play without emphasis on set plays or defence”, in Armenian we have , e. g. տուր ու դմփոց, առ ու գերի, դարձ ու զղջում, զարկ ու ավար, հունչ ու բառ, ել և մուտք, etc 1. c) A + N; e.g. hard and fastness “inflexibility; fixedness”, rough and tumble “a situation without rules or organization”, in Armenian we have , e.g. ալ ու ատլաս, թաց ու թոն, խեղճ ու կրակ, etc.. d) N + A; e. g. art-and-crafty “interested or involved in making decorative artistic objects”, horse and buggy “old-fashioned”, home and dry “having successfully achieved or being within sight of achieving one's objective”, pepper and salty “pepper-and-salt coloured”, in Armenian, e. g. խաղք ու խայտառակ, ուժ ու աշխույժ, որբ ու մենակ, etc.. Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 24 In Armenian there are also formations with the pattern interjection + noun, e.g. ախ ու դարդ, ախ ու հառաչանք, ախ ու ոխ, etc. The syndetic analytical structures in English are mainly formed with the juxtaposition of simple stems, but in Armenian there are also structures the constituents of which have grammatical markers, e. g. declension markers, like - առքով ու փառքով (instrumental case), կենաց ու մահու (Old Armenian genitive case), plural marker - ազգ ու ազինք. There are also structures in which both of the components are plural, e. g. եզներ ու կովեր, սարեր ու ձորեր, etc. In Armenian in the result of the juxtaposition of the nouns usually nouns are formed, i. e., the whole structure belongs to the same part of speech as its second component. In English, however, by the juxtaposition of two nouns not only nouns are formed, e.g. alarums and excursions, but also adjectives, e.g. hole and corner, adverbs, e.g. body and soul, and verbs, e. g. top and tail, etc.. The same structure can have two-three or even more part of speech meanings at the same time, for example, nouns and adjectives, like meat- and-potatoes «1. n. the most important part of something, 2. adj. important, main». Being juxtaposed to the third noun, the syndetic analytical structures form determinant-determinatum compounds, like a cat and dog life, a ham-and-egg sandwich, a life and death struggle, etc. As we have already mentioned, another type of the phrase compounds in English is represented by the so called syntactic compounds. Within this type, L. Bauer separates endocentric and exocentric compositions. The endocentric constructions are in their turn divided into two groups: a) compositions in which the key word (the semantic and grammatical center which is expressed by a noun) is the first constituent, e. g. mother-in-law, lady-in-waiting; this type is unproductive in English, b) compositions in which the semantic centre is the second constituent, whereas the first component is a phrase or a sentence, e. g. a what-do-you-think-movement, the old-must-be-right-attitude; this type in English is more productive from the word-building point of view (Bauer 1983:207). The exocentric compounds of this type are generally plant names, e. Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika 25 g. love-in-a-mist, love-lies-bleeding, mother-of-thyme, snow-in-summer, snow-on-the mountains, etc (Marchand 1969:122). Since this kind of compositions comprise various prepositions, in English they are called prepositional phrasal compounds and are usually composed of a noun and other parts of speech. This kind of structures can be composed of various prepositions (Ménová 2012:19-38): a) in- dyed-in-the-wool, hand-in- glove, b) of- family-of-three, mother-of-pearl, c) at- gentleman-at-arms, stay- at-home, d) օff -off-the-shoulder-blouse, off-the-record, e) on- on-the-job, Johnny-on-the-spot, etc.. Although from the structural point of view the mentioned structures resemble more a simple noun phrase, they often undergo grammatical changes like simple words, e. g. by adding the particle s to the phrase jack-in-the-box, we form its plural in the following way; jack-in-the- boxes, but on the other hand, e. g. in the composition brother-in-law, it is the first component, i. e. the semantic and grammatical centre of the composition which gets the plural; brothers-in-law, in case of which the composition deflects the rule of getting the grammatical particle in the end, which is typical of ordinary words (McCarthy 2002:67-68). At the same time the combination brother-in-law gets the possessive ending on the last component, like brother- in-law’s, as in case of words. This is the reason why they are called phrasal or phrase compounds having characteristic features typical of both phrases and compound words2. The peculiarity of this type of compositions is that they are not always lexicalized, fixed formations; they can also be formed immediately at the time of speaking, in a given situation. Often whole sentences turn into this kind of phrasal compounds, e. g. a what-should-I-do-next look. Although they really have a structure of a phrase, they carry out the function of one word. They are usually authorial structures and are used to give uniqueness to speech; we often come across such structures in literary works, e.g. She looked at him in a “What-a-brave-hero-you-are” manner. (Agatha Christie) (Arbekova 1977:24). In Armenian they are formed in a descriptive way but not with the help of a combination which has one word value. The existence of this kind of structures in English is conditioned by the fact that English is an analytical language, Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 26 which allows us to insert a few words and prepositions side by side and, without subjecting them to any grammatical changes, get units which have a one word value. Moreover, there are no certain patterns for the formation of these units; they can be composed of nouns, prepositions, verbs and articles, accordingly, these structures are not formed in accordance with any word-building pattern. In Armenian they do not have their typological parallels. The phrasal compounds, being juxtaposed with another noun, form determinant-determinatum compositions, like a mother-to-daughter talk, an end-of-term examination, the not-quite-at-ease manners, etc. (they represent the so-called exocentric type presented by L. Bauer). Conclusion Our investigation shows that in both languages the syndetic compositions are rather productive from the point of view of word-formation. In English the so called phrasal compounds include also the syndetic analytical structures and the structures which are composed with the help of prepositions and other parts of speech; they do not have their typological parallels in Armenian. We revealed the grammatical, structural and semantic peculiarities of the structures under analysis. The comparative analysis of syndetic analytical structures has a significant role in the typological characterization of the languages under investigation. Notes: 1. Neither in the case of the pattern N + Verbal stem, nor in case of the pattern Verbal stem + N is the part of speech of meaning of the components always obvious. For example, the word “զարկ” can be considered both as the pure base of the verb “զարկել” and as the noun “զարկ”. In English as well we often come across the problem of noun-verbal stem coincidence, when the pure verbal root coincides with the noun and it becomes difficult to determine the part of speech meaning of the components. For instance, the compound words bakeshop, washday can be considered N + N patterned Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika 27 compounds, rather than Verbal stem + N compounds, as far as the nouns “bake” and “wash” also exist. 2. In English the constructions with the pattern N + to be are noteworthy, e. g. a bride-to-be, a mom-to-be, a wife-to-be, etc.. References: 1. Aghayan, Ed. (1976) Ardi hayereni batsatrakan bararan, Yerevan: “Hayastan” hratarakchutyun. 2. Arbekova, T. (1977) Leksikologija anglijskogo yazyka. M.: Izd-vo “Vysshaja shkola”. 3. Bauer, L. (1983) English Word-Formation. Cambridge: CUP. 4. Bloomfield, L. (1984) Language (with a new forward by C.F. Hockett). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 5. Hovsepyan, L. (2009) Barakazmutyan tiper, eghanakner ev mijotsner. // Jahukyanakan yntertsumner (4), Yerevan, pp. 102-108. 6. Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd edition, München. 7. Margaryan, A. (1986), Hayereni baghhyusakan bardutyunnery. Yerevan: Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakchutyun. 8. McCarthy, A. (2002) An Introduction to English Morphology; Words and their Structure, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 9. Ménová, M. (2012) Phrasal Compounds in Contemporary British Newspapers /Bakalářská Práce/, Kvĕten, pp. 19-38. 10. (2000) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (Hornby A.), 6th edition, Oxford: OUP. 11. (1969, 1972, 1974, 1980) Zhamanakakits hayots lezvi batsatrakan bararan. Hator 1-4, Yerevan: HSSH GA hratarakchutyun, Hr. Acharyani anvan lezvi institut. Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 28 Հայերենի և անգլերենի գոյականական բաղադրիչով շաղկապական հարադրությունների զուգադրական քննություն Հոդվածում քննվում են հայերենի և անգլերենի գոյականական բաղա- դրիչով շաղկապական հարադրությունների կառուցվածքային, քերակա- նական և իմաստային առանձնահատկությունները: Երկու լեզուներում դրանք բավականին կենսունակ են բառակազմական տեսանկյունից: Հա- յերենում դրանք հիմնականում կապվում են «ու» շաղկապով, ավելի հազվադեպ` «և» շաղկապով, իսկ անգլերենում` «and» շաղկապով: Անգլե- րենում նման հարադրությունները դասվում են բառակապակցական բա- ղադրությունների շարքին: Վերջիններս ընդգրկում են նաև շարահյուսա- կան բաղադրությունները` քարացած շարահյուսական կառույցները, ո- րոնք կարծես նախադասություններից կամ խոսքաշարից պոկված հատ- վածներ լինեն և համապատասխանում են անգլերենի շարահյուսական կանոններին, ինչպես` editor-in-chief «գլխավոր խմբագիր», Johnny-on-the- spot «անհրաժեշտության դեպքում միշտ հասանելի անձնավորություն»: Վերջիններս, սակայն, իրենց տիպաբանական զուգահեռը չունեն հայերե- նում: