Konrad Klimkowski
Apperception in Compounding as
Manifestation of Iconicity : Selected
Remarks on Jan Michał
Rozwadowski’s Theory of
Apperception
Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature 32, 172-190
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
Konrad Klimkowski
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University,
Lublin, Poland
Apperception in Compounding as Manifestation of
Iconicity. Selected Remarks on Jan Michał
Rozwadowski’s Theory of Apperception
T h is p ap er is an a tte m p t to s h o w th a t c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n in la n g u a g e s su ch as E n g lish o r P o lish m a y b e in c lu d e d on th e lo n g list o f lin g u istic p h e n o m e n a th a t re v e a l th e p rese n ce an d o p e ra tio n o f d ia g ra m m a tic ic o n ic ity . N o t o n ly do I try to d em o n stra te th e te n a b ility o f th is a ssu m p tio n , b u t I also p o stu la te re a so n s fo r w h y co m p o u n d stru c tu re m a y be ic o n ic , or, in o th er w o rd s , I try to d e te rm in e w h at fu n c tio n ic o n ic ity p lay s in th e p ro c e ss o f c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n . To m ee t th e se o b je c tiv e s I d e c id e d to re ly u p o n a lin g u istic th e o ry d e v e lo p e d in th e early 20th c e n tu ry b y a P o lish lin g u ist J a n M ich ał R o z w ad o w sk i. R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1 9 0 4 )1 a p p ro a c h to w o rd fo rm atio n , stro n g ly g ro u n d e d in the latest a d v a n c e m en ts o f p h ilo so p h ic a l and p sy c h o lo g ic a l sc ie n c e s o f h is tim e, fo c u se s on th e re la tio n s b e tw e e n c o g n itio n a n d w o rd fo rm atio n . T h e k e y co n c e p t in tro d u c e d b y
1 The note Rozwadowski (1904) refers to the German original of Rozwadowski’s work. However, when quoting, I use the later Polish edition, and refer to it as Rozwadowski (1960). All the passages from Rozwadowski (1960) in this text are my own translations.
R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) in o rd e r to e x p la in h o w th e w a y in w h ic h w e p e rc eiv e re a lity in flu e n c e s th e w a y in w h ic h w e fo rm u late co n c e p ts is
a p p e rc e p tio n
.
If R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) a ssu m p tio n s are correct, ap p e rc e p tio n m a y be se e n a s the fu n c tio n a l fa c to r b e h in d th e iconic stru c tu re o f co m p o u n d s. I b e g in w ith a d efin itio n an d ex p la n a tio n o f ap p e rcep tio n . T h en , I v e rify its e x p la n a to ry fo rce fo r co m p o u n d fo rm a tio n a g a in st a se le c tio n o f E n g lish an d P o lish data. F in ally , I o ffer c o n c lu sio n s a b o u t the fin d in g s, p o in tin g to fu tu re rese a rc h d irec tio n s. It m u st be sta te d a t th e v e ry b e g in n in g o f th is p a p e r th a t the re se a rc h I re p o rt u p o n is in its in itial stag es, a n d th u s the arg u m en ts, state m e n ts, an d c o n c lu sio n s m ad e h e re are d e fin ite ly left o p en for fu rth e r elab o ra tio n , d iscu ssio n , an d criticism .T h e c o n c e p t o f a p p e rc e p tio n in p h ilo so p h y a n d p sy c h o lo g y
A s th e ro le o f th e n o tio n o f ap p e rc e p tio n in m o d e rn lin g u istic s is ra th e r m arg in al, th e co n cep t is n o t v e ry w e ll k n o w n a m o n g lin g u ists. T h is is w h y in th is se c tio n I w a n t to sh e d m o re lig h t u p o n th e h isto ry o f th e term , b efo re I a m re a d y to te st its p ra c tic a b ility fo r data an a ly sis. E n c y c lo p a e d ic so u rc e s o r d ic tio n a rie s featu re tw o g e n eral d e fin itio n s o f ap p ercep tio n : o ne ste m m in g fro m th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e te rm in p h ilo so p h y , an d th e other, re la te d d ire c tly to p sy ch o lo g y . M o st so u rc e s su g g e st th a t th e co n cep t o f a p p e rc e p tio n w a s in tro d u ced (or red isco v e red ) in m o d e rn p h ilo so p h y b y G o ttfrie d W ilh e lm L e ib n iz (1 6 4 6 -1 7 1 6 ), an d d e fin e d as (L eib n iz 1 7 14:§4.) : “re fle x iv e k n o w le d g e o f the (internal) state o f c o n sc io u sn e ss”. W e p erceiv e re a lity in a co n sc io u s w ay, a n d our re fle c tio n on th is state is w h a t L e ib n iz calls ap p e rcep tio n . L e ib n iz co n sid e rs a p p e rc e p tio n an in te rm e d ia te state b e tw e e n p e rc e p tio n a n d th in k in g (act o f reaso n , re fle x io in a c tu
sig n a td
).
T h e m a jo r c o g n itiv e fu n c tio n o f a p p e rc e p tiv e re fle c tio n is to a llo w a p e rc e iv in g su b je c t to d iffe re n tia te th e p artic u la r sig n a ls/d a ta fro m w ith in the w h o le field o f h e r/h is p ercep tio n .T h e n o tio n o f a p p e rc e p tio n w a s fu rth er d ev e lo p e d b y C h ristian W o lff (1679-1754) in h is tw o m a jo r w o rk s: P sy c h o lo g ia e m p iric a and
P sy c h o lo g ia ra tio n a lis
.
F o r W o lff, a p p e rc e p tio n m e a n t (W o lff 1732:234) “an act o f th e so u l b y w h ic h th e so u l is co n sc io u s o f itse lfan d o f th in g s b ey o n d its e lf.”2 T h is se e m s a m o re co m p re h e n siv e id ea o f a p p ercep tio n , c o v e rin g (W o lff 1734:23) “th e w h o le o f p e rc e p tio n .” F o r W o lff (1732:26) “e v e ry th o u g h t is a m e rg e r o f p e rc e p tio n a n d a p p e rc e p tio n .” W o lf f ’s a p p ro a c h to a p p e rc e p tio n is m a rk e d w ith an e v id e n t p sy c h o lo g ic a l in c lin a tio n : he p u ts m o re e m p h a sis th a n L e ib n iz on th e p ro cess o f a p p e rceiv in g . H e sta te s th a t a p p e rc e p tio n in creases th e d eg ree o f cla rity in h u m a n p erce p tio n , a n d ad d s th a t th e so u rc e o f ap p e rc e p tio n (facultas) lies in a tten tio n . T h is a tte n tiv e a p p e rc e p tio n a llo w s h u m a n s to c o m p a re “p erceiv ed th in g s am o n g th e m s e lv e s ,” and c o n stitu te s the b a sis o f reflectio n , sin ce in W o lf f ’s v iew , re fle c tio n is (W o lff 1732:257) “the su c c e ssiv e d ire c tin g o f atte n tio n to [the data] w h ic h are c o n ta in e d a m o n g th e c o m p o n e n ts o f the p erceiv ed th in g .”3
T h e th ird p h ilo so p h e r w h o co n trib u te d g re a tly to th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f the n o tio n o f a p p e rc e p tio n w a s Im m an u el K an t (1 7 2 4 -1 8 0 4 ). In h is p h ilo so p h y , a p p e rc e p tio n is n o t o n ly a d istin ctiv e featu re o f h u m an p ercep tio n , b u t also th e so u rce o f an d p rereq u isite c o n d itio n for h u m a n c o g n itiv e ab ilities. In K a n t’s th e o ry a p p e rc e p tio n is u n d e rsto o d in tw o w ay s: on th e one h an d , a p p e rc e p tio n is a m e n ta l fu n ctio n , sim ila r to th a t d e sc rib e d b y th e p h ilo so p h ic a l an d p sy c h o lo g ical assu m p tio n s m e n tio n e d ab o v e - d e fin e d as e m p iric a l ap p e rc e p tio n (K ant 1781:A 107) “th e c o n sc io u sn e ss o f o u rse lv e s w ith re g a rd to the state in w h ic h w e fin d o u rselv es. ” O n th e o th er hand, th ere is the pure, orig in al, tra n sc e n d e n tal (unity of) a p p ercep tio n , w h ic h (K ant 1781:A 107) “is th e u n ity o f c o n sc io u sn e ss p re c e d in g all th e d ata o f e v id e n c e .” It m a n ife sts its e lf in (K ant 1781:A 106) “a sy n th e sis o f the v a rie ty o f all e v id en t d a ta ,” an d it (K ant 1781:B 132) “m u st b e ab le to a c c o m p a n y a ll m y re p re se n ta tio n s. ”
T h e ab o v e -m e n tio n e d th in k e rs d ev e lo p e d th e d e fin itio n o f ap p e rc e p tio n a s a p h ilo so p h ic a l n o tio n . W ilh e lm W u n d t (1 8 3 2 -1 9 2 0 )4
2 All English quotations from Leibniz (1714), Wolff (1732, 1734) and Kant (1781) are after Paź (2000).
3 An interesting overview of Wolff’s idea of apperception is presented by Banaszkiewicz (2002).
4 Most details about Wundt’s philosophy are taken from Paź (2000) and Watson (1995).
a p p lie d th is co n c e p t in h is o w n re se a rc h w ork, e x p a n d in g its d e fin itio n to m a tc h h is ex p e rim e n ta l p sy c h o lo g ic a l stu d ie s o f h u m an th o u g h t and em o tio n s. W u n d t re g a rd e d a p p e rc e p tio n as an o p e ra tio n a l m e ch an ism th a t g o v e rn s h u m a n co g n itio n . H e assu m e d th a t th e c a p a c ity o f the h u m a n m in d to cre ate n e w id eas d e p e n d s on tw o m e n ta l p ro c e sse s: asso c ia tio n s - w h ic h are fo rm ed in a p assiv e, in v o lu n ta ry w ay, an d ap p e rc e p tio n s - w h ic h in v o lv e atte n tiv e effo rt a n d ra tio n a l activity. T h e re la tio n b e tw e e n th e tw o is th a t w h ile a sso c ia tio n s p ro v id e the b u lk o f d a ta to th e m ind, a p p e rc e p tio n s m a y be u se d to fo cu s h u m an atte n tio n on o ne o r m o re asp e c ts o f th e p erc e iv e d reality.
T h is h isto ric a l sk e tc h c o n c e rn in g th e n o tio n o f a p p e rc e p tio n leads u s to th e co n c lu sio n th a t fro m th e p h ilo so p h ic a l p o in t o f v ie w ap p e rc e p tio n m a y be d e fin e d as th e g e n e ra l a b ility o f th e h u m an m in d to p ro c e ss p e rc e iv e d re ality . A s su ch , a p p e rc e p tio n is a p rereq u isite c o n d itio n fo r c o g n itiv e p ro c e sse s (K ant, w o lf f ) , an d a llo w s sy ste m a tiz a tio n o f th e se p ro ce sses (L eibniz, W o lff, K ant, W u n d t). R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) th e o ry o f a p p e rc e p tio n
In h is stu d ies, W u n d t also to u c h e d u p o n the re la tio n b e tw e e n p e rc e p tio n a n d w o rd fo rm a tio n .5 F o r W u n d t (1900) a p p e rc e p tio n m a n ife sts its e lf in th e p ro cess o f cre a tin g n o m in a l le x em es in th a t each lex em e c o n ta in s a sin g le se m a n tic a lly an d fo rm a lly d o m in a n t elem ent. T h e o th e r ele m e n ts in th e co m p le x fo rm are n eg le c te d in te rm s o f th eir ap p e rc e p tiv e salien cy . R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) id ea o f lin g u istic a p p e rc e p tio n is, on th e o ne h and, b ase d on W u n d t’s a p p e rcep tiv e m ech an ism . O n th e other, R o z w a d o w s k i’s p ro p o sa ls dep art c o n sid e ra b ly fro m th o se o f W u n d t.
F irst o f all, R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) re fu te s the id ea o f ‘m o n o lith ic ’ lin g u istic ex p ressio n s, w h ere the o p e ra tio n o f a p p e rc e p tio n is in ferred fro m th e p re se n c e o f a sin g le d o m in a tin g e lem en t in th e co m p lex 5 It must be stated here that both Wundt (1900) and Rozwadowski (1904) mostly concentrated on nominal word formation. This is because both scholars were mostly interested in the relation between psychologically understood concept formation and its linguistic manifestation in the formation of names of objects. Rozwadowski’s (1904) discussion on syntactic constructs is limited to nominal phrases.
lexical structure. Instead, he proposes that each complex linguistic
unit (complex word or phrase) be seen as structurally dualistic, with
one central and the other ‘auxiliary’ component. Rozwadowski
(1960:24) points out that:
[l]anguage facts make it clear to us that in each object name we can find not only the dominating element, but also something else. The dominating feature is realized by the base of a complex word, but there is yet this other part in it. [...] If an object name contains two clearly definable elements, even though they make one lexical unit, this formal relation between the two elements must be mirrored by an analogical psychological relation.
Later on one can read that (ibid.: 28):
Each object name is a unitary lexical formation which comprises two components. The first component is relatively dominating. The second part is also apperceived but with delay. [...] Creation of each complex object name mirrors both the analytical rule of dual structure and the synthetic rule of unity. The first manifests itself in the dual structural organization of the object name, the latter in its unitary lexical character.
According to Rozwadowski, apperception manifests itself exactly in
this dual structure, since it reflects a two-stage cognitive process
(complex apperception): one stage consists in defining the newly
perceived object in relation to other objects known to us, while the
other in determining the points distinguishing what we see for the first
time and what we already know. Rozwadowski (1960:39) observes
that “[a]long with identification, we simultaneously and inseparably
make distinctions.” Thus, apperception is imprinted in each complex
utterance in that such an utterance must necessarily contain two
functional and formal components. Rozwadowski’s names for these
components are: człon utożsamiający (the identifying element,
henceforth in my text the Identifier or ID) and człon rozróżniający
(the distinguishing element, henceforth in my text the Diversifier or
DV). The Identifier corresponds to (ibid.) “those elements of a new
perception which are apperceived as identical with some of the
already acquired elements (earlier perceptions) ”, while the Diversifier
represents “those elements, which are not memorized perceptions or
are different from what is remembered[...].”
A p a rt fro m th e d u al re la tio n b e tw e e n th e Id en tifie r an d the D iv ersifier, R o z w a d o w sk i (1960:40) in tro d u c e s th e co n c e p t o f the d o m in a tio n o f one c o m p o n en t o v er th e other: “It is n e c e ssa ry to ask w h ic h o f th e ele m e n ts d o m in a te s in th e cre a tio n p ro cess? [...] It is ev id e n tly th e id e n tify in g elem en t. O th e rw ise the re la tio n d e scrib ed a b o v e co u ld n o t tak e p lace at a ll.” T h u s, ac c o rd in g to R o zw ad o w sk i, th e ID is a lw a y s th e d o m in a tin g e lem en t in the se n se th a t its a p p e rc e p tio n is stro n g e r th a n th a t o f the D V .
A p p e rc e p tio n a g a in st data
T o b e tte r illu strate R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) c o n c e p tio n o f a p p e rc e p tio n in w o rd fo rm atio n , I p re se n t an d d iscu ss an E n g lish (F igure 1) a n d a P o lish (F igure 2) e x a m p le o f c o m p o u n d fo rm atio n .
Figure 2. Examples of Polish nominal compounding T h u s to c r e a te a c o m p o u n d lik e d r in k in g w a te r w e f irs t n e e d to d is c e r n th e s im ila r itie s th a t th e o b je c t w e w a n t to n a m e b e a r s to o th e r o b je c ts w e k n o w - w e c la s s if y it a s a k in d o f w a te r b y m e a n s o f th e Id e n tifie r w a te r
.
B u t w e a ls o n e e d to p r e s e rv e th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th e o b je c t k n o w n s o far, a n d th e n e w o n e . H e n c e , w e a d d th e D iv e r s if ie r d r in k in g,
to k e e p th e n e w c o n c e p t d is tin c t fro m s u c h r e la te d ite m s a s r u n n i n g w a te r , h e a l i n g w a te r , s ti ll w a te r , etc. In te r m s o f d o m in a tio n , b o th Id e n tifie rs , E n g lis h w a te r a n d P o lis h w o d a ‘w a t e r ’, a r e to b e r e g a r d e d a s a p p e r c e iv e d in a m o r e s a lie n t w a y th a n th e ir D iv e r s if ie rs .T h e f a c t th a t c a n n o t e s c a p e th e a tte n tio n o f th e r e a d e r is th a t th e o r d e r in g o f e le m e n ts in E n g lis h a n d P o lis h d iffe rs . A lth o u g h th is o b s e rv a tio n s e e m s s im p le a t firs t s ig h t, it h a s s e rio u s c o n s e q u e n c e s fo r th e w h o le th e o r y o f a p p e r c e p tio n . H o w e v e r , f o r th e s a k e o f c la r ity I w ill p o s tp o n e d e a lin g w ith th is p r o b le m u n til th e la tte r p a r t o f th e p a p e r. H e re I c o n f in e m y s e lf to th e s ta te m e n t th a t a lth o u g h f u n c tio n a lly d r in k in g w a te r a n d w o d a p i t n a ‘d r in k in g w a t e r ’ s e e m id e n tic a l, th e y d if f e r c o n s id e r a b ly in te r m s o f s tru c tu re . W h ile th e E n g lis h e x p r e s s io n is u n q u e s tio n a b ly c la s s if ie d a m o n g c o m p o u n d le x e m e s , th e P o lis h c o u n te r p a r t is r a th e r d e fin e d a s “w o r d g r o u p ”
(g ru p a w y ra z o w a ).6 T h e se P o lish fo rm a tio n s d isp la y th e fo llo w in g d istin c tiv e features:
a. w o rd g ro u p s in P o lish u n d erg o re g u la r in flectio n ,
b. a t th e sa m e tim e, th e ir sy n ta c tic b e h a v io u r d iffe rs from th a t o f re g u la r n o u n p hrases,
c. w o rd o rd e r in w o rd g ro u p s is in m o st c a se s re v e rse d in c o m p a riso n w ith re g u la r n o u n p hrases.
P o lish ex p re ssio n s lik e w oda p itn a ‘d rin k in g w a te r ’, or p a n m ło d y ‘g ro o m ’ are in fle cte d in a re g u la r fash io n , a s sh o w n below :
Table 1. Singular and plural paradigm for the expressions woda pitna ‘drinking water’ and pan m łody ‘groom’
Nom. Sg. woda pitna pan młody
Gen. wody pitnej pana młodego
Dat. wodzie pitnej panu młodemu
Acc. wodę pitną pana młodego
Instr. wodą pitną panem młodym
Loc. wodzie pitnej panu młodym
Voc. wodo pitna panie młody
Nom. Pl. wody pitne panowie młodzi
Gen. wód pitnych panów młodych
Dat. wodom pitnym panom młodym
Acc. wody pitne panów młodych
Instr. wodami pitnymi panami młodymi
Loc. wodach pitnych panach młodych
Voc. wody pitne panowie młodzi
In b o th c a s e s o n e c a n o b s e rv e th e r e g u la r ity o f in f le c tio n a l p r o c e s s e s o p e r a tin g o n th e e x e m p la ry P o lis h w o r d g ro u p s : b o th w o d a p itn a ‘d r in k in g w a t e r ’ a n d p a n m ł o d y ‘g r o o m ’ illu s tr a te r e g u la r g r a m m a tic a l a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n a d je c tiv e s a n d n o u n s in P o lis h . T h e m a in
6 In reference to these forms Kurzowa (1966), Grzegorczykowa, et al. (1998), Skarżyński (1999) and Nagórko (1998) use the term zestawienia. It is used in contrast to the term złożenia or kompozita, which are used in reference to regular compounding.
d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e m is th e gender:
woda pitna
ta k e s a fem in in e, an dpan m łody
a m a sc u lin e d eclen sio n .A t th e sam e tim e, o ne can e a sily o b serv e c e rta in irreg u la ritie s in th e sy n ta c tic b e h a v io u r o f su c h w o rd g ro u p s. C o n sid e r th e ex am p le s in T a b le 2 below .
Table 2. Syntactic versus lexical reading of certain Polish nominal groups SYNTACTIC EXPRESSION LEXICAL EXPRESSION
młoda panna
‘young lady’
bardzo młoda panna
‘very young lady’
panna młoda ‘bride’ *panna bardzo młoda młody pan ‘young man’
niezbyt młody pan
‘hardly a young man’
pan młody
‘groom’
*pan niezbyt młody
biały orzeł
‘white eagle’
lśniąco biały orzeł
‘crispy white eagle’
orzeł biały ‘white eagle’ (symbol) *orzełlśniąco biały logiczna koncepcja ‘sensible conception’ bardzo logiczna koncepcja ‘very sensible conception’ koncepcja logiczna ‘a conception in logic’ *koncepcja bardzo logiczna wolny rzut ‘slow throw’
bardzo wolny rzut
‘very slow throw’
rzut wolny
‘foul’ (in football)
*rzut bardzo wolny
T h e e x a m p le s in T ab le 2 d em o n strate th a t P o lish n o m in a l w o rd g ro u p s b e h a v e d iffe re n tly th a n re g u la r c o m p o sitio n a l n o u n p h ra se s w ith re g a rd to th e ir p rem o d ific atio n . W h ile sy n ta c tic p h rases su ch a s
młody
pan
‘a y o u n g m a n ’ o rbiały orzeł
‘w h ite e a g le ’ e a sily ac c e p tp re m o d ify in g a d v e rb s
bardzo
‘v e r y ’ orLśniąco
‘c ris p y ’, w o rd g ro u p s lik epan m łody
‘g ro o m ’ ororzeł biały
‘w h ite eag le (as a h isto ric a l sy m b o l o f th e P o lish s ta te h o o d )’ refu se to ac c e p t a n y fo rm o f m o d ific a tio n . H ence, fo rm s su c h as*pan bardzo m łody
o r*orzeł
lśniąco biały
a re n o t p o ssib le in P o lish .77 The combinations pan bardzo miody and orzeł lśniąco biały are possible in Polish, but only in a rather poetic postposition of compositional elements. Thus, the meaning
T h e re are a lso le x ic a liz e d w o rd g ro u p s in P o lish w h ic h o n ly o ccu r in th e A d j.+ N c o m b in atio n s, h a v in g no c o m p o sitio n a l N + A dj. co u n terp a rts. A h a n d fu l o f su c h fo rm s is p ro v id e d in T a b le 3.
Table 3. Examples of nominal groups with fixed combination of components
N+Adj. Adj.+N pociąg osobowy ‘ordinary train’ *osobowy pociąg czynnik ludzki ‘human factor’ *ludzki czynnik dziura budżetowa
‘budget deficit (hole) ’
*budżetowa dziura tapeta ścienna ‘wall paper’ *ścienna tapeta pokój dzienny ‘living room’ * dzienny pokój
T h e re a re also cases o f p h ra se lex ic a liz a tio n in P o lish w h ic h re v e a l no ch a n g e s in w o rd order. A lth o u g h I c a n n o t re fe r to a n y d e ta ile d stu d y o f the issue, I am o f th e o p in io n th a t th e n u m b e r o f su ch fo rm a tio n s is ra th e r lim ite d w h e n c o m p a re d w ith th e ty p e s in T a b le s 2 a n d 3. T h ese fo rm s a re n o t o f u tm o st im p o rt to o u r a rg u m e n t in th is p ap er, a n d so I co n fin e m y s e lf to p ro v id in g a h a n d fu l o f re le v a n t e x am p les in T ab le 4. Table 4. Exceptions to the N+Adj. combination pattern
stara panna ‘spinster’ *panna stara czarna jagoda ‘blackberry’ *jagoda czarna czarna owca ‘black sheep’ *owca czarna niebieski ptak ‘lazybone’ *ptak niebieski
of pan bardzo młody is in this case identical with bardzo młody pan ‘very young man’, and bears no relation to the meaning of pan młody ‘groom’.
suchy beton8 *beton suchy
‘dry concrete’
C ru c ia l to o u r d isc u ssio n are th o se fo rm s w h ic h in v o lv e w o rd o rd er chan g e. T h e re a so n fo r m y d isc u ssin g th ese ex a m p le s is th at R o z w a d o w k i’s (1904) th e o ry o f a p p e rc e p tio n in w o rd fo rm a tio n m ay sh e d m o re lig h t on th is ch an g e, p ro v id in g a fu n c tio n a l ex p la n a tio n o f th is lin g u istic fact.
W h e n d isc u ssin g th e re la tio n b e tw e e n p h ra se s a n d co m p o u n d s, R o z w a d o w sk i (1960:30) o b se rv e s the d ia c h ro n ic lin g u istic re g u la rity b y v irtu e o f w h ic h p h ra se s b e c o m e c o m p o u n d s. T h is d ia c h ro n ic sh ift is a c c o m p a n ied w ith w o rd o rd er ch an g es sim ila r to th o se p re se n te d for th e P o lish d ata in T a b le 3. T h is a rg u m e n t is illu stra te d b y the o b se rv a tio n th a t a p h rase like w a te r fo r d r in k in g (p u rp o se s) is lik e ly to giv e rise to the c o m p o u n d d r in k in g w ater.9 A w a re th is sta te o f affairs, R o z w a d o w sk i (ibid.) co n c lu d e s th a t “ [i]n p h rase s [...] th e m o d ifie d e lem en t fo llo w s the m o d ifiers, w h ile in a c o m p o u n d [...] th e o rd er is re v e rs e d .” T h is stru c tu ra l re o rd e rin g is, ac c o rd in g to R o z w a d o w sk i (ibid.), cau sed b y th e ch an g e in th e w a y w e a p p e rc e iv e th e n e w form : “ [s]hifting th e fo rm e r su b o rd in a te e lem en t to th e d o m in a tin g fu n ctio n m u st be th e co re o f c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n .”
T a k in g into ac c o u n t R o z w a d o w s k i’s v iew s, I su g g e st th a t the m a n n e r in w h ic h P o lish p h ra se s ch a n g e into lex ic a liz e d w o rd g ro u p s b e c o n sid e re d fu n c tio n a lly ta n ta m o u n t to ro o t c o m p o u n d in g in la n g u a g e s like E n g lish . D e sp ite the sy n ta c tic d e p e n d e n c ies th e y rev e al, th e ir fu n c tio n is p re d o m in a n tly lexical. In th e p ro c e ss o f th eir cre a tio n th ere ta k e s p lace lin ear re o rd erin g , w h ic h m a y b e in te rp re te d a s a m a n ife sta tio n o f ch a n g e s in a p p ercep tio n . T h is is h o w R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) th e o ry m a y b e c o m e in stru m e n ta l fo r o u r b etter
8 The term suchy beton ‘dry concrete’ refers to a type of concrete, and not directly to the attribute of being dry.
9 Rozwadowki’s (1904, 1960) examples are German expressions Wasser zum Trinken and Trinkwasser.
u n d e rsta n d in g a n d cla ssific a tio n o f a larg e set o f P o lish lex ic a liz e d n o m in a l w o rd gro u p s.
A n o th e r co m p o u n d c a te g o ry th a t a ttra c ts a lo t atte n tio n o f lin g u ists is th a t o f sy n th e tic co m p o u n d s. T h e re a so n fo r th is in c re a se d interest is q u ite obv io u s: if it is tru e th a t sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d s sh o w th e ab ility o f a g ra m m a tic a l p ro cess to p ro je c t sy n ta c tic a lly re le v a n t in fo rm a tio n on to th e lex ical stru ctu res, su ch fo rm a tio n s are o f in terest n o t o n ly to m o rp h o lo g ists, b u t also to sy n ta c tic ia n s an d lan g u a g e th e o rists in g en eral. A lth o u g h the term sy n th e tic co m p o u n d in g h as b e e n p ro p o sed b y th e S tru c tu ra lists,10 th e d eb ate o v er th e p ro ce ss b ecam e to p ic a l in th e G e n era tiv e sch o o l. F o r G e n e ra tiv e lin g u ists, th e m a in p ro b lem w ith the assu m p tio n th a t lex ical stru c tu re s are a b le to m irro r sy n ta c tic stru c tu re s is w h a t g ra m m a tic a l to o l can b e u se d fo r su c h an op eratio n . S o m e sc h o la rs p ro p o se d a sp e c ific ty p e o f tra n sfo rm a tio n to h an d le th e p ro b lem (R oeper, S ie g e l 1978). O th ers re je c te d the tra n sfo rm a tio n a l so lu tio n (e.g. S e lk irk 1982), as an o p en v io la tio n o f th e h y p o th e sis th a t p ro c e sse s o f w o rd fo rm a tio n a n d sy n ta x are se p a ra te from o ne a n o th e r (L ex icalist H y p o th e sis). Y e t an o th e r ap p ro a c h m e a n t to in co rp o rate th e w h o le o f w o rd a n d co m p o u n d fo rm a tio n w ith in sy n tax (e.g. L ie b e r 1992), in w h ic h case the tra n sfo rm a tio n a l so lu tio n se e m e d in place. W ith o u t g o in g into a d e b a te w ith th e a u th o rs m e n tio n e d a b o v e ,11 I ad o p t a p e rsp ectiv e on sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n w h ic h a c k n o w le d g e s th e re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e sy n ta c tic stru c tu re s an d sy n th e tic co m p o u n d s, b u t re jects th e p o stu late o f a fo rm a l d e riv a tio n a l re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e tw o. In stead , I p ro p o se se e in g sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n a s a le x ical p ro c e ss w h ic h is fo rm a lly c o m p le te ly in d e p e n d e n t o f a n y d irect sy n ta c tic in flu e n c e s (derivation), a n d w h o se m a jo r task c o n sists in p ro je c tin g th e se m a n tic co n te n ts o f c e rtain p h ra se s on to the lex ical p lane. O n e o f th e m ain c o n d itio n s u n d e r w h ic h p h ra se s co u ld serv e as m a tric e s fo r sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n is th a t in te rm s o f th eir
10 See e.g. Marchand (1969).
11 A more detailed discussion of these issues is available in e.g. Spencer (1991), Ruszkiewicz (1997) or Klimkowski (2003).
stru c tu ra l a n d se m a n tic m a k e-u p th e y m u st re p re se n t “a fu n ctio n al o v e rla p ”. T h e n o tio n o f fu n c tio n a l o v erlap su g g e sts th a t the ty p ic al fu n c tio n o f a p h rase (co m p o sitio n a l co m b in a tio n o f le x ical m e a n in g s into a pro p o sitio n ) m a y u n d e r certain c irc u m sta n c es ch an g e in to a le x ic a l fu n c tio n (e.g. b ro a d ly u n d e rsto o d o b ject n a m in g fo r co m p o u n d n o u n s). L et m e illu strate th is p o in t w ith th e E n g lish p h ra se s to d rive
tru c k s an d o ne w h o d riv e s tru c k s
.
A lth o u g h th ese p h rase s are c o m p le te ly re g u la r sy n ta c tic c o n stru c ts in E n g lish , o ne co u ld ask if in so m e c o n te x ts o f la n g u ag e u se th e ir sem a n tic s m a y fall c lo se r to the le x ic a l ra th e r th a n p u re ly sy n ta c tic read in g . T h is is p a rtic u la rly n o tic e a b le in th e la tte r phrase, w h ich , d esp ite its u n d e n ia b ly p h rasal ch arac ter, m a y be u n d e rsto o d in a p u re ly lex ic a l w ay: tru c k d riv e r.O n e also n e e d s to o b se rv e a p e c u lia r fe atu re o f th e n o m in a l o b jec t o f th e v erb d rive, ap p e a rin g in b o th ex am p les: th e re se e m s no stru c tu ra l re a so n fo r h a v in g th e n o u n tru c k in p lu ral th ere, a n d in fact, th e p h ra se o n e w ho d riv e s tru c k s d o es n o t u s u a lly m ean o n e w ho
d riv e s m a n y tru c k s. I in te rp re t th e p lu ra l o f tru c k s as a sp e c ific m ark er
o f lex ic a liz a tio n o f th e n o u n tru ck, w h e n the n o u n is put to g e th e r w ith th e v e rb d riv e. T h is lex ic a liz a tio n is p erh a p s n e c e ssa ry to d istin g u ish su c h e x p re ssio n s like h e d riv e s a b u s fro m h e d riv e s b u se s, w h e re the la tte r se e m s d en o te a n ac tio n p erfo rm e d as a jo b (d riving a b u s or a tru c k b y trad e), ra th e r th a n b e in g a c o n te x tu a lly -free sta te m e n t o f s o m e o n e ’s d riv in g a bus. I f th e a b o v e is true, th e p h ra se to d rive
tru c k s m a y b e c la ssifie d w ith in th e d o m a in o f “fu n c tio n a l o v e rla p ”, as
it is p o ssib le to re a d it in a lex ical, ra th e r th an sy n ta c tic a lly c o m p o sitio n a l m anner.
T h e a p p ro a c h to sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n I p ro p o se o ffers at le ast th ree sig n ific a n t a d v an tag es. F irstly , it calls fo r no sy n tac tic s o lu tio n to th e p ro b le m o f sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n (e.g. the p ro b le m a tic tra n sfo rm a tio n ). S e c o n d ly , u n d e r m y fu n c tio n a l ap p ro a c h th e re is no lo n g e r a n e e d to d e te rm in e b e y o n d a d o u b t w h ic h p h rase is p re c ise ly th e m a trix p h rase o f the re la te d sy n th e tic co m p o u n d . A s illu stra te d b y th e case o f tru c k -d riv e r
,
it is lik ely th a t o ne sy n th etic c o m p o u n d m a y b e se m a n tic a lly re la te d to m o re th a n on e ex istin g sy n ta c tic ph rase. T h ird ly , w h e n I a n a ly z e th e so lu tio n s to th e p ro b lemo f sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d in g d e v e lo p e d in th e G e n erativ e litera tu re, I n o tic e th a t m o st o f th em se e k a n sw e rs on th e fo rm a l p lan e ex clu siv ely . T h e y c o m p le te ly ig n o re th e p o ssib ility th a t th e p ro c e ss is m o tiv a te d se m a n tic a lly , an d o n ly th e n it a d o p ts so m e fo rm a l m a n ife sta tio n . M y v ie w o f sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d in g re v e rse s th is p ersp ectiv e. M y claim is th a t sy n th e tic co m p o u n d s are re la te d to sy n ta c tic p h ra se s b u t the ties a re se m a n tic in natu re, as is th e m ain m o tiv a tio n fo r th e c re a tio n o f sy n th e tic c o m p o u n d s.12
I a m o f th e o p in io n th a t R o z w a d o w s k i’s o b se rv a tio n s co n c e rn in g c o m p o u n d fo rm a tio n an d its re la tio n to a p p e rc e p tio n m a y g iv e su p p o rt to th e a p p ro a c h I h av e p re se n te d in b r ie f above. N o tic e th a t the fo rm a tio n o f sy n th e tic co m p o u n d s a lso trig g e rs lin e a r re o rd e rin g o f e le m e n ts as illu stra te d below :
to d rive tru c k s > tru c k -d riv er
ID D V D V ID
p isać b a jk i > b a jk o p isa rz
ID D V D V ID
‘w rite c h ild re n ’s s to r ie s ’ > ‘w rite r o f c h ild re n ’s s to rie s ’
A s th e e x a m p le s sh o w , it is p o ssib le to u se th e ID an d D V p a ram eters to e x p lain w h a t h a p p e n s in te rm s o f a p p e rc e p tio n w h e n a p h rase tu rn s into a co m p o u n d . If th is is a p o ssib le ex tra p o la tio n o f R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) th e o ry o f lin g u istic a p p ercep tio n , it g iv es su p p o rt to m y claim th a t th e p ro c e ss o f cre a tin g sy n th e tic co m p o u n d s in E n g lish an d P o lish is fu n c tio n a lly ra th e r th a n fo rm a lly m o tiv ated . O n e w a y in w h ic h the fu n c tio n a l n e e d fo r a n e w le x ic a l item m a n ife sts its e lf is th e w o rd o rd e r ch an g e from th a t o f a p h rase to th a t o f a re su lta n t sy n th e tic co m p o u n d . A m o n g p o te n tia l re a so n s fo r th e w o rd o rd er ch an g e, w e m a y cite the ch an g e in a p p e rc e p tio n fro m th a t o f a p h rase to th a t o f a le x ic a l item , a s su g g e ste d b y R o z w a d o w sk i (1960:30).
12 This approach to synthetic compounding is presented in a more detailed way in Klimkowski (2003).
P ro b lem s w ith th e th e o ry o f a p p e rc e p tio n
A lth o u g h th e p ro p o sa ls p re se n te d so far in th is c h ap ter are o n ly p re lim in a ry fo rm u latio n s, I fin d th em q u ite p ro m isin g fo r fu rth er re se a rc h in th e o ry a n d data. A t th e sam e tim e, I o w e the re a d e r so m e re m a rk s co n c e rn in g th e p ro b lem s I h av e en c o u n te re d on m y w ay. A s a m a tte r o f fact, th e e x tra p o la tio n o f R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) th e o ry o f ap p e rc e p tio n w h ic h I p ro p o se fo rces m e to m o d ify h is a ssu m p tio n s in so m e c ru c ia l aspects.
F irstly , I a d m it to h a v in g ig n o re d - fo r the sak e o f th e cla rity o f m y p re se n ta tio n - a n im p o rta n t assu m p tio n w h ic h R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) in siste d u p o n w h e n ta lk in g a b o u t w o rd o rd er chan g e. R o z w a d o w s k i’s id e a o f ap p e rc e p tio n is s tric tly linear: th e first e lem en t o f a lin g u istic u tte ra n c e is a p p e rc e iv ed in th e stro n g e st w ay. T hus, to k eep w ith R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) I w o u ld h av e to sa y th a t in th e case o f su ch c o m p o u n d s as d r in k in g water, re la te d to th e p h rase w a te r fo r drinking, th e d istrib u tio n o f th e ID /D V p a ra m e te rs is a s follow s:
w a te r fo r d rin k in g > d rin k in g -w ater
ID D V ID D V
T h e re are a n u m b e r o f re a so n s th a t p re v e n te d m e from a d o p tin g this stric t lin e a r c o n c e p tio n o f a p p ercep tio n . F irstly , the re a d e r is a sk ed to rec a ll the first e x a m p le s u sed to illu strate th e g e n eral id e a o f h o w ap p e rc e p tio n w o rk s. T h e se w e re th e E n g lish c o m p o u n d d rin k in g
w a te r an d th e P o lish lex ic a liz e d w o rd g ro u p w oda p itn a ‘d rin k in g
w a te r ’. W h ile th e o p e ra tio n a l m o d e l p ro p o se d b y R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) se e m s c o m p le te ly a d e q u a te fo r the P o lish case (we first c la ssify a g iv e n su b sta n c e a s w ater, th e n e stab lish its d istin ctiv e fea tu re - b e in g d rin k in g w a ter), it lead s to a n u n e x p e c te d re v e rsa l o f ro le s in th e E n g lish ex am p le - th e d istrib u tio n o f th e ID /D V p a ra m e te rs sh o u ld , in m y o p in io n , be id e n tic a l fo r b o th th e E n g lish an d th e P o lish form s. S ec o n d ly , R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) so lu tio n as it sta n d s w ill m o st p ro b a b ly ru n into d iffic u ltie s w h e n a n a ly z in g le ft h a n d e d co m p o u n d s, lik e th e o n e s in R o m a n c e la n g u a g e s (e.g the
Ita lia n a sc iu g a -c a p e lli ‘h a ir-d ry e r’, o r te rg a -c rista lli ‘ [w indscreen] w ip e r ’). T h erefo re, I ch o o se to re je c t th e v ie w p o in t d e v e lo p e d b y R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) th a t lin g u istic a p p e rc e p tio n is alw a y s m a x im al at the b e g in n in g o f th e lin g u istic string, an d d w in d le s a s th e strin g is ex ten d ed . In th is w a y I am a b le sav e th e g e n e ra l id e a o f the dual stru c tu ra l o rg a n iz a tio n o f a larg er set o f co m p le x lin g u istic u tte ra n c e s an d the in te rp la y o f the ID /D V p a ra m e te rs in v o lv ed .
T h e o th er p ro b lem I w o u ld lik e to d isc u ss in th is se c tio n is th at ap p e rc e p tio n a n d th e re la te d co n c e p ts o f Id e n tific a tio n and D iv e rsific a tio n se em ra th e r re la tiv e w h e n a p p lie d to so m e u tte ra n c e s m e n tio n e d ab o v e. O n th e o ne h an d , R o z w a d o w sk i h im s e lf w a s aw are o f the fact th a t a p p e rc e p tio n is a re la tiv e feature. H e a d m itted , for in stan ce, th a t th e c o n trast b e tw e e n th e a p p e rc e p tio n o f th e tw o ele m e n ts o f a co m p le x a ffix e d w o rd is stro n g e r th a n th a t b e tw e e n the tw o co m p o u n d c o m p o n e n ts (R o zw ad o w sk i 1960:28):
Although in a structurally transparent compound form both elements are apperceived in sequential order, they are apperceived with the same clarity. [...] Thus, the domination of the first element over the other is only relative [...]. In a suffixed form, the other element [ . ] has lost its clarity of apperception to a large extent. It is not apperceived in its primary meaning, but only as an exponent of a category or relation.”
B u t the re la tiv ity o f h o w a p p e rc e p tio n w o rk s m a y b e ev en g re a te r th an R o z w a d o w sk i (1904) assu m ed . L e t m e re c a ll the E n g lish sy n th etic c o m p o u n d tru ck-d river. I f I a n a ly ze th is form in re la tio n to th e phrase to w h ic h it co rresp o n d s, it se e m s o b v io u s th a t th e d istrib u tio n o f ID /D V p a ra m e te rs in it is D V -ID . T h is is o n ce a g ain p rese n ted g ra p h ic a lly b e lo w in F ig u re 3.
Figure 3. The distribution of ID/DV parameters: the DV-ID interpretation
A t th e s a m e tim e , n o th in g s e e m s to p r e v e n t a n a n a ly s is w h e r e th e d is tr ib u tio n o f ID /D V p a r a m e te r s w o u ld b e ID -D V , a s illu s tr a te d in F ig u r e 4.
Figure 4. The distribution of ID/DV parameters: the ID-DV interpretation
T h is is a n in tr ig u in g f e a tu re o f E n g lis h s y n th e tic c o m p o u n d in g , a n d th e th e o r y o f lin g u is tic a p p e r c e p tio n s h o u ld p r o b a b ly b e m o d if ie d so
th a t it can h a n d le su ch cases. It is also w o rth o b se rv in g th a t th e above lin g u istic fa cts fu rth e r d isp ro v e th e a ssu m p tio n a b o u t th e lin e a rity o f a p p ercep tio n .
C o n c lu sio n s
M y stu d ie s th u s fa r o f R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) th e o ry o f lin g u istic a p p e rc e p tio n a s a fu n c tio n a l e x p la n a tio n o f ic o n ic ity in co m p o u n d le x e m e s allo w m e to se t up th e fo llo w in g a ssu m p tio n s in o rd e r to su m up th e m o st sig n ific a n t a d v a n ta g e s th a t th is th e o ry offers:
a. e ach lin g u istic stru c tu re is d u a l in n ature; e ach sen ten ce, phrase or co m p le x lex em e is alw a y s re d u c ib le to (sets of) tw o p aram eters: the Id en tifie r a n d th e D iv ersifier.
b. th e d u al stru c tu ra l o rg a n iz a tio n m irro rs the d u al c o g n itiv e act o f ap p ercep tio n .
c. th e d u a lity o f the co g n itiv e act o f a p p e rc e p tio n ex p la in s (at le a st partly) the ico n ic c h a ra c ter o f utteran c es.
O th e r so lu tio n s an d a rg u m e n ts p re se n te d in th is p a p e r n e e d fu rth er e la b o ratio n . In so m e cases R o z w a d o w s k i’s (1904) p ro p o sa ls are p ro b le m a tic an d d ifficu lt to u p h o ld , or n e e d re c o n sid e ra tio n . It m a y a lso b e th e c ase th a t m y in te rp re ta tio n o f th ese p ro p o sa ls w ill chan g e o v er tim e. O n th e w h o le, se e n fro m th e p e rsp ec tiv e o f stu d ie s on ic o n ic ity in lan g u ag e, th e d ire c tio n in w h ic h R o z w a d o w sk i o rien ted h is re se a rc h a c e n tu ry ago se e m s p ro m isin g an d tem p tin g .
References
Banaszkiewicz A. (2002): “Principium contradictionis i Principium rationis
sufficientis w filozofii Christiana Wolffa.” In: Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny HYBRIS. Available at: http://www.filozof.uni.lodz.pl /hybris/Artykuly/Banaszkiewicz2.htm (last retrieved June 2008).
Grzegorczykowa R., Laskowski R., Wróbel H. (eds.) (1998): Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. Warszawa: PWN.
Kant I. (1781/1957): Krytyka czystego rozumu (transl. R. Ingarden). Vols 1, 2. Warszawa: PWN.
Klimkowski K. (2003): English Synthetic and Neo-Classical Compound Formation: A
Kurzowa Z. (1966): Złożenia imienne we współczesnym języku polskim Warszawa Kraków: PWN.
Leibniz W. (1714): Principles o f Nature and Grace Based on Reason Available at http://www.earlymodemtexts.com/phil/leibniz.html (last retrieved June 2008). Lieber R. (1992): Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Marchand H. (1969): The Categories and Types o f Present-Day English Word- Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich: C. H. Beck Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Nagórko, E. (1998): Zarys gramatyki polskiej (ze słowotwórstwem). Warszawa: PWN. Paź B. (2000) “Apperception” - An encyclopaedic entry available at:
http://www.kul.lublin.pl/efk/ angielski/hasła/a/apperception.html (last retrieved June 2008).
Roeper T., Siegel M. (1978): “A lexical transformation for verbal compounds.” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199-260.
Rozwadowski J. M. (1904): Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung. Polish translation in: Rozwadowski, J. M. (1960): Wybór pism, vol. 3, 21-95. Warszawa: PWN.
Ruszkiewicz P. (1997): Morphology in Generative Grammar. From Morpheme-Based Grammar to Lexical Morphology and Beyond. A Study o f Selected Models o f Morphological Description. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Selkirk E. (1982): The Syntax o f Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Skarżyński M. (1999): Powstanie i rozwój polskiego słowotwórstwa opisowego. Kraków: Universitas.
Spencer A. (1991): Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Watson Sr. R.I. (1995): The Great Psychologists. New York: J.B. Lippincott Co. Wolf Ch. (1732): Psychologia empirica. In: École J. (et al.) (eds.) (1962): Christian
Wolff. Gesammelte Werke,. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York: Olms.
Wolff Ch. 1734. Psychologia rationalis. In: École J. (et al.) (eds.) (1962): Christian Wolff. Gesammelte Werke,. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York: Olms.
Wundt W. M. (1897): Outlines o f Psychology (English translation by Charles Hubbard Judd, 1897). Available at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Wundt/Outlines/ (last retrieved June 2008).
