Are French NNs variants of N-PREP-N constructions?

1. Are French NNs variants of N-PREP-N constructions? Jan Radimský University ofSouth Bohemia(Czech Republic)

2. Introduction (1) • Aim • Empirical examination of the hypothesis that French subordinate Noun-Noun compoundsare (just) variants of corresponding syntactic phrases or phrasal lexemes (Fradin, 2009:433, among others) • NN: roman [photos]N(‘photo novel’) • N-PREP-N: roman [avec(des) photos]PP(‘novelwith /DET/ photos’) • Typology ofconstructions • Two basic typesof NNs (Scalise-Bisetto, 2009): • Attributive NNs - bourgeoisgentilhomme– (“bourgeois gentleman”) Attributive relationship: N1 is a (kind of) N2 • Subordinate NNs – two subtypes • Verbal-nexus: exposition photos“photography exhibition” Deverbal head Verb-complement or Verb-adjunct relationship • Grounding: timbre-poste“postage stamp”, lit. “stamp-post” Other subordinate relationship • ! Fradin (2009)–usesdifferent terminology • AttributiveNNs (Scalise-Bisetto) = SubordinateNNs (Fradin) • SubordinateNNs (Scalise-Bisetto) = Two-slot nominalconstructs (Fradin) • Typology ofNPNs (a blurry distinction...) • Phrasallexemes = rather N-P-N codeà barres • Syntacticphrases = rather N-Det-P-Nsecteur des transports

3. Introduction (2) • Research question: relationship between NNs and NPNs? • ATTR-NNs do not have NPN variants (Fradin, 2009) • SUB-NNs...? • Always have an NPN variant (Fradin, 2009) • For many SUB-NNs the corresponding prepositional construction is either attested in negligible numbers onlyor even impossible to form (Arnaud, 2015). • SUB-NNs... • Can theyalways have an NPN variant? • Do they really have an NPN variant in usage (i.e. in a corpus)? • Data • FrWac corpus, Sample of 3,373 NNs (types) & corresponding NPNs in the corpus • Diachronic data from Google books (n-grams) • Theoretical implications • The French (Romance) NN pattern has been growing exponentially since the 1960’s (Radimský, 2019a) • SUB-NN & NPN: example of competition (Lindsay-Aronoff, 2013; Aronoff, 2016) • The SUB-NN pattern does not seem to have any restrictions nor preferences as for the semantic relationship between N1 and N2 (Arnaud2003:64) – just as the NPN pattern • Why does it grow? • Is there a specific niche for the NN pattern?

4. Data • FrWaccorpus • French web corpus, 1600Mpositions • NN pattern • 430,000 binominals extracted (lemmatized types) • Complete frequency lists: Det-Noun-Noun • token fq>3, form: loose (centre ville – “town center”) or hyphenated (centre-ville) • 3.373NN types identified (more than 600,000 tokens). • Extremely low “signal-to-noise ratio”, manual identification of NNs • Different strategies: NN sample by Arnaud (2003), N2s listed as such by Le petit Robert, deverbal N1s, repeated nouns on either the N1 or N2 position... • Typology: • ATTR – 1239 types (37%) • SUB – 2134 types (63%) • SUB-VNX – 466 types (13%) • SUB-GROUND – 1668 (50%) • NPN pattern • Complete frequency lists: • N2 with a bare preposition: Det-Noun-Prep-Noun • N2 with Det+Prep: Det-Noun-Det-Prep-Noun • Prepositions (=10 most frequent): de|en|à|par|sans|sur|entre|pour|avec|sous • token fq>3 • Filter: N1-N2 combinations present within the NN sample

5. Overall results • ATTR • Very few NPN variants expected. But: NPNs attested for 1/4 oftypes – why? • SUB-VNx • As expected, most NNs (more than 90%)have an NPN variant • ThesameresultsforItalian: Baroni, Guevara and Pirrelli (2009) • SUB-GROU • Most NNs are expected to have an NPN variant (as for VNXNNs) • Only ½ types really have one... why? NN compounds that DO NOT HAVE a NPN variant in FrWac

6. ATTR NNs • ATTR NNs should not have NPN variants: the attributive relation cannot be reformulated by an NPN phrase • (le) pays membre - (le) pays EST (UN) membre“(the) member country” “(the) country IS (A) member” • (le) pays *PREP membre “(the) country *PREP member” Why 337 types have a NPN variant in FrWac? • Noise: in most cases, the NPN is not a synonym of the corresponding NN • système clé vs. système de clés“key system, very important system” “system of keys” • ordinateurdestinatairevs. ordinateur du destinataire“recipient computer” “recipient’scomputer” • réseau partenaire vs. réseau de partenaires“partner network”“network ofpartners” • famille victime vs. famille de la victime“victimfamily” “family of the victim” • lieu culte lieu de culte“very admired place”vs.“place ofworship” • Only a few ATTR NNs and NPNs are “true” variants: N2 has a metaphoricinterpretation • livre (en) accordéon - “concertina book” • verre (à) ballon – “balloonglass” • dossier (en) béton– “well prepared application”

7. GROUNDING NNs • GROU-NNs should have NPN variants • subordinate relations can always be reformulated by a prepositional phrase Why 799 types (48%) DO NOT HAVE a NPN variant in FrWac? • NPN variant is impossible? • Rare cases, complex relationship N1-N2 or metaphoric/metonymic N2 • portrait robot – “facial composite” (... as ifitwere made by a robot?) • confiture maison – “homemade jam” (... made athome?) • yaourt nature (= [au]DetPrep [naturel]A/N?) – “natural yogurt” (nature - metonymic) • Some of them even close to ATTR compounds (is attributive paraphrase possible?) • ambiance zen – “zen atmosphere” (metaphoric N2) • excuse bidon – “lame excuse” (metaphoric N2) • coin cuisine – “kitchenette” (ATTR? ... N1 is a kindofkitchen) • cf. different meaning: coin de la cuisine – “corner of the kitchen” • Frequent situation: the NPN variant is possible but not attested in the corpus • For 275 types only (16% GROU-NNs) the NPN variant has at least 50% of tokens • A good example of competition (Lindsay-Aronoff, 2013; Aronoff, 2016) • Is the competition predictable in some way? • Are there specific “niches” for the NN pattern?

8. Niches (1): form • Known factorsthatencouragethe use ofNNs: • Linguistic context: headlines, pricetags... • Genre: ephemera, leaflets... • Topics: business, marketing, management, IT... • Niches determined by formal or semantic properties? • “Formal niche”: role of repeated forms within the NN pattern • Some N1s and N2s tend to appear with a high type frequency in SUB-NNs (Baroni, Guevara and Pirrelli, 2009; Koga 2018; Radimský 2019b) • A CM account: bottom-up constructionalization. Semi-schematic constructions based on a specified N1 or N2, such as papier (“paper”); the semantic REL is underspecified (Radimský,2019b) • [[papier]iNj]Nk ↔ [SEMi REL SEMj]k

9. Niches (2): form (example) • If N1 is papier, the structure is likely to be NN • The semantics is not necessarily involved • The NNs denote different “types” of N1 • But they do not represent a unique rational classification (REL is not the same) • photo paper – aluminium foil – gift wrap...? • Subsets of such NNs may represent a rational classification • semantic niche

10. Niches (3): semantics • Specificsemantic/functionalniches • Conceptualclassificationof N1s: NN denotes a subtype/subclassof N1 • Functiontypicalforboth ATTR and SUB NNs (Fradin, 2003:203) • Examplesofspatialclassificationanalyzed in Koga (2018) • espace+N, rayon+N, coin+N • Support fromFrWac data & extension: • NNs may express any type of classification (not only “spatial”...) • By the “conceptual classification”, the NN pattern captures generalizations that go beyond specific semantic relations between N1 and N2 • There is no need to choose the most appropriate preposition

11. Niches (4): semantics (examples) • One pattern (NN) = one conceptual classification for a specified N1 • e.g.: departments in a supermarket, rates, types of insurance... • But: different semantic perspectives involved • If NPNs can be made up, they require different prepositions • NNs are more appropriate to capture the conceptual classification lying behind

12. SUB-NNs & NPNs: diachronic competition • Diachronic data from Google n-grams (https://books.google.com/ngrams) • Source: Google books, period 1800-2000 • Different register with respect to FrWac: +fiction, -ephemera • e.g. no examples for “departments of a supermarket” • Different support & treatment (+printed with editorial work, -spontaneous communication) • NNs are likely to belessrepresented • Frequency curves for established NNs with attested NPNs

13. Diachronic competition: N1 papier • NN “won” in most cases • Exceptions – NPN still strong • papier (d’)aluminium (“aluminumfoil”) • papier (de) couleur (“colored paper”) • papier (de) journal – “newsprint” • papier cadeau– “gift wrap” • papier (d’) aluminium – “aluminumfoil”

14. Diachronic competition: N1 assurance • Shape • The NPN variant is usually older • Then the NNgrows and wins (in different time spans - in the case of assurance vie recently) • assurance (contre la) maladie – “health insurance” (lit. “insurance (against) disease”) • assurance (sur la) vie – “life insurance” • assurance (de) crédit– “credit insurance”

15. Synchronic competition • Example: storage of beer • bière (à la) pression (“draught beer”): the NN variant seems to win • bière (en) bouteille(“bottled beer”): NPN is a well established variant, but NN should be an option (one conceptual classification) • bière (à la) pression – “draught beer”

16. Results & Discussion • Relationship between NNs and NPNs? • ATTR-NNs should never have NPN variants • ... they almost never have them (except for some metaphoric N2s) • SUB-NNs should (always) have NPN variants • ... they CAN almost always have them • ... in real texts, up to 48% of types do not have an NPN variant • ... competition • Some formal & semantic niches seem to be developing • The phenomenon is still too recent for further verification

17. References • Aronoff Mark (2016), Competition and thelexicon. In: A. Elia, C. Iacobini & M. Voghera (eds.): Livelli di Analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII Congresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni Editore, pp. 39-52. • Arnaud Pierre J. L. (2003), Les composés timbre-poste. Lyon, Presses universitaires de Lyon. • Arnaud Pierre J. L. (2015), Noun-noun compounds in French. In: Peter Mùller et al. (eds.), Word formation. An international handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 3. Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2015, p. 673-687. • Baroni Marco, Guevara Emiliano, Pirrelli Vito (2009), Sulla tipologia dei composti N+N in italiano: přincipi categoriali ed evidenza distribuzionale a confronto. In: Ruben Benatti, Giacomo Ferrari and Monica Mosca (eds.), Linguistica e modelli tecnologici di ricerca (Atti del 40esimo Congresso della Società di Linguistica Italiana). Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 73-95. • Fradin Bernard (2009), IE, Romance: French. In: Lieber R., Štekauer P., The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford university press, 2009, p. 417-435. • Fradin Bernard (2003). Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris, P.U.F. • FrWac - Baroni, M. et al. 2009. The WaCky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. 43, no. 3, 209-226. • Google ngrams –Available at <https://books.google.com>. • Koga Kentaro (2018), Un espace papeterie n’est-il pas une (simple) papeterie ?: composition binominale souscatégorisante. SHS Web Conf. , Vol. 46, 08004, Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF 2018. • Lindsay Mark, Aronoff Mark (2013), Natural selection inself-organizing morphological systems. In: F. Montermini, G. Boyé, J. Tseng (eds.): Morphology in Toulouse: SelectedProceedingsofDécembrettes 7. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 133–153. • Radimský Jan (2019a), Les composés N-N de subordination : unparadigmeémergent. Studia RomanicaPosnaniensia46/1 (2019), Adam Mickiewicz University Press, pp. 167-180. • Radimský Jan (2019b), A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: the case of Romance N+N compounding. 12th Mediterraneanmorphology meeting, Ljubljana 2019. • Scalise,Sergio & AntoniettaBisetto. 2009.The classificationofcompounds. In: RochelleLieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofCompounding. Oxford:Oxford University Press.34-53.