Compounds and multi-word expressions in French

Abstract

In this chapter, we focus on (syntactic and morphological) [N1 N2] units in French, but before doing so we will present the different approaches to French complex lexical units and show how true morphological formations (i. e. compounds) can be distinguished from multi-word phrases (Section 2). At the end of this section, the possible benefits of
a constructionist approach to the issue will be highlighted. Section 3 will concentrate on [N1 N2] lexical units, which turn out to be the most problematic case in
French since it is not easy to determine whether this formation belongs to syntax
or morphology. In Section 4, a specific subtype, that of subordinative [N1 N2] units,
will be examined because the latter most severely challenge this morphology-syntax divide. Whereas Fradin (2009) considers these formations to be true compounds, we will show that this only holds for the classifying subtype, and not for the qualifying one. Section 5, finally, will be devoted to a constructionist account of qualifying subordinative [N1 N2] formations.

Full text

Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
Compounds and multi-word expressions
inFrench
1 Introduction
French compounds differ from Germanic compounds in two important aspects.
First, while Germanic compounding complies with the Right-hand Head Rule
(e. g. English postage stamp, German Briefmarke, Dutch postzegel), French, like
other Romance languages (see the chapters by Masini (Italian) and Fernán-
dez-Domínguez (Spanish) in this volume), has a general tendency towards left-
hand headed compounding (e. g. timbre-poste lit. stamp-post). Second, whereas
languages such as Dutch and German establish a clear demarcation between
compounds and lexicalized phrases on the basis of formal criteria (spelling, pros-
ody, linking elements, loss of adjectival inflection in [A N] compounds), French
compounds are not easily distinguishable from syntactic expressions, and true
compounds in Germanic languages often correspond to syntactic multi-word
units in French (e. g. English admission ticket vs. French billet d’entrée (lit. ticket
of entrance)) (Zwanenburg 1992: 222; see also the chapters by Booij (Dutch),
Schlücker (German) and Bauer (English) in this volume).
Contrary to Germanic languages, French has no distinctive word stress, only
phrase stress. Moreover, whereas Germanic compounds may present linking ele-
ments (e. g. Dutch zonnebril, German Sonnenbrille ‘sunglasses’), these do not
occur in French. Furthermore, the spelling of French multi-word units is charac-
terized by many inconsistencies and irregularities: many combinations can be
spelled with or without a hyphen (e. g. bébé(-)éprouvette ‘test-tube baby’ (lit.
baby(-)test tube), porte(-)monnaie ‘coin purse’ (lit. carry(-)money)) or even as one
word (e. g. portefeuille ‘wallet, billfold’ (lit. carrysheet) (Lehmann/Martin-Berthet
2008). Spelling of complex lexical units as one word occurs (e. g. vinaigre ‘vine-
gar’ (lit. wineacid)), but it is far from being the rule (cf. French vin rouge vs. Ger-
man Rotwein), and the French spelling rules are systematically updated by
orthographic reforms.1 Finally, many French compound-like expressions have
1 The orthographic reform of 1990 proposed, for instance, to hyphenate complex numerals
greater or lower than one hundred (e. g. vingt-trois ‘twenty-three’, cent-cinquante-huit ‘one
hundred and fifty-eight’), whereas this was only the case for numerals lower than one hundred
before. The French Academy also suggested writing as one word a list of complex lexical units
Open Access. © 2019 Goethem/Amiot, published by DeGruyter. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-005 Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

128 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
internal inflection markers (e. g. beaux-arts ‘fine arts’), while these are generally
attributed to syntactic formations.
As a result, none of the formal criteria typically applicable in Germanic lan-
guages2 allow for a straightforward differentiation between compounds and (lex-
icalized) multi-word phrases in French, and, accordingly, the term ‘compound’ is
not always used in a consistent way in the literature on French morphology. As a
matter of fact, ‘compounding’ is often used to refer to various types of complex
lexical units regardless of the formation process (morphological or syntactic) (for
an overview, see, for example, Van Goethem 2009 and Villoing 2012).
Van Goethem (2009) illustrates this in the domain of [A N] units. The Dutch
compound zuurkool ‘sauerkraut’ (lit. sour-cabbage) can be distinguished from the
lexicalized phrase zure regen ‘acid rain’ and the non-lexicalized syntactic phrase
zure kers ‘sour cherry’ on the basis of its spelling (written as one word), its stress
pattern (prominent stress on zuur in zúurkool while zúre kérs has double stress
and zure régen has prominent stress on the noun regen, cf. De Caluwe 1990: 17)
and the lack of inflection of the adjectival component zuur in the compound (cf.
Booij 2002: 314). In French, however, these criteria do not apply and Van Goethem
(2009) concludes that, leaving aside some exceptions that do not conform to reg-
ular modern French syntax (e. g. rouge-gorge ‘robin’ (lit. red-throat) and grand-
mère ‘grandmother’, cf. Van Goethem 2009: 246 f.), French [N A] and [A N] units
are phrases and not compounds, whatever their spelling may be: whether written
as two separate words (e. g. premier ministre ‘prime minister’), hyphenated (e. g.
cordon-bleu ‘master chef’ (lit. cord-blue)) or even as one single word (e. g. vinaigre
‘vinegar’ (lit. wineacid)).
In this paper, we will turn the focus to [N1 N2] units, but before doing so we
will present the different approaches to complex lexical units in French and show
previously written as separate words (with or without a hyphen), for example chauvesouris
‘bat’ (lit. bald-mouse), millepattes ‘centipede’ (lit. thousand-legs), passepartout ‘pass key’ (lit.
pass- everywhere), portemonnaie ‘coin purse’ (lit. carry-money) and véloski ‘skibob’ (lit. bike-
ski). (Internet: www.lalanguefrancaise.com/guide-complet-nouvelle-orthographe, last access:
18.4.2017).
2 In this respect, English may be considered to occupy an intermediary position: the traditional
distinctive criterion applicable to English is the stress pattern, compounds being typically char-
acterized by fore-stress (e. g. black bírd vs. bláckbird, cf. Bauer 2004 and this volume), but even
this criterion is not always straightforward and many mismatches can be observed: as shown by
Bauer (2004), a lexicalized phrase such as prímary school has first-element stress (or compound
stress), whereas first-áid, with the two components hyphenated and unified, has second element
stress (or phrase stress). These inconsistencies also apply to [N N] formations: péanut oil, for in-
stance, has fore-stress, whereas olive oil may have end stress (cf. Bauer 1998, this volume; Gieg-
erich 2009a, 2009b).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 129
how true morphological formations (i. e. compounds) can be distinguished from
multi-word phrases (Section2). At the end of this section, the possible benefits of
a constructionist approach to the issue will be highlighted. Section3 will concen-
trate on [N1 N2] lexical units, which turn out to be the most problematic case in
French since it is not easy to determine whether this formation belongs to syntax
or morphology. In Section4, a specific subtype, that of subordinative [N1 N2] units,
will be examined because the latter most severely challenge this morphology-syn-
tax divide. Whereas Fradin (2009) considers these formations to be true com-
pounds, we will show that this only holds for the classifying subtype, and not for
the qualifying one. Section5, finally, will be devoted to a constructionist account
of qualifying subordinative [N1 N2] formations, followed by the conclusion in
Section6.
2 Complex lexical units in French: four approaches
The notion of compounding generally has a more extensive scope in French mor-
phology than in the literature on Germanic languages. Van Goethem (2009) identi-
fies three different approaches. The common view is ‘non-restrictive’ in the sense
that it includes all kinds of complex lexical units, regardless of whether they are
formed in morphology or syntax (2.1). According to the ‘scalar’ approach (2.2), com-
pounds are considered the endpoint of a scale of ‘lexicalization’ (used here to refer
to the process of becoming a lexical item). The ‘restrictive’ or ‘lexicalist’ approach
(2.3) aims to establish a clear demarcation between compounds and multi-word
phrases. In what follows, we will outline these three different approaches. In 2.4,
finally, we will add a fourth perspective and briefly show how complex lexical units
can be accounted for from a Construction Grammar perspective.
2.1 The non-restrictive approach
In their overview article of multi-word expressions, Hüning/Schlücker (2015:
454 ff.) convincingly show that (syntactic) multi-word expressions and word-
formation units (i. e. compounds) share a set of properties. Both are complex
expressions with (potential) status as a lexical unit, and both expressions typi-
cally serve as linguistic signs for specific concepts (i. e. they have a ‘naming
function’, cf. also Schlücker/Hüning 2009). Lastly, lexicalized phrases and com-
pounds may have compositional or non-compositional semantics and may con-
tain constituents with metaphorical semantics.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

130 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
In French, formations such as [N de N] (e. g. fil de fer ‘iron wire’ (lit. wire of
iron)), [N à N] (e. g. verre à vin ‘wine glass’ (lit. glass to wine)), [N à Det N] (e. g.
sauce à l’ail ‘garlic sauce’ (lit. sauce to the garlic)), [A N] (e. g. Moyen Âge ‘Middle
Ages’) and [N A] (e. g. poids lourd ‘heavyweight’ (lit. weight heavy)) (Fradin 2003:
199; Booij 2010: 172) are constructed by means of syntactic rules, as manifested
through the presence of prepositions, determiners and adjectival inflection. Nev-
ertheless, like compounds, they are productively used in name formation and it is
therefore not surprising that the notion of compounding is often extended to all
kinds of complex lexical units with a naming function, regardless of the forma-
tion rules. This approach can be illustrated by Mathieu-Colas’s (1996) classifica-
tion of French compounds, which includes, for instance, lexicalized [A N] and
[NA] units such as premier ministre ‘prime minister’ and table ronde ‘round table
meeting’ (lit. table round), even though these comply with the syntactic forma-
tion rules, including adjectival inflection.
2.2 The scalar approach
A second approach is to establish a scale of lexicalization ranging from free syn-
tactic phrases over (semi-)lexicalized phrases to true compounding. Such a scale
contains, by definition, a large transition zone in which it is not easy to decide
whether we are dealing with syntactic phrases or with compounds.
This idea of a scale of lexicalization of complex units can be found in studies
by Gross (1988, 1996), who argues that lexicalized phrases and compounds can
be distinguished from free syntactic phrases by means of semantic and syntactic
parameters of lexicalization (‘figement’). Semantically, lexicalized phrases and
compounds such as fait divers ‘novelty, piece of news, news item’ (lit. fact
diverse) are typically characterized by ‘non-compositionality’, in contrast to free
syntactic phrases such as fait évident ‘obvious fact’, which have compositional
semantics. Syntactically, in lexicalized [A N] or [N A] expressions the adjective
loses the possibility of ‘actualization’ (1) and of ‘predication’ (2) (cf. Gross 1996:
31–34).
(1) un fait maintenant évident vs. *un fait maintenant divers
‘a now obvious fact’ ‘a now diverse fact’
(2) Nous avons constaté un fait vs. *Nous avons constaté un fait
qui est évident
qui est divers
‘we have observed a fact ‘we have observed a
that is evident’ fact that is diverse’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 131
On the basis of these parameters3, Gross (ibid.) distinguishes between different
degrees of lexicalization. Cordon solide ‘solid rope’, cordon électrique ‘power
cord’ (lit. cord electric) and cordon(-)bleu ‘master chef’ (lit. cord(-)blue) illustrate
three different degrees of lexicalization: cordon solide is a free syntactic noun
phrase (‘groupe nominal libre’), cordon électrique is considered a semi-lexical-
ized noun phrase or compound (‘un groupe nominal ou nom composé semi-figé’)
and cordon(-)bleu is called a lexicalized compound (‘un nom composé figé’).
However, as rightly observed by Corbin (1992: 36), Gross still uses the term
‘compounds’ (‘mots composés’) to refer to all lexicalized and semi-lexicalized
combinations: both cordon électrique and cordon-bleu are called ‘noms com-
posés’, whatever the differences may be in structure or degree of lexicalization.
In other words, similar to the non-restrictive approach, the notion of compound
is still applied to all structures with a naming function, including syntactic
expressions.
2.3 The restrictive or lexicalist approach
In a modular approach to grammar, it has to be accepted that phrasal multi-word
expressions and compounds, notwithstanding significant similarities, are differ-
ent, the most crucial distinction being the fact that they are constructed accord-
ing to the rules of different components of the language system (syntax vs.
morphology).
A third theoretical tradition in French morphology, whether or not inspired
by the ‘lexicalist’ approach in Generative Grammar (Di Sciullo/Williams 1987)
and represented by Benveniste (1974), Corbin (1992, 1997), Zwanenburg (1992),
Fradin (2003, 2009) and Villoing (2012), among others, follows this view and
argues that a clear distinction should be made between compounds and lexical-
ized phrases. Although both strategies may have the same naming function, they
obviously fit into different parts of grammar, compounds belonging to morphol-
ogy and phrases to syntax.
These authors argue, for instance, that [N Prep N] combinations such as
pomme de terre ‘potato’ (lit. apple of ground) and sac à main ‘handbag’ (lit. bag
to hand), commonly considered compounds in French, should be analyzed as
lexicalized syntactic phrases since they respect the general principles of word
order and syntax in French.
3 Cf. also ten Hacken’s (1994) tests (such asinsertion, substitution, anaphora from one constit-
uent of the sequence).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

132 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
The most extreme position can be found in Di Sciullo/Williams (1987), who
claim that French does not have any compounds at all:
It now appears that French (and no doubt Spanish) lacks compounding altogether. Once we
have subtracted fixed syntactic phrases (idioms) such as timbres-poste and phrases reanal-
yzed as words (syntactic words) such as essui-glace <sic>, there are no candidates left.
(ibid.: 83)
Corbin (1992, 1997) is less restrictive and preserves the term ‘compound’ to refer to
lexical units of the type [N1 N2] (e. g. timbre-poste ‘postage stamp’) and [V N] (e. g.
essuie-glace ‘windscreen wiper’) because they are formed according to lexical
composition rules, specific to the lexicon and different from syntactic rules.
Corbin (1997) uses the notion of ‘polylexematic units’ (‘unités polylexématiques’)
as a general term for covering both compounds and lexicalized phrases. However,
both naming strategies are distinguished on the basis of the ‘division of labor
principle’ between morphology and syntax. According to this principle, also labe-
led the ‘Lexical Integrity Hypothesis’ (LIH hereafter), syntax has no access to mor-
phological operators or infralexical units and, conversely, morphology has no
access to syntactic operators:4
Les règles syntaxiques n’ont accès ni aux opérateurs morphologiques ni à des unités
infralexicales. Les règles morphologiques n’ont pas accès aux opérateurs syntaxiques.
(ibid.: 83)
On the one hand, this implies that affixed polylexematic units such as fil-de-
fériste ‘high wire walker’ (lit. wire-of-iron-ist) belong to morphology, since syntax
cannot attach affixes. On the other hand, polylexematic units containing a syn-
tactic operator, a preposition as in verre à vin ‘wine glass’ (lit. glass to wine) or a
determiner as in hors-la-loi ‘outlaw’ (lit. outside-the-law), necessarily belong to
syntax.5 In other words, polylexematic units are exclusively formed either by syn-
tax or by morphology, and the idea of a scale is thus rejected:
4 Corbin’s analysis is in line with the strong lexicalist hypothesis: ‘The syntax neither manipu-
lates nor has access to the internal structure of words’ (Anderson 1992: 84). On this topic, see,
among many others, Lieber (1992), Plag (2003) and, for an overview, Lieber/Scalise (2007).
5 There seems to be a contradiction in Corbin’s analysis, which considers fil-de-fériste as a mor-
phological unit despite the presence of the preposition de ‘of ’. However, Corbin (1997: 83) argues
that the morphological insertion of the suffix -iste is subsequent to the insertion of the preposi-
tion de and that only the final step of the formation should be taken into account: the word is a
morphological construct (application of the suffix -iste) on the basis of a syntactically construct-
ed stem, fil de fer, which can be considered a lexical unit.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 133
En vertu du partage des tâches entre les modules d’une grammaire, les séquences engen-
drables syntaxiquement ne le sont pas morphologiquement et réciproquement. (ibid.: 84)6
On the same grounds, Fradin (2009: 418) excludes expressions such as sans-
papiers ‘person without identity papers, illegal immigrant’ (lit. without papers)
and pied-à-terre ‘pied-à-terre, holiday cottage’ (lit. foot-on-ground) from true
compounding because they correspond to phrases that can be generated by syn-
tax (cf. Il s’est retrouvé sans papiers ‘he ended up without (identity) papers’ and
Le cavalier mit pied à terre ‘the horseman dismounted’ (lit. put foot on ground)).
He relabels Corbin’s proposal as ‘Principle A’:
Principle A: Compounds may not be built by syntax (they are morphological constructs)
(ibid.: 417)
Whereas in Corbin’s (1997) view, only [N N] and [V N] configurations can be con-
sidered true compounds, Fradin (2009) concludes that not two but four produc-
tive compounding patterns can be retained in French: [V N] (e. g. brise-glace ‘ice-
breaker’ (lit. break-ice)), [A A] (e. g. sino-coréen ‘Sino-Korean’), [N N] coordinates
(e. g. auteur-compositeur ‘author-composer’) and [N N] subordinates (e. g. pois-
son-chat ‘catfish’ (lit. fish-cat)). Villoing (2012: 36) adds to this a particular sub-
class of [A N] compounds with a color adjective as head (e. g. bleu-ciel ‘sky blue’
(lit. blue-sky)). She argues that all these formations should be considered true
compounds because they all display syntactic anomalies:
– VN compounds: the absence of a determiner between the verb and the noun,
and a diverse range of semantic relations between the verb and the noun
(ouvre-boîte ‘can opener’ (lit. open-can)),
– coordinated NN (horloger-bijoutier ‘jeweler-watchmaker’ (lit. watchmak-
er-jeweler)) and AA (aigre-doux ‘sweet and sour’ (lit. sour-sweet)) com-
pounds: the absence of a coordinating conjunction between the
constituents,
– all other NN compounds (poisson-chat ‘catfish’ (lit. fish-cat), pause-café ‘cof-
fee break’ (lit. break-coffee)): hyponymic interpretation,
– AN compounds (bleu-ciel ‘sky blue’ (lit. blue-sky)): the presence of an adjec-
tival rather than a nominal head.
(paraphrased from Villoing 2012: 36)
6 Our translation: ‘By virtue of the division of tasks between the modules of a grammar, sequenc-
es that are possibly generated by syntax are not generated by morphology and vice versa’.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

134 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
Villoing (2012: 30) specifies that French native compounding7 ‘is prototypically
formed of two lexemes of the current lexicon of French, without any linking ele-
ment; the internal order of constituents is XY, where X is the governing element’.
Furthermore, the composing lexemes belong, by definition, to the major word
classes (noun, verb, adjective), and are uninflected. This implies that ‘no constit-
uent is marked by inflection: no modality, tense, person or aspect marking on the
verb in VN compounds, no number on the N, and no gender or number on adjec-
tives, disregarding cases of agreement’ (ibid.: 31 f.).8 Examples are poisson-chat
‘catfish’ (lit. fish-cat), wagon-fumeur ‘smoking car’ (lit. car-smoker), ouvre-boîte
‘can opener’ (lit. open-can) and vert-pomme ‘apple green’ (lit. green-apple).9
This view implies that many other multi-word units that are often considered
compounds do in fact belong to syntax and, therefore, need to be analyzed as
lexicalized phrases. According to Villoing (ibid.: 35 f.), the following French mul-
ti-word units should not be analyzed as compounds:
– Complex units composed of non-lexemes, such as complex prepositions
and complex conjunctions: e. g. par-dessus ‘from above’, de sorte que ‘such
that’10
– Lexicalized syntactic constructions, namely NPs (3), PPs (4) and VPs (5) that
behave like lexical units:
7 Villoing (2012) distinguishes native compounds from neoclassical compounds, which have
different properties: the latter are ‘prototypically composed of two bases of Greek or Latin origin
that are not syntactically autonomous in French, connected by a linking element; the internal
order of constituents is YX, where X is the governing element’ (Villoing 2012: 30) (e. g. ludo-thèque
‘game library’, homi-cide ‘manslaughter’, cyno-céphale ‘dog head’).
8 However, Villoing (2012: 34) rightly observes that some compounds actually display inflected
forms of the lexeme: for instance, many [V N] compounds include a plural N, orthographically
and/or phonologically marked (e. g. presse-fruits ‘fruit press’ (lit. press-fruits), protège-yeux ‘eye
protector’ (lit. protect-eyes)). Villoing argues that this plural inflection is not the result of syntac-
tic marking, but of inherent and semantically motivated inflection.
9 This approach, in line with Corbin (1992), Villoing (2009), Bonami/Boyé (2003, 2014) and Fra-
din (2009), among others, implies that the V in French [V N]N compounds (e. g. ouvre-boîte ‘can
opener’) is not an inflected form of the verb (imperative or present indicative), but a stem of the
lexeme.
10 Although Zwanenburg (1992) starts from the same syntax-morphology divide principle, his
analysis leads to completely different results: he concludes that real compounding in French is
precisely restricted to nouns, adjectives and verbs with a modifying preposition or adverb (e. g.
sous-chef ‘deputy’ (lit. under-boss), arrière-pays ‘hinterland’ (lit. behind-land), maltraiter ‘mal-
treat’). Paradoxically, this implies that French compounding would be right-headed, similar to
Germanic compounding.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 135
(3) brosse à dents ‘toothbrush’ (lit. brush at teeth)
coffre-fort ‘safe’ (lit. box strong)
case départ ‘start, square one’ (lit. box departure)
(4) sans-papiers ‘illegal immigrant’ (lit. without-papers)
(5) boit-sans-soif ‘drunk’ (lit. drinks-without-thirst)
– Lexicalized phrasal expressions that behave like lexical units: for instance,
rendez-vous ‘appointment, date’ (lit. go-you), qu’en-dira-t-on ‘gossip’ (lit.
what about it-will say-one).
Villoing (ibid.: 36) admits, nevertheless, that the boundary between compounds
and syntactic units is most problematic in the case of [N1 N2] sequences. This can
also be derived from her examples: horloger-bijoutier ‘jeweler-watchmaker’ is
considered a compound, whereas case départ ‘square one’ is analyzed as a lexi-
calized syntactic construction. It does indeed appear that French [N1 N2] sequences
can be constructed by both morphology and syntax and that a subcategorization
of [N1 N2] formations is needed. We will therefore focus on this particular forma-
tion type in Sections 3 and 4.
2.4 A constructionist perspective to complex lexical units
It can be concluded from the preceding overview that the term ‘compounding’ is
not used consistently in the French linguistic tradition and often covers much
more than, strictly speaking, morphological complex lexical units. Hüning/
Schlücker (2015) point out the commonalities and differences found between
compounds as word-formation units and syntactically formed multi-word expres-
sions. In spite of the differences, both patterns may serve the same purpose and
even enter into competition to do so. As for French, many examples of competi-
tion can be found between [N N] and [N Prep N] formations: village(-)vacances
coexists with village de vacances ‘holiday village, holiday resort’ (lit. village (of)
holidays) and the same holds for point(-)rencontre and point de rencontre ‘meet-
ing point’ (lit. point (of) meeting) and impression (par) laser ‘laser printing’ (lit.
printing (by) laser) (cf. also Section3.1). These facts indicate that in French, too,
the boundary between compounds and syntactic multi-word expressions is fuzzy
and the data are suggestive of a lexicon-syntax continuum.
This non-modular view of language is precisely a basic assumption of Con-
struction Grammar (cf. Goldberg 1995, 2006; Croft 2001; Booij 2010; Hoffmann/
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

136 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
Trousdale (eds.) 2013, a. o.). Crucial to this model is the concept of ‘constructions’:
these are conventional pairings of form (referring to syntactic, morphological and
phonological properties) and meaning (including semantic, pragmatic and dis-
course-functional properties) and are considered the fundamental units of the
linguistic system. All levels of grammatical description involve such form-mean-
ing pairings – not only words as in the Saussurean tradition – and constructions
vary in size, degree of schematicity and complexity (cf. Goldberg 2009), the min-
imal linguistic construction being the word in Booij’s (2010) model of Construc-
tion Morphology. Furthermore, constructions, both syntactic and morphological,
are linked to each other by (vertical) inheritance relations and also by (horizon-
tal) connectivity links (Norde 2014; Norde/Morris 2018). As a consequence, lan-
guage can be considered a complex network of constructions. Substantive con-
structions (e. g. petit mais vaillant ‘small but tough’, position clé ‘key position’) are
instances of semi-schematic constructions (e. g. [Adj1 mais Adj2], [N1 clé]), which
– in turn – inherit properties from more general schematic constructions (e. g.
[Adj1 CONJ Adj2], [N1 N2]). Moreover, constructions may also inherit properties
from multiple-parent constructions via so-called ‘multiple inheritance’ (cf. Trous-
dale 2013; Trousdale/Norde 2013).11
It is not surprising that many recent studies in the field of multi-word expres-
sions are in the constructionist vein. In this approach, it can be assumed that
both compounds and phrasal structures with a naming function can act as con-
ventionalized form-meaning pairings or ‘constructions’, and we should accept
the existence of what Booij (2010: 190) calls ‘lexical phrasal constructions’: these
are syntactic formations that should be stored as lexical units in the mental lexi-
con, such as fil de fer ‘iron wire’ (lit. wire of iron) and moulin à vent ‘windmill’ (lit.
mill at wind). These formations demonstrate that there is no strict boundary
between the lexicon and syntax, or, as Booij (ibid.: 191) puts it, ‘syntax permeates
the lexicon because syntactic units can be lexical’.
Compounds and phrasal structures are not only closely linked in the con-
structional network; they may also compete or interact with each other. The pro-
cess of ‘multiple inheritance’ may even produce hybrid constructions that inherit
properties from parent constructions belonging to different domains, such as
morphology and syntax. We believe that these insights from Construction Gram-
11 The idea of ‘multiple inheritance’ could be seen as the synchronic representation of the com-
plexity of language change. Diachronic developments do not always follow linear pathways from
one source construction to another target construction; a complex interplay between different
sources and processes is often at stake (cf. De Smet/Ghesquière/Van de Velde’s (eds.) 2013 vol-
ume On multiple source constructions in language change).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 137
mar are useful to account for problematic cases that cannot be univocally classi-
fied as morphological or syntactic constructs, such as French [N1 N2] subordina-
tives. In Sections 3 and 4 we will therefore focus on these particular cases and in
Section5 we will propose an analysis in line with the constructionist insights.
3 French [N1 N2] sequences: compounds or phrases?
In Section2.3, we observed that both Fradin (2009: 428 f.) and Villoing (2012: 36)
admit that the boundary between morphological and syntactic units in French is
most difficult to apply in the case of [N1 N2] formations. We will therefore now
concentrate on Fradin’s arguments to retain only [N1 N2] coordinates and subordi-
nates as true French compounds, at the expense of other types of [N1 N2] sequences,
namely so-called ‘two-slot nominal constructs’ and identificational [N1 N2] con-
structs (3.1). In Section3.2, we will focus on subordinate [N1 N2] formations and
show that their status is more problematic than acknowledged by Fradin (2009).
3.1 Fradin’s (2009) typology of [N1 N2] sequences
Fradin (2009) distinguishes between four types of [N1 N2] sequences: coordinates,
subordinates, two-slot nominal constructs and identificational constructs; the
first two are assigned to morphology and the others to syntax.
First, two types of [N1 N2] coordinates can be distinguished: in (6) each N has
a distinct referent and the compound’s denotatum is the sum of these referents;
the compounds in (7), however, denote a unique referent combining properties of
both N1 and N2 (ibid.: 429 f.):
(6) Bosnie-Herzégovine ‘Bosnia-Herzegovina’
physique-chimie ‘physics-chemistry (as a teaching discipline)’
(7) chanteur-compositeur ‘singer-composer’
hôtel-restaurant ‘hotel-restaurant’
As also argued by Villoing (2012: 36), the absence of a coordinating conjunction
between the constituents excludes these sequences being generated by syntax,
and they should therefore be considered true compounds.
Unlike coordinate compounds, subordinate compounds only denote the ref-
erent expressed by N1 (i. e. the head noun), while N2 (i. e. the modifier) refers to
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

138 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
one of its salient properties. According to Fradin (2009: 430 f.), this property may
concern a physical dimension (shape, length, weight) (8), an intrinsic capacity
(slowness, quickness, strength, duration) (9) or a function (10), and is metaphor-
based.
(8) requin-marteau ‘hammerhead shark’ (lit. shark-hammer)
homme-grenouille ‘frogman’ (lit. man-frog)
(9) justice escargot ‘slow justice’ (lit. justice snail)
guerre éclair ‘blitzkrieg’ (lit. war lightning)
attaquant-bulldozer ‘offensive forward’ (lit. attacker-bulldozer)
discours fleuve ‘lengthy discourse’ (lit. discourse river)
(10) camion-citerne ‘tanker truck’ (lit. truck-tanker)
voiture-balai ‘broom wagon’ (lit. car-broom)
livre-phare ‘leading book’ (lit. book-lighthouse)
Even though Fradin recognizes that the morphological status of these compounds
is open to debate (cf. Section4), he claims that the regular interpretative patterns
found in these subordinate compounds are similar to those of some derived lex-
emes, such as French adjectives derived with the suffix -able (Fradin 2003). In the
same way as productive suffixes, the N2 of subordinate [N1 N2] formations can be
combined with a broad range of stems and forms a productive constructional pat-
tern with a regular interpretation. This similarity with derivation is taken as an
argument in favor of their morphological status.
Whereas coordinate and subordinate [N1 N2] sequences follow a constrained
pattern and have a regular semantic relationship between the constituents, this is
not the case with two-slot nominal constructs (Fradin 2009: 432 f.) and identifi-
cational [N1 N2] sequences. The examples in (11) all denote the referent expressed
by N1, but they completely differ from subordinate compounds because N2 does
not refer to an intrinsic and salient property of N1. Moreover, the sequence usually
corresponds to a syntactic phrase in which N2 forms part of a prepositional phrase
(12), which suggests a syntactic origin.
(11) impression laser ‘laser printing’ (lit. printing laser)
espace fumeurs ‘smoking area’ (lit. space smokers)
accès pompiers ‘firemen entrance’ (lit. entrance firemen)
(12) impression par laser (lit. printing by laser)
espace pour (les) fumeurs (lit. space for (the) smokers)
accès pour (les) pompiers (lit. entrance for (the) firemen)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 139
Fradin (2009: 433 f.) likewise argues for identificational [N1 N2] sequences (cf.
also Noailly 1990):
(13) la catégorie adjectif ‘the adjective category’
l’institution Opéra ‘the Opera institution’
N2 identifies N1 (‘N2 is an N1’) and from this point of view, these sequences are
equivalent to syntactic (appositional) [N1 N2] constructs in which N2 is a proper
noun and N1 expresses a socially recognized category (e. g. le président Mandela
‘President Mandela’, la région Bourgogne ‘the region of Burgundy’).
3.2 Discussion: morphological and syntactic approaches to
[N1N2] subordinatives
We agree with Fradin that [N1 N2] coordinates are true compounds and cannot be
the result of syntactic formation. We also subscribe to his view on two-slot nomi-
nal and identificational [N1 N2] constructs: both sequences can be shown to corre-
spond to syntactic phrases. However, subordinate [N1 N2] formations are more
problematic than acknowledged by Fradin (2009) and it can be demonstrated
that the examples mentioned for this class are not all of the same kind. At first
glance, it can, for instance, be observed that some of them permit degree modifi-
cation of N2 while others do not (discours vraiment fleuve ‘really lengthy discourse’
(lit. discourse really river) vs. *requin vraiment marteau ‘really hammerhead
shark’ (lit. shark really hammer)), and some but not all N2s form productive series
(e. g. discours-fleuve ‘lengthy discourse’ (lit. discourse-river), roman-fleuve ‘novel
cycle’, film-fleuve ‘lengthy movie’, débat-fleuve ‘lengthy debate’, etc.), while no
series formation is possible for [N-marteau], for instance. We will discuss these
differences more extensively in Section4.
As already mentioned, these formations have been the subject of some
debate. Amiot/Van Goethem (2012: 350 ff.) and Van Goethem (2012: 77–81) pro-
vide an overview of the different accounts, which range from purely syntactic
analyses (cf. Noailly 1990 and Goes 1999) to strictly morphological accounts, like
the one by Fradin (2009).
With regard to the syntactic approaches, a distinction can be made between
analyses where the second component of the phrase is still considered a noun in
spite of some adjectival properties (cf. Noailly 1990, who labels N2 as ‘substantif
épithète’ and Arnaud/Renner 2014, who detect adjective-like syntactic behavior
to some extent), and others like Lehmann/Martin-Berthet (2008: 206), who claim
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

140 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
that N2 is converted into an adjective if it complies with a set of criteria typical of
adjectives (such as degree modification and predicative use).
With regard to the morphological approaches, we can contrast Fradin’s clas-
sification of French compounding with the general typology of compounds
by Scalise/Bisetto (2009) (applied to French by Villoing 2012), according to
whom these ‘problematic’ compounds are not subordinatives but belong to the
ATAP (attributives-appositives) class, and more particularly to the subclass of
appositives:
Attributive compounds can actually be defined as formations whose head is modified by a
non-head expressing a ‘property’ of the head, be it an adjective or a verb: actually, the role
of the non-head categorial element should be that of expressing a ‘quality’ of the head con-
stituent. Appositives, to the contrary, are compounds in which the non-head element
expresses a property of the head constituent by means of a noun, an apposition, acting as
an attribute. (Scalise/Bisetto 2009: 51)
As these definitions show, attributives (e. g. high school) and appositives (e. g.
snailmail, swordfish) belong to the same ATAP class because they have similar
functions. The metaphorical value of the modifier is argued to be an important
distinctive criterion between [N1 N2] subordinatives (e. g. mushroom soup), on the
one hand, and [N1 N2] appositives (e. g. mushroom cloud), on the other:
In appositives that, together with attributives, make up the ATAP class, the noun plays an
attributive role and is often to be interpreted metaphorically. Metaphoricity is the factor that
enables us to make a distinction between, e. g. mushroom soup (a subordinate ground com-
pound) and mushroom cloud, where mushroom is not interpreted in its literal sense but is
rather construed as a ‘representation of the mushroom entity’ (...) whose relevant feature in
the compound under observation is shape. (ibid.: 52)
In the next section, we will take a closer look at this specific type of formation and
will argue that we need to distinguish between two different subclasses: classify-
ing and qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives, of which only the former undoubtedly
belong to morphology.
4 Classifying vs. qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives
In this section we will argue that two types of [N1 N2] subordinatives should
be distinguished: classifying (e. g. requin-marteau ‘hammerhead shark’ (lit.
shark-hammer)) and qualifying (e. g. guerre éclair ‘blitzkrieg’ (lit. war lightning)).
The difference can essentially be found in the different role of N2 with respect to
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 141
N1.12 Despite their similarities (in all these subordinate compounds, N2 denotes a
salient, metaphor-based property of N1), N2 has a classifying role in some [N1 N2]
formations (e. g. requin-marteau) but a qualifying role in others (e. g. guerre-
éclair). We will present the distinguishing properties of both types of [N1 N2] sub-
ordinatives in 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
4.1 Classifying [N1 N2] subordinatives
Classifying [N1 N2] subordinatives are characterized by a number of particular
semantic and syntactic properties:
(i) Semantically, they behave like designations (‘names’): they refer to stable
concepts (Kleiber 1984), but their reference is established in a motivated way: N1,
the semantic head, is the hyperonym and N2, which does not have a referential
meaning, refers to a salient property of N1 that allows the [N1 N2] sequence to be
distinguished from other N1s. Hence, N2 expresses a classifying property of N1.13
This is why, at least when they denote biological species, classifying [N1 N2]
sequences are often the vernacular denominations corresponding to scientific
taxonomies: for instance, serpent-tigre corresponds to Notechis Scutatus, pin-par-
asol to Pina Pinea and oiseau-lyre to Menura Superba, etc. (cf. Ureña/Faber 2010
for English compounding). When [N1 N2] is not a vernacular denomination corre-
sponding to a scientific taxonomy, it can at least integrate a hierarchical folk cat-
egorization (Wierzbicka 1996): for example, a fauteuil-crapaud ‘squat armchair’
(lit. armchair-toad) is a kind of armchair (fauteuil), in the same way as a club chair
or a rocking chair. And, in turn, an armchair is a piece of furniture, etc. This sig-
nals the relationship of inclusion [X is a Y], typical of the hierarchy between a
hyponym and its hyperonym.
(ii) N1 often denotes a biological species, especially animals (14a), vegetables
(14b) or sometimes human beings (14c). More exceptionally, compounds denot-
ing artefacts can also be found (14d):
12 This category merges what Arnaud (2003: 13) calls the ‘composés équatifs-analogiques’(‘equa-
tive analogical compounds’) and the ‘composés méronymiques-analogiques’ (‘meronymic ana-
logical compounds’), i. e. poisson-chat ‘catfish’ vs. poisson-scie ‘sawfish’, respectively.
13 To a certain extent, such sequences correspond to the ‘generic-specific compounds’ in Ar-
naud (2003), but the author classifies them as ‘equative/analogical compounds’, because of the
metaphorical use of N2.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

142 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
(14a) poisson-scie ‘sawfish’ (lit. fish-saw)
oiseau-lyre ‘lyrebird’ (lit. bird-lyre)
serpent-tigre ‘tiger snake’ (lit. snake tigre)
(14b) saule têtard ‘silver willow’ (lit. willow tadpole)
pin-parasol ‘umbrella pine’ (lit. pine-umbrella)
tomate-cerise ‘cherry tomato’ (lit. tomato-cherry)
(14c) homme-grenouille ‘frogman’ (lit. man-frog)
femme-objet ‘woman as object’ (lit. woman-object)
enfant-roi ‘spoilt child’ (lit. child-king)
(14d) voiture-bélier ‘ram-raid’ (lit. car-ram)
fauteuil-crapaud ‘squat armchair’ (lit. armchair-toad)
noeud-papillon ‘bow tie’ (lit. bow-butterfly)
(iii) In these cases, and as opposed to coordinate compounds, the two nouns
denote concrete entities that do not belong to the same semantic class and the
metaphor that underpins the relation between N1 and N2 is often based on physi-
cal resemblance: the nose of a poisson-scie is shaped like a saw (scie) and a saule
têtard has roughly the shape of a tadpole (têtard): a big head like the upper part
(the foliage) of the willow, and a short tiny bottom part (like the trunk). In our
examples, the only sequences that do not instantiate this relation are enfant-roi,
femme-objet and voiture-bélier, in which the metaphor is based on behavioral
resemblance. For example, an enfant-roi is a child (enfant) who is treated like a
king (roi) and who often becomes a ‘domestic tyrant’.
(iv) Syntactically, all the linguistic tests usually used to measure the lexical
integrity of a sequence (cf. Sections 2.2 and 2.3) show that these classifying [N1 N2]
formations are words, insofar as they do not accept any of these manipulations,
unlike the qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives that we will study in Section4.2.
(v) The last property to be mentioned is the fact that, unlike the qualifying
[N1N2] formations, these classifying subordinatives do not give rise to productive
series.
We can conclude from this survey that the subordinate [N1 N2] formations like
those exemplified under (14) are binominal words and true compounds in which
N2 metaphorically denotes a classifying property of N1.
4.2 Qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives
Qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives can be distinguished from the classifying sub-
type on the following grounds:
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 143
(i) All kinds of nouns may instantiate N1: nouns denoting artefacts (15a),
social roles (15b), time or slots of time (15c), events (15d), and even abstract nouns
(15e):
(15a) livre-phare ‘landmark book’ (lit. book-lighthouse)
établissement-pilote ‘pilot institution’ (lit. institution-pilot)
film-culte ‘cult movie’ (lit. movie-cult)
(15b) acteur-clé ‘key actor’ (lit. actor-key)
attaquant-bulldozer ‘offensive forward’ (lit. attacker-bulldozer)
(15c) moment-charnière ‘pivotal moment’ (lit. moment-hinge)
date-limite ‘deadline’ (lit. date-limit)
(15d) discours-fleuve ‘lengthy discourse’ (lit. discourse-river)
guerre-éclair ‘blitzkrieg’ (lit. war-lightning)
(15e) justice-escargot ‘slow justice’ (lit. justice-snail)
(ii) According to Fradin (2009), N2s often refer to a metaphoric intrinsic property
of N1 (cf. Section 3.1): slowness (e. g. justice-escargot), quickness (e. g. guerre-
éclair), strength (e. g. attaquant-bulldozer) or duration (e. g. discours-fleuve). To
a certain extent, they often express intensity, as in livre-phare, acteur-clé,
moment-charnière: a livre-phare, for example, is a very famous book that attracts
a lot of attention. However N2 does not have a categorization function (a livre-
phare is not a kind of book, an acteur-clé is not a kind of actor, etc.): the [N1 N2]
sequences exemplified under (15) are not designations that could be included in
a hyperonymy/hyponymy hierarchy. Instead, N2 has a qualifying role and, more-
over, it can often be substituted with a qualifying adjective: an acteur-clé is a very
important actor (in a given context), a justice-escargot is very slow justice, and so
on.
(iii) It is precisely the qualifying role of N2 that could, in our view, explain the
specific behavior of these [N1 N2] formations, and particularly their lack of lexical
integrity (cf. 2.3):
(a) Both N1 and N2 can be instantiated by a complex (i. e. multi-word) sequence.
The examples under (16) represent formations with a ‘complex N1’:
(16a) Wilo Salmson France représente unacteur économique cléde la région.
(www)14
‘Wilo Salmon France represents a key economic actor in the region’
14 All examples followed by (www) were taken from the web via Google searches in May 2017.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

144 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
(16b) Wall Street 2 adopte la forme d’unesaga familiale fleuve (www)
‘Wall Street 2 takes the form of a very long (lit. river) family saga’
(16c) L’affiche dufilm d’animation culteAkira a eu droit à de nombreuses paro-
dies (www)
‘The poster of the cult animated movie Akira spawned many parodies’
(16d) d’uncoup de poing éclair, elle dévie le ballon (www)
‘with a lightning punch (lit. punch-of-fist), she deflects the ball’
In these examples, the N1s resemble phrases: they result from the association of a
noun and an adjective (16a–b) or of a noun and a prepositional phrase (16c–d).
The N2 slot can also be filled by a complex item, but this is more excep-
tional:
(17) La compagnie de gendarmerie […] a mobilisé des effectifs lors de l’opération
coup de poingmenée vendredi (www)
‘The police […] mobilized officers on Friday for the lightning [lit. punch-of-
fist] raid’
Interestingly, a lexicalized multi-word expression such as coup de poing can fill,
in its literal meaning (‘punch’), the N1 slot or, in its metaphorical meaning (‘light-
ning’), the N2 slot.
It should be noticed that, since the complex sequences that may fill the N1 or
N2 slots are lexicalized phrases, this is less problematic for the LIH than if they
were free, compositional phrases (cf. Booij’s (2010) use of ‘lexical phrasal con-
structions’ in 2.4).
(b) Most N2s can be modified by an adverb of degree, as shown in (18):
(18a) on avait le sentiment d’assister à un momentvraiment charnière
(www)
‘we had the feeling of witnessing a truly pivotal (lit. hinge) moment’
(18b) un conseil vraiment éclair (www)
‘a really whirlwind (lit. lightning) council meeting’
(18c) la multiplicité des voix de ce romanvraiment fleuve (www)
‘the multiplicity of voices in this really lengthy (lit. river) novel’
This second property is more challenging for the LIH: the lexical integrity of the
[N1 N2] sequences is undoubtedly called into question by the insertion of an adverb
of degree between the two Ns. This is why some authors put forward a weakened
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 145
version of the hypothesis, including Ackema/Neeleman (2004), Booij (2005) and
Lieber/Scalise (2007).15
Our previously conducted corpus research (Amiot/Van Goethem 2012; Van
Goethem 2012, 2015) indicate that the most frequently inserted adverb is vraiment
‘really, truly’, as in (18), but other degree adverbs can be found too: absolument
‘absolutely’ (19), réellement ‘really’ (20), extrêmement ‘extremely’ (21) and even,
but more rarely, très ‘very’ (22):
(19) Les années 1970 constituent en effet une période absolument charnière
dans la vie des communautés […] (www)
‘The 1970s constituted an absolutely pivotal (lit. hinge) period in the life of
communities [...]’
(20) Nous reviendrons sur ce pointréellement clépour la suite de la réflexion
(www)
‘We will return to this point, which is really key (lit. this really key point)
for the continuation of the discussion’
(21) […] une version raccourcie d’un texte extrêmement fleuve qu’il a publié
quelques années plus tôt (www)
‘[…] an abridged version of an extremely lengthy (lit. river) text that he
published a couple of years before’
(22) le match a été une orgie offensive avec un scoretrès fleuve (42–24 en
faveur des Parisiens) (www)
‘the match was an offensive orgy with a very crushing (lit. river) score (42–
24 in favor of the Parisians)’
The presence of such adverbs conflicts not only with the lexical integrity of the [N1
N2] sequence, but also with the nominal status of N2: usually an adverb of degree
modifies a gradable adjective, not a noun. However, in the context of the qualify-
ing [N1 N2] sequences, N2 seems to switch to adjectival status.
Syntactically, evidence for this adjectival status is not only provided by the
possibility of modification by an adverb, but, like a qualifying adjective, N2 can
also be inserted into a comparative construction:
15 Cf. also the ‘Italian trasporto latte-type constructions’ (Lieber/Scalise 2007), in which both
components can be modified by an adjective, e. g. produzione scarpe ‘shoe production’ → produz-
ione (accurata) scarpe (estive) ‘(accurate) production of (summer) shoes’.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

146 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
(23a) pour moi c’est [la préadolescence] une période bien plus charnière
quel’adolescence (www)
‘For me it [pre-adolescence] is a much more pivotal (lit. hinge) period than
adolescence’
(23b) La proximité de commerces estmoins clé quepour une résidence senior
(www)
‘The proximity of shops is less key than for a senior housing complex’
Semantically, in all the examples under (19–23), N2 could be paraphrased by an
evaluative adjective, for example:
(24) […] une période absolument charnière / cruciale
‘an absolutely pivotal (lit. hinge)/crucial period’
[…] ce point réellement clé / important
‘this really key/important point’
[…] un texte extrêmement fleuve / long
‘an extremely lengthy (lit. river)/long text’
This demonstrates the qualifying value of N2 vis-à-vis N1. We will return to this in
Section 5, but it is worth noting for the time being that this behavior distin-
guishes the qualifying subordinative [N1 N2] from the classifying subordinative
(Section4.1).
(c) Some N2s can be used predicatively. Predicative use is the most prototypical
use of qualifying adjectives. In some cases, ‘N2’ can fill the slot of an adjective in
a predicative construction (25) with or without degree marking:
(25a) La période est charnière également sur le plan économique (www)
‘The period is also pivotal in economic terms’
(25b) Leur rôle est ainsi plus clé que jamais (www)
‘Their role is thus more key than ever’
(25c) c’est déjà arrivé quand l’interview est vraiment fleuve (www)
‘It has already happened when the interview is really lengthy’
In this use, the [N1 N2] construction (période charnière in (25a), rôle clé in (25b)
and interview fleuve in (25c)) is broken up, and N2 acquires autonomous adjectival
behavior. This separation of compound-like sequences has been labeled ‘debond-
ing’ by Norde (2009) (cf. also Amiot/Van Goethem 2012; Van Goethem 2012;
Norde/Van Goethem 2014; Van Goethem/De Smet 2014; and Van Goethem 2015).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 147
5 A constructionist analysis of qualifying [N1 N2]
subordinatives
As can be concluded from the preceding section, besides coordinate [N1 N2]
sequences, only classifying [N1 N2] subordinatives should be regarded as true
compounds in French, whereas the qualifying [N1 N2] formations display hybrid
behavior in the sense that they may, to a greater or lesser extent, undergo syntac-
tic operations. We will now demonstrate how the idea of ‘multiple inheritance’
(cf. Section2.4) can be fruitfully applied to account for these hybrid qualifying
[N1N2] subordinative constructions.
Two phases can be distinguished in the emergence of qualifying subordi-
natives (cf. Amiot/Van Goethem 2012 and Van Goethem 2015 on [N1 clé]
subordi na tives).
The first step is the emergence of a productive constructional idiom – via
so-called ‘constructionalization’ (Traugott/Trousdale 2013; Hüning/Booij 2014) –
in which N2 develops a specific (metaphoric) qualifying meaning when combined
with an N1 in a compound(-like) sequence (e. g. question-clé ‘key question’,
moment charnière ‘pivotal moment’, réunion marathon ‘marathon meeting’, cas
limite ‘borderline case’, etc.). This qualifying meaning may be seen as the result
of ‘coercion’ (cf. Audring/Booij 2016) in which the metaphoric meaning some-
times already available for the noun outside the compound-like pattern (e. g. la
clé du succès ‘the key of success’) is selected (‘coercion by selection’) and/or in
which N2 develops adjective-like (semantic and formal) properties within the [N1
N2] pattern (‘coercion by override’). This semi-schematic construction, applied to
the example of [N charnière] formations, can be represented as follows:
(26) [[X]Ni [charnière]N]Nj ↔ [pivotal, crucial SEMi]j
However, the constructionalization of N2 goes beyond this morphological stage,
since it may occur in innovative syntactic constructions with the same semantics
(cf. Section4.2). As already suggested by Amiot/Van Goethem (2012) and Van
Goethem (2015), the adjective-like uses of N2 can be seen as the result of an inter-
action between the closely related morphological [N1 N2]N and syntactic [N A]NP
constructions.16 The fact that N2s such as charnière, clé, fleuve, limite and so on
16 The schematic representations are a bit simplified since, as we have seen in 4.2, N1 and N2 can
include a multi-word sequence, and the A can be instantiated by a phrase in the case of degree
modification (e. g. une période vraiment charnière).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

148 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
developed a qualifying meaning in the former construction, typical of adjectives,
may have favored this constructional ambiguity. In constructional terms, this
interaction can be translated as an instance of ‘multiple inheritance’. Schemati-
cally, this multiple inheritance can be represented as in (27):
(27) [N1 N2]N[N [(Adv) A]]NP
[N1 [(Adv) charnière]]N/NP
The [N1 [(Adv) charnière]]N/NP sequence inherits its properties from two distinct
parent constructions, the morphological qualifying compound [N1 N2]N pattern
(e. g. moment-charnière ‘pivotal moment’) and the syntactic [N [(Adv) A]]NP pattern
(e. g. un moment (vraiment) crucial ‘a (really) crucial moment’). As a consequence,
and as shown in Section4.2, it is a hybrid between a morphological and a syntac-
tic construction and N2 can, in some cases, gradually develop more adjective-like
syntactic uses, such as the predicative use.
This approach indicates that French [N1 N2] subordinatives, and especially
the subclass of formations with a qualifying N2, are in reality closely related to
[NA] or [A N] formations. As we have seen in Section3.2, Scalise/Bisetto (2009)
merge [N1 N2] appositives and [N A]/[A N] attributives within the class of ATAP
compounds because the modifier in both cases expresses a qualifying property of
the head noun. We can therefore conclude that their classification for these types
of formations is highly insightful. However, what is still missing in this approach
is the fact that this ATAP class contains not only pure (morphological) com-
pounds, but also hybrid constructs with both morphological and syntactic
properties.
6 Conclusion
Compared with Germanic languages, it turns out to be very difficult to delineate
French compounds from syntactic multi-word units. In the first part of this contri-
bution, we outlined three different approaches dealing with compounding in the
French tradition: non-restrictive, scalar and restrictive (lexicalist). Although we
believe morphological formations should be distinguished from syntactic forma-
tions, it is insightful to highlight their shared potential for expressing the same
denominative functions. We therefore added a fourth approach: we believe a
constructionist, non-modular approach to the language system provides a more
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 149
appropriate account. From this perspective, both compounds and phrasal struc-
tures with a naming function can act as conventionalized form-meaning pairings
or ‘constructions’ and we should accept the existence of what Booij (2010: 190)
calls ‘lexical phrasal constructions’, namely phrasal constructions that are stored
in the (mental) lexicon.
Another advantage of this constructionist approach is that it can deal with
structurally ambiguous formations, such as [N1 N2] structures with a qualifying
N2. As shown throughout this paper, these sequences are particularly difficult to
deal with in a modular approach because, on the one hand, they formally and
semantically resemble [N1 N2] (subordinative) compounds, but, on the other
hand, they allow syntactic operations to a greater or lesser extent. In a concep-
tion of language as a constructionist network, these hybrid formations can be
fruitfully accounted for by the mechanism of ‘multiple inheritance’. Following
this process, we have argued that the hybrid properties of French qualifying [N1
N2] sequences result from the inheritance of properties from both a morphological
and a syntactic parent construction.
References
Ackema, Peter/Neeleman, Ad (2004): Beyond Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amiot, Dany/Van Goethem, Kristel (2012): A constructional account of French -clé ‘key’ and
Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé/sleutelwoord ‘key word’. In: Morphology 22. 347–364.
Anderson, Steven (1992): A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Arnaud, Pierre J. (2003): Les Composés timbre-poste. Lyon: Presses Universitaires Lyon.
Arnaud, Pierre/Renner, Vincent (2014): English and French [NN]N lexical units: A categorial,
morphological and semantic comparison. In: Word Structure 7. 1–28.
Audring, Jenny/Booij, Geert (2016): Cooperation and coercion. In: Linguistics 54. 617–637.
Bauer, Laurie (1998): When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? In: English
Language and Linguistics 2. 65–86.
Bauer, Laurie (2004): Adjectives, compounds and words. In: Nordic Journal of English Studies 3.
7–22.
Bonami, Olivier/Boyé, Gilles (2003): Supplétion et classes flexionnelles. In: Langages 152.
102–126.
Bonami, Olivier/Boyé, Gilles (2014): De formes en thèmes. In: Villoing, Florence/David, Sophie/
Leroy, Sarah (eds.): Foisonnements morphologiques. Études en hommage à Françoise
Kerleroux. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. 17–45.
Benveniste, Emile (1974): Problèmes de linguistique générale. Vol.2. Paris: Gallimard.
Booij, Geert (2002): Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. In: Journal of
Germanic Linguistics 14. 301–329.
Booij, Geert (2005): Compounding and derivation. Evidence for construction morphology. In:
Dressler, Wolfgang U. et al. (eds.): Morphology and its Demarcations. Selected Papers
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

150 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
109–132.
Booij, Geert (2010): Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbin, Danielle (1992): Hypothèses sur les frontières de la composition nominale. In: Cahiers
de Grammaire 17. 27–55.
Corbin, Danielle (1997): Locutions, composés, unités polylexématiques: lexicalisation et mode
de construction. In: Martins-Baltar, Michel (ed.): La locution entre langue et usages. Paris:
ENS. Editions Fontenay/Saint-Cloud. 53–101.
Croft, William (2001): Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Caluwe, Johan (1990): Complementariteit tussen morfologische en syntactische
benoemings procédés. In: De Caluwe, Johan (ed.): Betekenis en productiviteit. Gentse
bijdragen tot de studie van de Nederlandse woordvorming. (=Studia Germanica
Gandensia 19). Gent: Seminarie voor Duitse taalkunde, Rijksuniversiteit Gent. 9–25.
De Smet, Hendrik/Ghesquière, Lobke/Van de Velde, Freek (eds.) (2013): On multiple source
constructions in language change. Special issue of Studies in Language 37, 3. Amsterdam
i. a.: Benjamins.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria/Williams, Edwin (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Fradin, Bernard (2003): Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Fradin, Bernard (2009): IE, Romance: French. In: Lieber/Štekauer (eds.). 417–435.
Giegerich, Heinz (2009a): Compounding and lexicalism. In: Lieber/Štekauer (eds.).
178–200.
Giegerich, Heinz (2009b): The English compound stress myth. In: Word Structure 2. 1–17.
Goes, Jan (1999): L’adjectif. Entre nom et verbe. Paris/Bruxelles: Duculot.
Goldberg, Adele (1995): Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument
structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele (2006): Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele (2009): The nature of generalization in language. In: Cognitive Linguistics 20.
93–127.
Gross, Gaston (1988): Degré de figement des noms composés. In: Langages 90. 57–72.
Gross, Gaston (1996): Les expressions figées en français: noms composés et autres locutions.
Paris: Ophrys.
Hacken, Pius ten (1994): Defining Morphology. Hildesheim i. a.: Olms.
Hoffmann, Thomas/Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) (2013): The Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hüning, Matthias/Booij, Geert (2014): From compounding to derivation. The emergence of
derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. In: Folia linguistica 48, 2.
579–604.
Hüning, Matthias/Schlücker, Barbara (2015): Multi-word expressions. In: Müller, Peter O. et al.
(eds.): Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol.1.
(=Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter. 450–467.
Kleiber, Georges (1984): Dénomination et relations dénominatives. In: Langages 76.
77–94.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 151
Lehmann, Alise/Martin-Berthet, Françoise (2008): Introduction à la lexicologie. Sémantique et
morphologie. 3rd ed. Paris: Armand Colin.
Lieber, Rochelle (1992): Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory.
University of Chicago Press.
Lieber, Rochelle/Scalise, Sergio (2007): The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a New Theoretical
Universe. In: Booij, Geert et al. (eds.): On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean
Morphology Meeting (MMM5), Fréjus 15–18 September 2005. University of Bologna. 1–24.
Internet: www.lingue.unibo.it (last access: 11.9.2018).
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) (2009): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mathieu-Colas, Michel (1996): Essai de typologie des noms composés français. In: Cahiers de
lexicologie 69. 71–125.
Noailly, Michèle (1990): Le substantif épithète. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Norde, Muriel (2009): Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norde, Muriel (2014): On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at
Coglingdays 2014, Ghent: Ghent University.
Norde, Muriel/Morris, Caroline (2018): Derivation without category change: A network-based
analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In: Van Goethem, Kristel et al. (eds.): Category
change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 47–90.
Norde, Muriel/Van Goethem, Kristel (2014): Bleaching, productivity and debonding of
prefixoids. A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. In: Lingvisticae
Investigationes 37, 2. 256–274.
Plag, Ingo (2003): Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scalise, Sergio/Bisetto, Antonietta (2009): The classification of compounds. In: Lieber/
Štekauer (eds.). 34–53.
Schlücker, Barbara/Hüning, Matthias (eds). (2009): Words and Phrases – Nominal expressions
of naming and description. Special Issue of Word Structure 2, 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs/Trousdale, Graeme (2013): Constructionalization and Constructional
Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trousdale, Graeme (2013): Multiple inheritance and constructional change. In: Studies in
Language 37, 3. 491–514.
Trousdale Graeme/Norde, Muriel (2013): Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two
case studies. In: Language Sciences 36. 32–46.
Ureña, José Manuel/Faber, Pamela (2010): Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-re-
semblance metaphors. In: Cognitive Linguistics 21, 1. 123–149.
Villoing, Florence (2009): Les mots composés VN. In: Fradin, Bernard/Kerleroux, Françoise/
Plénat, Marc (eds.): Aperçus de morphologie du français. Saint-Denis: Presses Univer-
sitaires de Vincennes. 75–197.
Villoing, Florence (2012): French compounds. In: Probus 24. 29–60.
Van Goethem, Kristel (2009): Choosing between A+N compounds and lexicalized A+N phrases:
The position of French in comparison to Germanic languages. In: Word Structure 2, 2.
241–253.
Van Goethem, Kristel (2012): Le statut des séquences ‘N+N à N2 productif’: le cas de N-clé. In:
Lingvisticae Investigationes 35, 1. 76–93.
Van Goethem, Kristel (2015): Cette mesure est-elle vraiment clé? A constructional approach to
categorial gradience. In: Journal of French Language Studies 25, 1. 115–142.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM

152 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
Van Goethem, Kristel/De Smet, Hendrik (2014): How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence
of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. In:
Languages in Contrast 14, 2. 251–277.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996): Semantics. Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zwanenburg, Wiecher (1992): Compounding in French. In: Rivista di linguistica 4. 221–240.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 12/24/18 9:41 AM