Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi
Ogon: The Analyzability and
Compositionality of Plant Terms in
English and Polish
Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature 32, 191-211
LUBLIN STUDIES IN M ODERN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE 32, 2008, h t t p://w w w .l s m l l .u m c s .l u b l i n . p l
Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University,
Lublin, Poland
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon:
The Analyzability and Compositionality
of Plant Terms in English and Polish
1. In tro d u c tio n
W h e n a n a ly z in g th e m e a n in g o f p lan t term s, it is im p o rta n t to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n c o m m o n p lan t n a m e s an d “p u re ly b o ta n ic a l” or L a tin term s, a d istin c tio n th a t u n d e rlie s the o p p o sitio n b e tw e e n ex p ert vs. fo lk (or natural) c a te g o rie s.1 T h e latter, as T a y lo r (1989) o bserves,
1 Using the term expert categories J.R. Taylor refers to notions used by “experts (...) who, because of their professional standing, are supposed to know about their relevant field” and “are competent to say whether or on what grounds, any particular instance is or is not a member of the category.” (Taylor 1989:75). To indicate the same term, Kempton (1981) uses the notion of devised classification systems (Taylor 1989:75). Langacker for a change explains the difference between the expert definition and the natural one recalling the concept of ‘ circle’:
Anyone who is familiar with [the] definition [of circle] as the set of points in a plane that lie in a specified instance from a reference point... But despite the mathematical elegance of this characterization, it is doubtful that it reflects a person’s naive or primary understanding of [CIRCLE]. Many people (e.g. young children) acquire [CIRCLE] as a salient and deeply entrenched concept without being exposed to the mathematical definition or focusing their attention
are “stru c tu re d a ro u n d p ro to ty p ic a l in stan ce s an d (...) [are] g ro u n d e d in th e w a y p eo p le n o rm a lly p e rc e iv e a n d in teract w ith th e th in g s in th e ir e n v iro n m e n t” (T aylor 1989:75). T h e im p o rtan ce o f co m m o n p la n t n a m e s, w h ic h are o ften in c o m p a tib le w ith th e ir b o ta n ic a l or L a tin c o u n terp arts, is re fle c ted in th e sta te m e n t th a t “p eo p le n am e m a n y th in g s in th e co u rse o f o rd in a ry lif e ” (C arro ll 1985:43) B ecau se, as L a k o ff a n d J o h n s o n (1980, 1999) te ll u s “m e ta p h o rs stru ctu re re a lity fo r u s ”, it co m es a s no su rp rise th a t m a n y c o m m o n p lan t n am es sh o u ld d eriv e fro m m e tap h o r, m eto n y m y , o r s im p ly b e c o m e a sy m b o lic in te rp re ta tio n o f th e literal e x p re ssio n .2
It is th e sy m b o lic in te rp re ta tio n a n d th e m e a n in g o f p lan t te rm s th at w e are in te re ste d in. In p a rticu la r, w e sh a ll claim th a t th e m e a n in g o f p la n t n a m e s can b e sy ste m a tic a lly a n a ly se d u sin g m eth o d o lo g ic a l to o ls o f c o g n itiv e lin g u istics. A ssu m in g as w e do th a t m e a n in g s o f le x ic a l item s are d eco m p o sa b le to a c e rta in d egree, o u r claim can e sse n tia lly b e re p h ra se d in th e form o f a q u e stio n o f h o w to m easu re th e d eg ree o f an ite m ’s d e c o m p o sab ility , an d b y the sam e to k en , the d eg re e o f its se m a n tic tra n sp aren cy . In th is p a p e r I w o u ld lik e to claim th a t th e d eg ree o f d e c o m p o sa b ility /tra n sp a ren c y o f a lex ical ite m ’s m e a n in g - in th is case, the m e a n in g o f a c o m m o n p lan t n am e - can b e m e a su re d u sin g tw o re la te d n o tio n s: a n a ly z a b ility an d c o m p o sitio n ality , p ro p o se d b y R o n a ld L a n g a c k e r in h is a n a ly sis o f a w o r d ’s m e a n in g (L a n g ack er 1987, 1991, 2000).
It sh o u ld be o b se rv e d that, b e cau se v e ry o ften c o m m o n p lan t n a m e s h av e th e stru c tu re o f id io m a tic ex p ressio n s, w e sh o u ld ex p ect th e m to b eh a v e like idiom s, th a t is like “in stitu tio n a lise d c o n s tru c tio n ^ ] th a t [are] c o m p o sed o f tw o o r m o re lex ical item s an d [have] th e co m p o site stru c tu re o f a p h ra se or sem i-clau se, w h ic h m a y fea tu re c o n stru c tio n a l id io sy n c ra sy ” (cf. L a n g lo tz ’s 2 006:5 d efin itio n
192 Agnieszka Mierzwiń ska -Hajnos
specifically on the length of line segments from the center to the circumference. (Langacker 1987:86)
2 The naive interpretation of the perceived reality is the basis of the theory of the linguistic picture of the world as developed by the Ethnolinguistic School of Lublin (see Bartmiński 2007).
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon. 193
o f a n idiom ). If so, th en , ju s t like in idiom s, w e sh o u ld ex p e c t p lan t n a m e s to d isp la y th e v a ry in g d e g re e s o f th e tra n sp a re n c y o f m ean in g , or th e v a ry in g d eg re e o f c o m p o sitio n a lity an d a n a ly sab ility . T hus, w h e re a s in th e case o f E n g lish ex p re ssio n s su ch as p a le -to u c h -m e -n o t
(Im p a tie n s p a llid a L .), J a c k -g o -to -b e d -a t-n o o n (T ra g o p o g o n p r a te n s is L.) o r P o lish wróć się za ś (B o try c h iu m lu n a ria L. Sw .) a n d w a rko czek N a jś w ie ts z e j M a r ii P a n n y (A g rim o n ia e u p a to ria L.), the “tra n s p a re n c y ” o f m e a n in g is ra th e r high, in th e case o f su ch te rm s as g o a ts b e a r d (A ru n c u s d io ic u s L.) an d m y s z o m o r d (A c o n itu m vu lp a ria R chb.) th e ir m e a n in g is d e fin ite ly less tra n sp aren t. T h e least tra n sp aren t, h en ce least a n a ly z a b le are te rm s w h o se m e a n in g s are fig u rativ e su c h as, fo r ex am ple, Pol. k o c h a n e k (A d o n is v ern a lis L .), or E ng. ra p e (B ra ssic a n a p u s L .). A lth o u g h la c k in g a n “id io m atic s tru c tu re ” (as th e m e a n in g s a b o v e su g g est), su c h o n e-w o rd m e ta p h o rs m a y b ec o m e o n e -w o rd id io m s v ia th e p ro c e sse s o f in stitu tia liz a tio n an d lex ica lisato n , w h ic h is th e re su lt o f se m a n tic ex te n sio n (L an g lo tz 2 0 0 6 :1 0 0 ).3
2. T h e A n a ly z a b ility /C o m p o sitio n a lity p a ra m e te r
S o far w e h a v e b e e n u sin g th e term s: a n a ly z a b ility an d c o m p o sitio n a lity w ith o u t a tte m p tin g to d efin e them . It is tim e to do so now . C o m p o sitio n a lity a n d a n a ly z a b ility are related , y e t d istin ct n o tio n s. W h a t L a n g a c k e r m e a n s b y a n a ly z a b ility is the ex ten t to w h ic h the co n trib u tio n o f co m p o n e n t stru c tu re s (i.e. stru c tu re s th at in te g ra te w ith o ne o r o th er stru c tu re s in a c o m b in a to ry relatio n sh ip ) sh a p e s th e c o m p o site stru c tu re (i.e. a stru c tu re w h ic h is th e re su lt o f a c o m b in a tio n o f tw o o r m o re stru c tu re s in a v a le n c e relation) (L an g a ck er 1987:487). C o m p o sitio n ality , on th e o th e r hand, is u n d e rsto o d a s th e re la tio n sh ip in w h ic h th e v a lu e o f the co m p o site stru c tu re is p re d ic ta b le from th e v a lu e o f its parts. A c c o rd in g to L a n g a ck er, a n a ly z a b ility re se m b le s a “h o riz o n ta l” re la tio n sh ip w h ic h
3 Langlotz gives a thorough explanation of how single words gain the status of an idiom analysing the case of a literal and idiomatic meaning of the word mouse (Langlotz 2006).
194 Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
illu stra te s se m a n tic m o tiv atio n , w h e re a s co m p o sitio n a lity ex p lo re s a “v e rtic a l” d im e n sio n b e tw e e n co m p o site stru c tu re s an d th e co m p o n e n t u n it (L an g ack er 1987:448).
A lth o u g h a n a ly z a b ility a n d co m p o sitio n a lity are distin c t p h en o m e n a, fo r the p u rp o se of th is a n a ly sis an d in v ie w o f th e fa c t th a t th is d istin c tio n d o es n o t im p in g e on o u r an aly sis, u n less o th erw ise in d icated , w e sh all trea t th em as c o m p le m e n ta ry an d jo in tly re fe r to th em , d e p e n d in g on th e c o n tex t in w h ic h th e y ap p ear, as A /C p aram e ter, th e A /C scale, A /C p rin c ip le or A /C criteria. In d eed , as o b se rv e d b y L an g ack e r, th e d eg ree of a n a ly z a b ility in c re a se s in the case o f fu lly c o m p o sitio n a l ex p re ssio n s su ch as, fo r ex am p le, a p a tr io tic p o le c lim b e r w h ic h c o n sists o f ea sily re c o g n iz a b le m o rp h o lo g ic a l units, a n d d e c re a ses in the case o f q u a si m o rp h e m es su c h as, fo r ex am p le, the q u a si m o rp h e m e - e r in th e e x p ressio n fa th e r.4
W ith th is in m ind, let u s n o w fo cu s on th e se m a n tic v a lu e o f ex p re ssio n s in w h ich , in L a n g a c k e r’s p arlan ce, “a co h e re n t co m p o site stru c tu re fails to em erg e fro m th e sp e c ifie d m o d e o f in te g ra tin g the co m p o n e n t s tru c tu re s ” (L an g ac k er 1987:293). T h e p ro b lem re la te s to co n tra stin g pa irs su c h as: a co rn vs. fr u it ( o r n u t) o f an o ak tre e o r p o rk vs. p ig m e a t. T h e “in te g ratio n p ro b le m ” can also be n o tic e d in p lan t
4 Naturally, father is a one morpheme word, hence it is a non-compositional. Still, as Langacker notes, the speaker may treat - e r as a quasi morpheme, which contributes its meaning to the meaning of the expression father, that is, the speaker can treat -e r as a suffix indicating, for example, a kinship term (cf. sister, mother, brother, etc.)
It is instructive to see how Langacker (2000:152) defines analyzability. According to him,
Analyzability resides in coactivation of component and composite structures, with the former thus serving to categorize and motivate the latter. For fixed expressions - where the composite structure already has status of a learned, established unit (so that no computation is required to arrive at it) - one naturally expects the component structures to vary in their likelihood or level of activation (and hence in their cognitive salience). Degrees of analyzability are thus recognized and easily accommodated.
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon. 195
n a m e s d e sc rib in g th e sa m e sp ecies, e.g. P o lish d ziu ra w ie c vs. zie le Ś w ię te g o J a n a (both d e sig n a tin g H y p e ric u m p e r fo r a tu m L. - St. J o h n ’s wort) . A lth o u g h th e co m p o site stru c tu re o f a n e x p re ssio n zie le Ś w . J a n a is c o n sid e re d to b e id e n tic a l w ith its less p erip h rastic co u n terp art, dziu ra w iec, the fo rm e r sh o u ld be ju d g e d to b e m ore d istin c t a n d m o re c o m p le x se m a n tic a lly . U n q u estio n ab ly , d ziu ra w ie c c o n v ey s all th e c o n c ep ts th a t are re c a lle d in z ie le Ś w ię te g o J a n a , b u t th ese co n cep ts, b e in g c o m p o n e n t stru ctu res, are n o t e m p h asized in d iv id u ally . In o th er w o rd s, th e y are less p ro m in e n t in d ziuraw iec, th e se m a n tic v a lu e o f w h ic h resid e s in a sin g le u n ifie d co n cep tio n , m a k in g th is e x p re ssio n p ra c tic a lly u n a n a ly z a b le. N o tice that, in co n tra st to d ziu ra w iec, zie le Ś w ię te g o J a n a (w hich is its p erip h rastic c o u n te rp art), d o e s evo k e a n in d iv id u a l p ro m in e n c e o f b o th [ZIELE] (herb/w ort) a n d [Ś W IĘ T Y JA N ] (St. Jo h n ), th u s re n d e rin g th ese tw o co m p o n e n t stru c tu re s m o re salien t. T h e ab o v e co m p a riso n len d s su p p o rt to th e claim th a t ex p re ssio n s g a in th eir co m p o site stru c tu re s v ia d iffe re n t c o m p o sitio n a l paths, w h ic h in tu rn re su lts in subtle d iffe re n c es o f m ean in g . W h e re a s in th e case o f d z iu ra w ie c the c o m p o sitio n a l p ath lead s to d irect sy m b o liz a tio n , in z ie le Ś w ię te g o J a n a , th e p ro c ess o f th e in te g ra tio n o f c o m p o n e n t sy m b o lic stru c tu re s ta k e s place. T h e se o b se rv a tio n s a re re in fo rc e d b y L a n g a c k e r in the fo llo w in g sta te m e n t (1987: 294):
The use of a compositional expression to convey the notion results in greater salience for the explicitly mentioned substructures than with a non-compositional equivalent. Often there are alternate grammatical constructions allowing the speaker to arrive at identical or comparable composite structures via different compositional paths, resulting in contrasting images and nuances of meaning. Since other phenomena may be sensitive to these meaning contracts, even when seemingly minor, the constructions are capable of exhibiting different grammatical behaviour and combinatory potential at higher levels of organization. A s a lre a d y m e n tio n ed , on ce w e re a liz e th a t c o m m o n p lan t n am es are to a g rea t e x ten t c o n v e n tio n a lise d ex p ressio n s, w h ic h g iv es th em th e sta tu s o f id io m a tic ex p ressio n s, on e can p o se th e q u e stio n o f the v a ry in g d e g re e s o f th e ir a n aly za b ility . W e can th u s e stab lish an A /C sc a le a n d p lace “fu lly a n a ly z a b le ” p lan t term s a t o n e en d o f th e scale,
le ss a n a ly z a b le in th e m id d le o f th e scale an d le a st an a ly z a b le or n o n - a n a ly z a b le at all at th e o th er en d o f scale.
In th is fo rm u la tio n , th e A /C sc a le d ire c tly re la te s to the n o tio n o f “m e a n in g tra n s p a re n c y ”: the m o re a n a ly z a b le/c o m p o sitio n a l a g iv en e x p re ssio n is, th e m o re tra n sp a re n t it beco m es. B y th e sam e token, n o n -a n a ly sa b le u n its re p re se n t th e lo w e st d eg ree o f tran sp are n cy .
W ith th is in m ind, co n sid e r th o se c o m m o n p lan t n a m e s w h ic h are la b e le d as “least an a ly z a b le o r n o n -tra n s p a re n t”. N o n -tra n sp a re n cy m e a n s th a t la n g u a g e users, a t a p artic u la r lev el o f p ro c e ssin g and c o n c e p tu a liza tio n , b e c o m e less c o g n iz a n t o f th e co n stitu e n ts sh a p in g th e c o m p o site w h o le. In th is case a g iv e n ex p re ssio n u n d e rg o e s the p ro c e ss o f re a n a ly sis in the sen se o f L a n g a c k e r (1 987:462), w h ic h m a n ife sts its e lf in th e e x p re s s io n ’s in a b ility to activ ate its co m p o n e n t stru ctu res.
N u m e ro u s e x a m p le s th a t re v e a l the n o n -tra n sp a re n t or non- a n a ly z a b le n a tu re can b e fo u n d in the w o rld o f p lants. In E n g lish , th e y a re u su a lly m o n o m o rp h e m ic stru c tu re s w h ich , b y th e ir n atu re, do not c o n ta in a n y c o m p o n e n t stru ctu res. T h u s su c h p lan t n a m e s a s leek (A lliu m a m p e lo p ra su m (L .)J.G ay), c ress (L e p id iu m s a tiv u m L .), n u t (C o ry lu s a v e lla n a L .), o a k (Q u e rc u s L.), d o c k (R u m e x a c e to sa L.), w h e a t (T ritic u m L.) a n d c o u n tle ss o th ers are p ra c tic a lly u n a n aly zab le. O th e r n o n -tra n sp a re n t cases a p p e a r w ith th e n a m e s in w h ic h th ere is a v isib le la ck o f a m e a n in g fu l m o rp h em e, e.g. b ilb e r r y (V a c c in iu m m y r tillu s L .- th e re is n o th in g like *bil), c u c u m b e r (C u c u m is sa tiv u s L.), o r d a n d elio n (T a ra x a c u m o ffic in a le L .). W e h av e sim ilar, “n o n tra n s p a re n t” ca ses o f p lan t te rm s in P o lish as w ell. T h u s w e have s z c z a w (R u m e x a c e to sa L.), r z e p (A rc tiu m L .), w ło k (C h e n o p o d iu m a lb u m L.), o r sz a le j (H y o sc y a m u s n ig e r L .), as w e ll a s th o se w o rd s w h ic h seem to be m o re co m p le x on w h a t w e w ish to call a fter H en ry k K a rd e la (private co n v ersatio n ) th e “m o rp h o lo g ic a l tra n sp a re n c y s c a le ”, b u t still re m a in n o n -tra n sp a re n t, as it is se e n in th e case o f c h a b e r a n d its sy n o n y m b ła w a te k (C en ta u rea cy a n u s L.).
L a n g a c k e r’s a sse rtio n th a t “a n a ly z a b ility is a m a tte r o f d e g re e ” is not, h o w ev er, u n p ro b lem atic. In p articu lar, it is n o t clear, fo r ex am ple, h o w to tre a t tw o d istin ct sy m b o lic u n its w h ic h ap p e a r to sh a re sim ila r
m o rp h o lo g ic a l p ro p e rtie s? L et u s c o n sid e r tw o P o lish p lan t nam es: m n is z e k (T a ra x a c u m o ffic in a le L.) an d k o c h a n e k (A d o n is vern a lis L.), w h ic h h a v e th e sa m e d eg ree o f c o m p o sitio n a lity (in th e se n se o f L an g ack er), i.e. in w h ic h w e c an e a sily d istin g u ish tw o m o rp h e m es m n ic h -e k an d k o c h -a n e k resp ectiv e ly . T h e q u estio n is: do th e y hav e th e sam e d eg ree o f an a ly z a b ility ? A t first g lan ce, th e a n sw e r se e m s to b e yes. Y et, fo r an av e ra g e la n g u ag e user, it is ea sie r to se m a n tic a lly (and c o n cep tu ally ) d ec o m p o se k o c h a n e k - th e ro o t k o c h a ć plu s a d im in u tiv e su ffix - e k h e re are m o re sa lie n t w ith in th e co m p o site w h o le - th a n to d e c o m p o se m n iszek, w h ic h is m o re re a d ily c o n c e p tu a lize d as a w h o le .5 It is o n ly o w in g to “th e lin g u istic s e n sitiv ity o f a sim p le m an w h ic h m a n ife sts in th e ex p la n a tio n o f n a m e s a sc rib e d to th e d e sig n ates an d the a tte m p t to e ty m o lo g ize th e m ,” (P elco w a 2001:99, tra n sla tio n m ine) th a t w e a re ab le to a c c e ss th e c o m p o n e n ts o f m n is z e k sep arately . T h e n et re su lt o f th is o b se rv a tio n is clear: k o c h a n e k is a n a ly z a b le to a g re a te r d eg ree th a n m n iszek. T h is n e a tly a c c o rd s w ith L a n g a c k e r’s
(1987: 462) sta te m e n t th at
If analyzability is a matter of degree (which is seemingly undeniable on intuitive grounds), then we must further conclude that the question of whether a certain form is morphemically complex is not always answered adequately with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Granted, for example, that the components of swimmer are more frequently elicited and saliently perceived within the whole than those of propeller, it must also be admitted that the decomposition of propeller into the separate morphemes (...) is more tenuous than that of swimmer. The question merits an unqualified yes/no answer only when the expression is either novel or fully opaque.
L e t u s n o w tu rn to a larg e g ro u p o f b o th P o lish a n d E n g lish plant n a m e s fo rm in g co m p o u n d s su c h a s m a y a p p le (P o d o p h y llu m p e lta tu m L.), fo x g lo v e (D ig ita lis p u r p u r e a L.), s h e p h e r d ’s p u r s e (C a p sella
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon... 197
5 Mniszek as a plant name is accessed immediately, without taking into account the components/morphemes (i.e., the root mnich and a suffix -ek). Very few people associate the name with the following definition ‘po zdmuchnięciu puchu na łodyżce pozostaje naga główka, która przypomina ogoloną głowę mnicha’ (Pelcowa 2001:101). If a language user becomes aware of the components which shape a given expression, he is likely to choose the most ‘diagnostic’ features (Tokarski 1993:340 341), such as, e.g. physical properties which are accessed via the sense of vision.
b u r s a - p a s to r is
L.),
g r o m o w y k o r z e ń(
A s p a r a g u s o ffic in a lisL.),
w r o n ie z ie le(
S e d u m s p), or
o ś la s to p a(
T u s s ila g o fa r f a r aL.) As Bybee
(1985:106) notes, seen from a morphological point of view,
compounding “resembles lexical expression in that the resulting unit
is a word, and the meaning of the word is not predictable from a
summation of the meaning of its parts.”
Viewed in the context of analyzability, a compound “goes beyond
pure morphology”, highlighting the importance of both the component
structures and the composite whole. The role of the individual
concepts evoked by component structures can hardly be minimized.
Not only do they contribute to the understanding of the composite
structure, but they also indicate an interplay that occurs between
particular components, as well as in the individual relation that each
component structure bears to the whole. This phenomenon is
particularly visible in compounds where it is much easier to
extrapolate the components and observe the above relationships than it
would be with a typical derivation of the
s w im /s w im m e r
p r o p e l/p r o p e lle rtype (Langacker 1987:462). To illustrate these
dependencies, let us consider the following diagram:
198 Agnieszka Mierzwiń ska -Hajnos
Fig. 1 (Langacker 1987:450)
The above figure is a schematic representation of all the parameters
and relationships which must be activated to establish the idea of
compositionality and understand the principle of analyzability. As
emphasised by Langacker, “a full description of the construction must
specify all of these structures and relationships” (Langacker
1987:450). In the diagram, [C] stands for the composite whole,
whereas [A] and [B] represent component structures. As it is indicated
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon. 199
b y so lid lines, all th e p a ra m e te rs re m a in in a p p ro p riate co rre sp o n d e n c es: the o u tco m e o f a h o riz o n ta l re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n [A] an d [B] is the in te g ra tio n o f th ese tw o co m p o n e n ts, w h ic h g iv es an [AB] stru c tu re a n d s im u lta n e o u sly b e c o m e s th e b a sis fo r the co m p o site w h o le [C]. In th is sense, [C] is c a lcu lab le fro m [A B], as it h a p p e n s in th e case o f an E n g lish p lan t n am e b la c k b e r r y (R u b u s fr u tic o s u s L .). T h e o th er sid e o f th e co in is th a t b la c k an d b e r r y also ex ist a s d istin g u ish a b le in d iv id u a l c o n cep ts [A] an d [B], an d each o f th e m m ig h t b e in d iv id u a lly re c a lle d in th e co m p o site stru c tu re [C]. T h erefo re, it a lso se e m s n e c e ssa ry to stre ss v e rtic a l re la tio n sh ip s b e tw e e n [A] a n d [C] an d [B] a n d [C]. O n ce the a b o v e p a ra m e te rs are retain e d , it is p o ssib le to ta lk a b o u t fu ll co m p o sitio n a lity o f an ex p ressio n .
L e t u s p o n d e r o v er the case o f su c h p lan t n a m e s a s P o lish w ilcza j a g o d a (A tro p a b e lla d o n n a L.) or E n g lish g o o s e b e r r y (R ib e s uva- crisp a L.) in o rd e r to in te rp ret th e a sp e c ts o f th e ir a n a ly z a b ility an d c o m p o sitio n a lity v ia th e d iag ram . It a p p e a rs th a t b o th these c o m p o u n d s d iv erg e fro m ty p ic a l e a sy -to -fo llo w re la tio n sh ip s as p re se n te d fo r bla ckb erry. B o th ‘ w ilcza ’ an d ‘g o o s e ’ are n o t activ a te d im m e d ia te ly in th e c o m p o site stru c tu re o f w ilcza j a g o d a and g o o se b e rry , a s it h a p p e n s in th e case o f ‘b la c k ’ in blackberry
Λ
T h u s, a sim p le co m p u ta tio n o f th e co m p o site w h o le [C] fro m th e c o m p o n e n ts [A] a n d [B] is m u ch less tra n sp a re n t th a n in th e case o f b la c k b e r r y and, as such, it sh o u ld b e su b stitu te d w ith th e fo llo w in g calcu latio n :[C]= [ABX] (L an g ack er 1987:450).
6 Wilcza jagoda and gooseberry may be analysed only if we take into account the parameters which go beyond a pure calculation of [A] and [B] components. According to Pelcowa, plant names which comprise the reference to an animal usually recall pejorative connotations and frequently serve as a warning for people (Pelcowa 2001:109). Therefore, wilcza jagoda is not a summation of the components wilcza and jagoda, as the former triggers off the associations connected with sth unpleasant and dangerous for people. All these associations establish an extra X value which cannot be neglected while accessing the composite whole.
200 Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
T h e b la c k b e rry -g o o se b e r ry case ev o k es th e n o tio n s o f im m an en ce an d rec o g n itio n (L an g ac k er 1987:458) w h ic h co m e a lo n g th e A /C p rin c ip le . L et u s c o n sid e r th e ir g ra p h ic in terp retatio n s:
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon. 201
Fig. 2. Immanence Fig. 3. Recognition
The notion of immanence is interpreted by Langacker in the following
way (Langacker 1987:458):
Structure [A] is a component of [C] in this sense if the cognitive events comprised by [A] are included among the more extensive set of cognitive events constituting [C] ; the occurrence of the former set of events is thus intrinsic to the execution of the latter
The above definition applies to the English plant name
g o o s e b e r r yand
the Polish expression
w ilcza j a g o d a, in which neither of the
components is individually recognized as an individual symbolic unit,
but both are to be found in the composite structure. This stands in
contrast to
b la c k b e rry, in which case both components:
b la c kand
b e r r y
are not only immanent within the composite whole, but they are
also easily accessed and identified within this structure.
Another interesting aspect of analyzability is the notion of
n a tu r a l p a th, briefly mentioned above, which may be represented by, as
Langacker puts it, “each natural cognitive arrangement of the elements
of the composite whole”, and which “has a tendency towards
coalignment’ (Langacker 2005:109-110, translation mine). The greater
the coalignment, the more understandable an expression is. Let us
consider English
fo x g lo v e(
D ig ita lis p u r p u r e aL.), or Polish
lw ia p a s z c z a(
L in a ria vu lg a risMill.). In both languages the violation of
word order “distorts” the composite structure of the conceptualized
plant (after all there is nothing like *
g lo v e fo xin English and *
p a szc za lw iain Polish to play the role of synonyms for the above plant names).
w ord order thus, as retained in compounds, is one of the examples
illustrating the natural path.
202 Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
G o in g d e e p e r into th e stru c tu re o f co m p o u n d s, o ne m a y id e n tify so -c a lle d p a tro n o m y re la tio n s w h ic h co n trib u te to the o v e ra ll p icture o f a co m p o u n d . W h ile the first e lem en t o f a c o m p o u n d is th e referen ce p o in t in th e sen se o f L a n g a c k e r (1991, 2000, 2005) w h ic h m a n ife sts in g re a te r co n c e p tu a l salien ce, th e se c o n d e lem en t in d ic a te s th e ta rg e t w e re a c h v ia re fe re n c e point. T h e n a tu ra l p ath a llo w s to v ie w the co m p o n e n t stru c tu re s a s esta b lish e d sy m b o lic u n its an d d esc rib e the re la tio n sh ip s b e tw e e n [A] an d [B] c o m p o n en ts, w h ic h in tu rn le a d s us to the c o m p o site w h o le.
B o th E n g lish a n d P o lish p lan t n a m e s in d icate p atro n o m y relatio n s, w h ic h u s u a lly re sid e in p o sse ssiv e co n stru ctio n s. T h u s w e hav e E n g lish b a c h e lo r ’s b u tto n s (C en ta u rea cy a n u s L.), L a d y ’s th u m b (P o ly g o n u m p e r s ic a r ia L.), B a s ta r d c a b b a g e (R a p istru m r u g o su m L.), o x -e ye (H e lio p sis h e lia n th o id e s L.), h e n b it (L a m iu m a m p le x ic a u le L.), c a tm in t (N ep eta c a ta ria L.) a n d P o lish ż a b ie o czk a (M y o so tis sp.), w ilc zy og o n (L y c o p o d iu m c la v a tu m L.), g ę s i p ę p e k (B e llis p e r e n n is L .), b a b ia ró ża (A lcea ro se a L .), k o ń sk ie k o p y to (T u ssila g o fa rfa ra L.), o r p s ia p ie tr u s z k a (A e th u sa c y n a p iu m L .)7
3. T h e p rism atic a rc h ite c tu re o f co m p o site e x p ressio n s
L e t u s n o w lo o k a t th e p h e n o m e n o n o f a n a ly z a b lility an d c o m p o sitio n a lity fro m th e p o in t o f v ie w o f G e e ra e rt’s (2003) an a ly sis o f m ean in g . G ee ra e rts p ro p o se s to esta b lish th e so -c a lle d ‘prism atic a rc h ite c tu re ’ o f c o m p o site ex p re ssio n s like id io m s an d c o m p o u n d s allo w in g , as he pu ts it, fo r “th e sy n ta g m a tic a n d th e p a ra d ig m atic ax es in th e ir m e a n in g ” a n d g ra p h in g “th e v a rio u s w a y s in w h ic h m e ta p h o r a n d m e to n y m y can in te ra c t a lo n g th e se a x e s ” (G eeraerts 2003: 435). T h u s c o n sid e r th e P o lish e x p re ssio n k r w is c iq g (Eng. burnet) (S a n g u iso rb a L .), in th e m e a n in g o f w h ic h th e re la tio n b e tw e e n the
7 English compounds as described in the above article represent a gradual loss of a typical possessive construction- hence the gradation: Lady’s thumb >bastard cabbage > catmint. The Polish language has developed an adjectival form which plays as a substitute for a possessive structure, e.g. wilczy ogon or psia pietruszka instead of the respective forms * ogon wilka or *pietruszka psa.
literal and figurative readings obtained via the process of meaning
extension, can be presented by the following prismatic model:
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon... 20 3
Figure 4. Analysis of krwiściąg (Sanguisorba L.)
1. krwiściąg 2. ściągać (to tighten) 3. krew (blood) 4. krwiściąg-roślina hamująca krwotok (a plant that stops bleeding) 5. hamować (to stop) 6. krwotok (bleeding)
The following relations can be deduced from Figure 4: point 1
indicates a literal meaning of krwiściąg, points 2 - ściągać and 3 -
krew are the constituents of the composite whole on the literal level;
point 4 is a figurative meaning that is accessed via metonymy
(krwiściąg as the plant which stops bleeding), whereas points 5 and 6
become the constituents of the figurative meaning and remain in a
paradigmatic relation with their literal counterparts 2 and 3. The
interpretation of 5 and 6 consists in the activation of metaphor in the
relationship between 2 and 5, and metonymy in the relationship
between 3 and 6.
204 Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
A p a r t f ro m th e p a r a d ig m a tic d im e n s io n s in v o lv e d in r e la tio n s 1-4, 2-5 a n d 3 -6 , th e r e a r e a ls o s y n ta g m a tic r e la tio n s b e tw e e n th e c o m p o s ite w h o le a n d its c o n s titu e n ts , b o th o n th e lite r a l a n d f ig u ra tiv e le v e l o f m e a n in g . T h e a b o v e a n a ly s is o f a p r is m a tic m o d e l e m p h a s iz e s th e im p o r ta n c e o f c o m p o s itio n a lity a n d /o r a n a ly z a b ility , o p e n in g a w a y to a “n o n - d ir e c t io n a l” in te r p r e ta tio n o f a g iv e n e x p r e s s io n w h ic h G e e r a e r ts c a lls ‘i s o m o r p h is m ’ (G e e r a e rts 2 0 0 3 :4 3 8 ).
W h ile ta lk in g a b o u t is o m o rp h is m , it is im p o s s ib le to ig n o r e th e n o tio n o f m o tiv a tio n w h ic h is b e lie v e d to s h a re th e s a m e c h a r a c te r is tic f e a tu re , n a m e ly , tr a n s p a r e n c y . H o w e v e r, m u c h a s is o m o r p h is m h a s a n in c lin a tio n to w a r d s s y n ta g m a tic tr a n s p a r e n c y , m o tiv a tio n is d e s c rib e d a s p a r a d ig m a tic tra n s p a r e n c y , i.e. th e f ig u ra tiv e m e a n in g o f a n e x p r e s s io n c e a s e s to b e o p a q u e o n c e th e re is a m o tiv a tin g im a g e in th e lite r a l e x p r e s s io n (G e e r a e rts 2 0 0 8 : 4 3 9 ) .8
T h e a n a ly z a b ility o f c o m p o u n d s is a m ix e d b le s s in g , w h ic h r a is e s th e p r o b le m o f p la c in g s u c h s e m a n tic u n its o n th e a n a ly z a b ility s c a le . In te rm s o f th e r e p r e s e n te d fo rm , a s y m b o lic u n it w h ic h u s u a lly c o n s is ts o f tw o w o r d s b e in g c o m p o n e n t s tr u c tu re s a p p e a r s to b e m u c h m o r e c o m p le x a n d m u c h m o r e a n a ly z a b le th a n its m o n o m o r p h e m ic c o u n te r p a r ts o r s te m + s u f fix m o d e ls . A s fa r a s th e c o m p o s ite w h o le is c o n c e rn e d , c o m p o u n d s a re s till lik e ly to d e s ig n a te a n d r e c a ll o n e p a r tic u la r o b je c t w h ic h o c c u r s a s a g e s ta lt fig u re fo r a n a v e r a g e la n g u a g e u s e r, th u s p e r ta in in g to le s s a n a ly z a b le a n a tu re o f a c o n c e p t th a n it m ig h t b e in d ic a te d b y d ir e c t a n a ly s is a n d e x tra p o la tio n o f th e c o m p o n e n ts . O n e m a y a s k w h e th e r a n y c o m p ro m is e m a y b e r e a c h e d
8 Geeraerts notices that the notion of motivation as presented in his work is a different value than its generally accepted interpretation:
In most work in the tradition of Cognitive Semantics, the concept of motivation is used in a slightly broader way than the way in which it is defined here. In Lakoff (1987) and related work, for instance, ‘motivation’ involves the principles that explain ( or make plausible) why a particular linguistic expression means what it does.(...) the distinction that is drawn here between ‘motivation’ and ‘isomorphism’ tries to be more specific about the general concept of motivation by distinguishing between its syntagmatic and its paradigmatic form (Geeraerts 2003 :439).
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon. 205 to s tr ik e a b a la n c e b e tw e e n th e e x tre m e s a n d f in a lly e s ta b lis h th e p o s itio n o f c o m p o u n d s o n th e a n a ly z a b ility s c a le . A g a in , it s e e m s th a t th e re is n o c le a r y e s /n o re s p o n s e . T h e p o s itio n o f a g iv e n c o m p o u n d o n th e a n a ly z a b ility s c a le is c o n d itio n e d b y tw o p o le s w e a c tiv a te to a c c e s s a g iv e n e x p r e s s io n : i f a la n g u a g e u s e r is m o r e lik e ly to b e m o tiv a te d b y th e c o m p o n e n ts o f a s y m b o lic u n it, h e is a ls o m o re lik e ly to a d o p t th e p r in c ip le o f a n a ly z a b ility r a th e r th a n c o m p o s itio n a lity , a s it h a p p e n s in th e c a s e o f r e c a llin g th e c o m p o s ite w h o le . A lth o u g h s o m e w h a t v a g u e , L a n g a c k e r ’s o p in io n m a y b e h e lp f u l h e r e (L a n g a c k e r 1 9 8 7 :4 6 2 ):
The familiarity of a complex expression does not blind us to its componentiality and render us unable to perceive the contribution of individual components. If this were so, the notion of a complex lexical item would be a contradiction in terms: the unit status characteristic of lexical items would entail their immediate and automatic loss of analysability, removing any grounds for considering them to be complex; all fixed expressions would therefore constitute single morphemes, regardless of size or any resemblance to other units. In fact, though, a fixed expression appears capable of retaining some measure of analyzability almost indefinitely. At any one time, a language has many thousands of complex symbolic units whose values are enriched by the recognition of their components. We need not assume that the component structures are accessed on every occasion when the composite structure is employed, or that when accessed they are necessarily activated at the same level of intensity as they are in a novel expression. However, only when the composite structure loses altogether its capacity to elicit the activation of its components can it be regarded as fully opaque and unanalysable.
G o in g f u rth e r in o u r c o n s id e r a tio n s c o n c e r n in g b o th a n a ly z a b ility a n d c o m p o s itio n a lity o f s e le c te d E n g lis h a n d P o lis h p la n t n a m e s , it is im p o s s ib le n o t to m e n tio n th e n a m e s w h ic h , f ro m a s y n ta g m a tic p o in t o f v ie w , r e m a in th e m o s t c o m p le x e x p r e s s io n s in te rm s o f th e ir s tr u c tu r e .9 C o n s id e r f o r in s ta n c e E n g lis h
Love-lies-bleeding
(Amaranthus caudatus
L .),Kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate (Polygonum
orientale
L .),sent from Heaven (Hemerocallis
sp .),Jack-go-to-bed-at-9 As far as the complex grammatical structure of English plant names is concerned, they are arranged in the above article in a diminishing order, which is indicative of the omnipresent tendency towards the simplification of the linguistic utterance and results in greater economy of language.
noon (Tragopogon pratensis L.), forget-me-not (Myosotis L.), touch-
me-not (Impatiens pallida L.), Jack-o’-the-rocks (Heuchera rubescens
L.), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphylla L.), or finally radiator
Charlie’s mortgage lifter tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L). The
Polish language may also vaunt such expressions as pieprzyca łodygę
obejmująca (Cardaria draba (L.)Desv.), wróć się zaś (Botrychium
lunaria (L.)Sw.), or nietubyć (Anthyllis vulneraria L.) although it
must be admitted that the grammatical complexity as revealed in
Polish common plant names is less advanced than that of the English
language.
At first glance, the grammatical complexity of the above Polish
and English plant names may suggest easiness in their immediate
attempt to introduce the A/C principle: after all, individual words in
the structure displaying sentence characteristics are more salient and
can be much easier extrapolated from the whole than it has been
observed in the case of a typical derivation visible in the
propel/propeller example, or selected compounds with their two-
edged interpretation (e.g. babia róża). Is this however a ‘sufficient
condition’ to label Kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate or nietubyć as fully
analyzable or fully compositional structures?
Let us try to tackle this problem from two perspectives. Basing on
the insights of Gestalt psychology, it is seen that the role of the
component structures being individual linguistic units is downgraded
to the advantage of the holistic perception recalled by the composite
whole. In other words, the meaning of such expressions as, e.g. Jack-
go-to-bed-at-noon, or wróć sie zaś is perceived as the combination of
individual linguistic inputs, however, these separate inputs do not
have to indicate the same meaning as the composite structure
(Pelletier 2004:136). In this sense, the principle of compositionality as
well as its reverse process - analyzability - may be called into
question. Both Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon and wróć sie zaś are perceived
as Gestalt figures, thus questioning the sense of their compositionality
and/or analyzability.
The above plant names can also be viewed as idioms once we stick
to the definition describing an idiom as “a polyword listeme that looks
like a phrase or clause and the meaning is figurative and not
predictable from the literal meanings of its constituents” (Allan
2001:126). However, the claim that the meanings of particular literal
expressions have no input into the understanding of the composite
whole places the expressions comprising any aspect of idiomaticity on
the non-analyzable and simultaneously non-compositional pole, as it
happens in the case of Gestalt figures.
To counterbalance this attitude, let us focus on the arguments
which play in favour of plant names’ semantic compositionality and
thus contribute to a deeper understanding of their analyzability,
especially in the case of such complex structures as Jack-go-to-bed-at-
noon. Once again, Geeraerts’ prismatic model which emphasizes the
importance of both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations holding in
such complex structures comes in handy:
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon... 207
Figure 5. Analysis of Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon (Tragopogon pratensis L.)
1. Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon (literal level) 2. Jack 3. to go (to bed at noon) 4. Jack-go-to- bed-at-noon (The name of the plant which closes its calyx at noon) 5. a plant 6. to close
208 Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
Considering the paradigmatic axis, there is metonymy relationship
between 1 and 4. The same process operates on the constituent level
between 2 and 5, whereas metaphor operates between components 3
and 6.
Another argument for the A/C parameter of such complex
expressions is included in two statements proposed by Pelletier:
1. If a language lacked compositionality it would be unlearnable 10
2. Compositionality is the only explanation of how a finite mechanism (such as the human brain/mind) can understand an infinite set of sentences. (Without compositionality, novel utterances would be non-understandable). (Pelletier 2004:142)
Let us now observe how Pelletier’s statements apply to such
expressions as kiss-me-over-the-garden-gate as the composite whole.
As can easily be observed, each component of the above name may
exist as an individual linguistic item. When these items are put
together, we obtain a sentence depicting a particular situation. Apart
from evoking this situation, the sentence also points to the plant’s
behaviour which may suggest the plant’s resemblance to the situation
described in the sentence. This is so because each language user has
the potential to create an infinite number of expressions or sentences
from a “finite number of parts and finite number of ways of putting
them together” (Pelletier 2004:142). Without individual components,
Pelletier claims, it would be impossible to acquire any language,
which in turn would automatically result in our impossibility to
understand such a language. This is what makes compositionality such
an outstanding phenomenon.
10 Chierchia & McConnel-Ginet appear to support argument 1 with the following statement:
Whatever linguistic meaning is, there must be some sort of compositional account of the interpretation of complex expressions as composed from the interpretations of their parts and thus ultimately from the interpretations of the (finitely many) simple expressions contained in them and of the syntactic structures in which they occur (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 1990:6).
It has to be admitted that expressions of the highest structural
complexity are a tough nut to crack. Considering the aspects of their
analyzability or compositionality, a scholar might be flooded with
numerous viewpoints and theories which might be a good starting
point for a separate work and analysis.
4. Conclusion
Using the A/C criteria, the analysis of selected Polish and English
common plant terms, developed in this paper, has revealed a varying
degree of the semantic transparency of these terms. The A/C scale was
proposed to deal with meaning transparency involving spectrum
forms, starting from unanalyzable, and thus non-compositional
expressions such as leek or dąb, including stem+suffix formations
such as kochanek and compounds such as blackberry, wilcza jagoda,
and ending with Kiss-me-over-the garden-gate as the most complex
structures displaying the highest degree of A/C. Because many plant
names are perceived by native speakers as Gestalt figures, whose
substructures are generally not judged to contribute to the overall
picture of the plant, the so-called linguistic sensitivity of an average
language user should be seen as playing a significant role here: the
more sensitive the language user is, the grater the probability is that he
or she will be guided by the A/C principles in his or her analysis of
meaning. It should also be obvious why analyzability/compositionality
is not a matter of yes/no question. Indeed, we are speaking here of
tendencies and of degrees to which a given feature or attribute
manifests itself in a given category. And this should come as no
surprise, because, as stated by Dancygier and Sweetser (2005:25),
“cognition and language are (...) less than compositional and more
than compositional.”
Primary sources
Aichele, D.; Golte-Bechtle, M., 1984 .Jaki to kwiat? (transl. by H. Terpińska-Ostrowska) Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Rolnicze i Leśne.
The British National Corpus. Available at http://sara.natcorp.ox.ac.
Flora ojczysta 2000. 2000, Stigma s.c.
210 Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
Forey, P. 1998 (reprint 1999). The Pocket Guide to Wild Flowers o f North America. London: Dragon’s World Ltd.
The Free Dictionary. Available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com. Korpus języka polskiego PWN. Available at www.korpus.pwn.pl
Kluk, K. 1805 (reprint: 1985). Dykcyonarz roślinny Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe.
Linde-Usiekniewicz, J. 2004. Wielki słownik polsko-angielski i angielsko-polski. Warszawa: Oxford-PWN.
Rickett, H., W. The English Names ofPlants. Available at http://www.jstor.org. Stanisławski, J. 1996. Wielki słownik polsko-angielski i angielsko-polski Warszawa:
Philip Wilson.
Szafer, W., Kulczyński, S., Pawłowski, B. 1988. Rośliny polskie. Warszawa: PWN. www.gardenweb.com
www.tastytomatoes.net.
Ziółkowska, M. 1988. Gawędy o drzewach Warszawa: Ludowa Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza.
Secondary sources
Allan, K. 2001. Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bartmiński, J. 2007. Językowe podstawy obrazu świata. Lublin: UMCS.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. A Study in the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Carroll, J.M. 1985. What’s in a N am e?New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Dancygier, B.; Sweetser, E. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar. Conditional
Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeraerts, D. 2003. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions [in:] Dirven, R.; Pörings, R. (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 435-465.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M. 1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied M ind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations o f Cognitive Grammar (vol.1) Theoretical
Prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press.
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations o f Cognitive Grammar (vol.2) Descriptive
Jack-Go-To-Bed-At-Noon and Lisi Ogon. 211 Langacker, R. 2005. Wykłady z gramatyki kognitywnej. Lublin: UMCS.
Langlotz, A. 2006. Idiomatic Creativity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
ter Meulen, A.; Abraham, W. (eds.) 2004. The Composition o f Meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pelcowa, H. 2001. Nazwy roślin w świadomości językowej ludności wiejskiej [in]
Język a Kultura 16, 99-114.
Pelletier, F. J. 2004. The principle of semantic compositionality [in] Davis, S.; Gillon, B.S. (eds.) Semantics. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 133-156. Taylor, J. 1989. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Tokarski, R. 1993. Słownictwo jako interpretacja świata, [in:] Encyklopedia kultury
polskiej X X wieku, t. II: Współczesny ję zyk polski, Jerzy Bartmiński (ed.),
