17
2.1.2.2.2 CopulativeDvandva Compounds
Copulative compounds are considered to have two heads because there is no element which is more important than the other. It is stated by Plag 2003 that
“…no member is semantically prominent, but both members equally contribute to the meaning of the compound” p.146. Similarly, “It is possible for a compound
to be a simple conjunction of two elements, without any further dependency holding between them. The Sanskrit term dvandva literally ‘two-and-two’,
meaning ‘pair’ is used to describe these” Spencer, 1991, p.311. Here are the examples:
speaker-listener secretary-treasurer
the doctor-patient gap the nature-nurture debate
The first and second examples are called appositional compounds because they “refer to one entity that is characterized by both members of the compound”
Plag, 2003, p.146. In principle, appositional compounds are reversible Szymanek, 1989. Thus, one can say either speaker-listener or listener-speaker.
Meanwhile, the last two examples are called coordinative compounds because they “denote two entities that stand in a particular relationship with regard to the
following noun” Plag, 2003, p.146. Copulative compounds are headed from a syntactic point of view because
they obey RHR in which the head, in the right-hand component, is where the affixation is attached as in player-managers, worker-priests and boyfriends
Katamba, 1993. However, from a semantic point of view, “the coupled elements
are of equal status, with neither element being regarded as the head that dominates PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18 the entire word. Copulative compounds are not semantically opa
que” Katamba, 1993, p.321.
2.1.3 Compounding and Phrases
To differentiate compounds and phrases, there are at least four aspects to consider. The first aspect is in term of morphology. The elements of compounds
are uninterruptable. “One property of words which distinguishes them from phrases is morphological integrity: their elements can’t be split up by other words
or phrases, for example, by parentheticals” Spencer, 1991, p.313. In other words, it is not possible to insert a word within constructions of compounds.
Szymanek 1989 suppo rts this idea by stating that “a criterion which may appear
more promising in bringing out the word-like nature of compounds, as opposed to phrases, is the
property of ‘uninterruptability’” p.42. However, there are some exceptions regarding this notion. The compounds spoonful and bagful, as
examples, can be interrupted by the plural marker –s Szymanek, 1989.
Furthermore, compounds are not completely productive. As examples, “BLACKBIRD and BLUEBIRD, BLACKTHORN and WHITETHORN are
lexemes, but ‘whitebird’ and ‘redbird’, ‘greenthorn’ and ‘pinkthorn’ are not. In this case it is obvious which forms a dictionary has to list.
” Matthews, 1991, p.83.
Secondly, in phonological perspective, compounds and phrases are different in their stress patterns. It is mentioned earlier that the primary stress of
compounds occurs on the first element whereas in phrases, the primary stress is on the last element Bybee, 1985; Plag, 2003; Szymanek, 1989; Spencer 1991. In
addition, if seen from the perspective of semantics, this stress pattern determines PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Kategori