111 At this point, it is worth pausing to consider whether these more elaborate examples comply with what was said in Section 6.1 about where stress is placed within compound nouns. Window oven, if it is a compound, should have its main stress on the lefthand element, namely window – and that seems correct. The same applies to window oven cleaner: its main stress should be on window oven, and specifically on its lefthand element, namely window. Again, that seems correct. So we will predict that the whole compound at (9) should have its main stress on the lefthand element too – a prediction that is again consistent with how native speaker find it most natural to pronounce this complex word. It is true that other elements than window can be emphasised for the sake of contrast Nevertheless, where no contrast is implied or stated (such as between marketing and manufacture), the most natural way of pronouncing the example at (9) renders window the most prominent element.
112 Considering these examples, we wonder if a unit larger than a word (a phrase) can ever be a constituent of a compound word. Neither side has a consensus on these issues, yet the underlying English expressions cannot be ignored, even in an introductory textbook.
Think of the term nuclear physicist. Its structure is clear: it is a phrase made up of two words, nuclear and physicist. So, since linguistic expressions are always interpreted structurally, a physicist who is nuclear. Not true: scientists are people, and calling them ‘nuclear' makes no sense. Instead, it refers to a nuclear physics expert. So we have a paradox: the expression's structure can be expressed by the bracketing [[nuclear] [physicist]], while a more semantically acceptable structure seems to be [[nuclear physic-]-ist. So we have a bracketing paradox. In this case, the suffix -ist appears to be added to a phrase, nuclear physics, rather than a word or root. Is it feasible to create a word by adding an affix to a phrase rather than a word?
The term French historian presents a similar issue. This might mean either ‘a historian who is French' or ‘expert in French history (not necessarily a French person)'. The first interpretation is straightforward: if we analyze French historian as a term, like green house (as opposed to greenhouse). This implies a structure [[French] [historian]]. However, the second interpretation seems to imply a structure [[French histori-]-an], in which a phrase is combined with an affix. We are faced with a dilemma.
Should we acknowledge the second structure as the basis for the second interpretation? Or should we say that, with both
113 interpretations, the structure of the expression is the same (namely [[French] [historian]]), but that for one of the interpretations this structure is a bad guide? Without putting forward a ‘right answer’, I will mention two further observations that must be taken into account – two observations that, it must be said, pull in opposite directions.
A plastic surgeon is not a kind of doll, but a specialist in cosmetic surgery, and a chemical engineer is not a person who is
‘chemical'. Unlike nuclear physicist, these cannot be bracketed to produce a structure that nearly matches the meaning.
Even if the paradoxical bracketing [[nuclear physic-]-ist] can manage the meaning of nuclear physicist, it cannot accommodate plastic surgeon and chemical engineer. This entails finding a solution to reconcile their structure–meaning divergence. For now, it doesn't matter how that reconciliation is reached.
What matters is that the same procedure should work for nuclear physicists and French historians in the sense of ‘expert in French history'. This weakens the case for distinguishing semantic from grammatical bracketing. Rather, we can argue that [[French]
[historian] has two interpretations.
Those are all derivations. What about apparent compounding bracketing paradoxes? Consider the item French history teacher.
The noun in French history teacher is the compound history teacher, just like the word portrait painter in French portrait painter.
But what about ‘teacher of French history'? Is this a [[French history] teacher] compound noun? If a phrase like French history is
114 allowed to appear as part of a compound word, we are faced with explaining why phrases cannot appear inside compounds generally – why we do not encounter compounds like an eventful history teacher, with the phrase eventful history as its first element and the meaning ‘teacher of'. So perhaps we should say French history teacher has the same structure as French historian: a phrase ([French [history teacher]) with two interpretations, one of which deviates from the framework.
But some of the conclusions are unpalatable. Consider the terms open door and fresh air fanatic. Their definitions include
‘fanatic for fresh air' and ‘policy of preserving an open door (to immigration, for example)'. Its construction [French [history teacher]] is similar to the meaning ‘teacher of French history'.
However, unlike French history teacher, which has a second meaning that matches the framework, fresh air fanatic and open door policy do not have a second meaning. Fresh air fanatic is the only meaning of a bracketing such as [fresh [air fanatic]].
Fresh air is a cliché, although not an idiom; it appears in many standard expressions as get/need some fresh air and get out into the fresh air, but cool air does not appear in any stock expressions. Similarly, French history is a cliché because historians consider French history to be a specialty; however, the history of suburbs is not a specialty, hence the phrase suburban history is not a cliché. The first expression in each pair is an idiom or cliché, whereas the second is not. So, a phrase can be part of a compound
115 or derivative word if it is lexicalised or institutionalised enough to become a cliché.
This startling result between lexical objects and nouns Based on the evidence in Chapter 2, it appeared that lexical listing and grammatical structure were unrelated. In some instances, lexically listed (idioms) or institutionalised (cliches) phrases can exist where unlisted terms cannot. Beginner students of word structure should be aware of, but not have an opinion on, whether we should classify nuclear physicist and fresh air fanatic as words rather than phrases.