COMP-TRACE EFFECT
(Syntax) A constraint on wh-movement. Notice first that long-distance wh-movement of complements and adjuncts is unaffected by whether the complement clause is headed by an overt complementizer or a silent one (indicated in the following examples by ø):

1. [Which friends]_i did they say {that, ø} they saw t_i?
2. [Which way]_i did they say {that, ø} they would fix the leaky faucet t_i?

3. [Which friends]_i did they say ø t_i saw them?
4. *[Which friends]_i did they say that t_i saw them?

COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
(Diachronic) Previously known as comparative grammar or comparative philology. Used to study the relationships between two or more languages in order to reveal whether or not the languages have a common ancestor (Britannica n.d.). Comparative linguistics was mostly used during the 19th century in Europe as it was firstly initiated in 1786 by Sir William Jones who discovered that Sanskrit was related to Latin, German, and Greek.
 Robins (1975) wrote that comparative linguistics has a very important role in contributing to the understanding of the nature of how language works and the development (change) of languages in the world. In this regard, the main task of comparative linguistics is to analyze and provide an explanation of the nature of language change. In general, the nature of language (1) has a structure (synchronic dimension) and (2) is always changing (diachronic dimension). | Wulan Yulianita, Yasa Nur Malina Ruminda, 2023

COMPATIBILITY

1. (Semantics) In this study, semantic compatibility between two or more linguistic components is defined as the following: The prototypical semantic specifications of the two linguistic components must be conceptually consistent (Yoon 2012). For the prototypical semantic specification in this definition, I adopt the prototype model (Rosch 1977) in which a category is defined with reference of a prototype, i.e. a schematized representation of typical instances (Langacker 1988). Therefore, when I discuss the semantic compatibility between a construction and various verbs, I compare the prototypical semantics of the construction and the verbs when they are abstracted from specific instances. | Soyeon Yoon, 2013
2. (Syntax) Commonly understood as the ability of a word to be combined in a sentence with certain elements, both subordinate (kernel connection) and non-subordinate to it, and where it itself acts as a subordinate element (adjunct connection). | O. Yu. Zaitseva, O. V. Gvozd, and Yu. L. Dobrovolska, 2023
3. (Syntax) Compatibility is the main feature of language units based on syntagmatic relations. Syntagmatic relations is the capacity of language units to link to one another in a speech sequence as a part of the text, sentence, words in accordance with the laws of language. Compatibility is a linguistic category spread in every area of language. The rule that holds "combinability is the combination of words with words, sentence with sentence" is stereotypical and recognized only at the grammatical level. Sounds in the language have the capability to be combined or not to be combined with each other. Affixes are attached to the root differentially under the laws of language. Words are also combined with each other depending on the content plane and the expression plane. To the extent that this is true, the compatibility phenomenon is the category that plays a significant role in determining phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic laws of the language. | Amirbekova Aigul Baydebekkyzy, Khabiyeva Almagul, Soltanbekova Alfia, and Taubaldiyev Meirambek, 2019
4. (Lexicology) According to Kotyolova (1975), the lexical compatibility is the ability of a word (as a lexeme) to collocate with other words (also as lexemes) and the total sum of its lexical valencies. Other authors define it as the ability of a word to collocate syntactically with words from a limited list, i.e. the ability to generally combine with a limited number of words, irrespective of its function in speech. | Margareta Morarescu, 2007
5. (Dialectology) A synchronic dialectological concept that operates on the lexical level. It assesses the degree of lexical relationship that exists between two or more varieties of a given language at a given time irrespective of geography; that is, it "analyzes the 'synchronic consequences' of ... partial differences within a framework of partial similarity."
    Compatibility differs from synonymity in that its domain of operation is much wider, for it comprehends lexical items of a given variety and their equivalents in one or more other varieties. Synonymity, on the other hand, is restricted to lexical items and their equivalents in one and the same variety. For example, the English gloss 'lemons' has in the Tripoli variety of Arabic two words: /mrạ́ːkbe/ and /hạ́ːmụD/. These items are considered synonymous in Tripoli Arabic (Tp). The Sidonese variety of Arabic (Sd), however, has the equivalent /laymuːn/. These equivalent lexical items, namely, Tp /mrạ́ːkbe/, /hạ́ːmụD/ and Sd /laymuːn/, are assessed as compatible with each other since they mean 'lemons' in the varieties in which they occur. Such a group of two or more equivalent items is called a set of compatible items.
    Compatibility depends completely on meaning for the isolation of sets of compatible items, for lexical items are compatible if they have the same meaning. However, sets of compatible items can be subclassed according to formal criteria (i.e., whether they are the same in form or not). Thus, two or more items that are the same in meaning but different in form, such as Tp /hạ́ːmụD/ and Sd /laymuːn/ 'lemons', are contrastive; items that agree in both meaning and form, such as Tyrean Arabic (Ty) /zunnạ́ːr/ and Beiruti (Ashrafiyyah) (Ba) /zinnạ́ːr/ 'belt', are noncontrastive.
    A noncontrastive set of compatible items comprises cognates that may be isolated by the application of the comparative method. However, a contrastive set of compatible items includes noncognates and asymmetrical cognates.
    Compatibility operates on a synchronic level. | Frederic J. Cadora, 1966
6. (Examples)
    ○ A more detailed examination of Slavic phonological systems confirms that the preservation of the Hebrew name דָּוִד 'David' cannot be adequately explained by phonotactic compatibility alone. While it is true that the consonantal structure d-v-d does not violate Slavic phonological constraints, this fact is insufficient as an explanatory principle. Numerous loanwords that are equally compatible with Slavic phonotactics nevertheless undergo systematic adaptation, including vowel modification, consonantal substitution, or prosodic restructuring. | Željko Stanojević, 2026
    ○ Studies of internet graphic communication argue that Latin letters co-exist with abbreviations, mixed-code strings and visually motivated signs that compensate for tone and gesture in fast interaction (Komilov 2020). At the same time, phonetic compatibility and perception guide which borrowed forms stabilize: cross-linguistic phonetic differences can yield spelling variation until communities converge on the most recognizable and typable solutions (Islomov 2025). | Komilov Javokhir, 2026
    ○ Vietnamese (Austro-Asiatic; Vietnam) is a wh-in-situ language. All the wh-expressions (except for the subject 'who' and 'why') are restricted to the clause-internal position and are banned from being clause-internal. The 'when' questions behave differently. The 'when'-expression is compatible with both the clause-internal and clause-external positions.
    T heads have temporal features that need to be checked. The 'when'-expression is base-generated in a non-temporal projection. It then moves up to check the feature of the T head. Feature compatibility is required for checking. | Thủy-Thương (Beryl) Bùi, 2026
    ○ Adaptations like English Gertrude becoming Klingon (constructed) ghertlhuD demonstrate phonological transformation, where Klingon's alveolar lateral affricates replace English consonant clusters to align with Klingon phonotactics. Similarly, vowel epenthesis and consonant substitutions ensure Klingon phonological compatibility, balancing "alien-ness" with reader accessibility. | Chiara Meluzzi, 2025
    ○ Lexical misuse or semantic error is the incorrect use of words in speech or writing, generally related to meaning, connotation, collocation or grammatical compatibility. Lexical misuse includes semantic error, that is the use of a word whose meaning opposes the speaker's intention. | Laura-Ionela Ionică, 2025
    ○ This paradigm was a morphological compatibility decision task with a total of two paragraphs. Each paragraph consisted of seven sentences suitable for Turkish written linguistic structure; five sentences in each paragraph had a blank space inside. At the top of each paragraph, target words derived from the same root with proper suffixes (e.g., göz, gözlük, gözlüğüm etc.) fitting the blanks in that paragraph were presented in mixed order. | Tevhide Kargin, Birkan Guldenoglu, Hilal Gengec, Merih Toker, 2023
    ○ An effective solution to the task of identifying idiomatic expressions calls for the ability to relate the meaning of its component words with each other (e.g., Baldwin 2005, McCarthy et al. 2007) as well as with the context (Liu and Hwa 2019). This aligns with the widely upheld psycholinguistic findings on human processing of a phrase's figurative meaning in comparison with its literal interpretation (Bobrow and Bell 1973). Toward this end, we rely on the contextualized representation of a potential idiomatic expression (PIE, accounting both for its internal and contextual properties), hypothesizing that a figurative expression's contextualized representation should be different from that of its literal counterpart. We refer to this as its semantic compatibility (SC)—if a PIE is semantically compatible with its context, then it is literal; if not, it is figurative. The idea of SC also captures the distinction between literal word combinations and idioms, in terms of the semantics encoded by both (Jaeger 1999) and the related property of selectional preference (Wilks 1975)—the tendency for a word to semantically select or constrain which other words may appear in its association (Katz and Fodor 1963). | Ziheng Zeng and Suma Bhat, 2021
    ○ The structure of the field is formed by peripheral zones, and the one closest to the center is generated by a direct semantic connection with the semantic core. All subsequent zones are based on the connections with the previous layers. Mikhalyov (1995) applied the six-step rule formulated by Karaulov (1981), according to which, the connection between two randomly chosen words can be established through no more than five intermediate words, corresponding to the six steps. Applying this rule to a phonosemantic field, Mikhalyov (1995) showed the stability and strength of internal semantic connections. Thus, in analyzing semantic compatibility, one should also study the connectivity between words that occur together in the texts, considering the distance from the sixth step to the center—the word with the highest frequency. | Vladimir Pavlovich Klochkov, Galina Raisovna Rybakova, Natalya Olegovna Vasileva, Tatiana Viktorovna Malkova, and Irina Vladimirovna Krotova, 2019
    ○ The article deals with the structural and functional-semantic features of the portmanteau words of English origin in Modern German. The borders of this linguistic blending depend on semantic relations between initial parts of the contamination and their phonetic compatibility. | Kudrikova and Dyakov, 2016
    ○ We conducted two experiments to examine the role of syntactic, lexical and contextual factors on the interpretation of idiomatic expressions. Experiment 1 examines the role of syntactic compatibility and lexical compatibility on the real-time processing of potentially idiomatic strings. Experiment 2 examines the role of contextual information on idiom processing and how context interacts with lexical information during processing. | Edward Holsinger, 2013
    ○ The software layer of SAMA 3.1 relies on a data layer that consists primarily of three Arabic-English lexicon files: prefixes (1,328 entries), suffixes (945 entries), and stems (79,318 entries representing 40,654 lemmas). The lexicons are supplemented by three morphological compatibility tables used for controlling prefix-stem combinations (2,497 entries), stem-suffix combinations (1,632 entries), and prefix-suffix combinations (1,180 entries). | Mohamed Maamouri, David Graff, Basma Bouziri, Sondos Krouna, Ann Bies, and Seth Kulick, 2010
    ○ Stress patterns of English and perceptual pattern of the six Vietnamese (Austroasiatic; Vietnam) tones were compared (Vietnamese assigns one tone to each syllable). The analysis of Vietnamese tones immediately preceding code-switching reveals that there is a statistically significant proportion of the high tone group at the point of switching. This fact, together with the perceptually phonological compatibility between Vietnamese tones of high and mid-level pitch and English stressed vs. unstressed syllables, suggests that code-switching tends to be facilitated by the mid-level to high pitch Vietnamese tones. | Tuc Ho-Dac, 1997

COMPLEMENT

1. (Syntax) Phrases expanding notions inherent in the predicate are considered to be complements. (Gibson, 1973, p. 66) Phrases which are expansions of the inflectional person categories of the predicate are also complements. In Secwepmctsín, phrases and clauses which complete predicative notions occur as complements introduced by 'ʔes'.
    Complements can be differentiated according to the following properties:
   1. A subjective complement immediately precedes or follows the predicate.
   2. An objective complement follows the predicate, and occurs after the subject if it also follows the predicate.
    (Gibson 1973) | INLP Linguistic Glossary
2. (Syntax) YP in [_H' H YP], where H is a head and H' the projection of H. According to X-bar theory, the complement of a head X⁰ is defined either as a position attached or adjoined to X', or as a sister of X⁰. Thus, in configuration (1), either A and B are complements of X⁰, or just B (the sister of X⁰).

   1.       X'
           / \
          /   \     
         A     X'
              / \
             /   \	
            B     X0
      

    Sometimes, the complement of a head X⁰ is equated with its internal argument(s). Chomsky 1981, 1986; Williams 1980) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
3. (Grammar) In many modern grammars (for instance in those that build on the X-bar schema), the object argument of a verbal predicate is called a "complement". In fact, this use of the term is the one that currently dominates in linguistics. A main aspect of this understanding of complements is that the subject is usually not a complement of the predicate, e.g.:
   1. He wiped the counter.
      The NP the counter is the object complement of the verb wiped.
   2. She scoured the tub.
      The NP the tub is the object complement of the verb scoured.
    The NPs the counter and the tub are necessary to complete the meaning of the verbs wiped and scoured, respectively, hence they are complements. | Wikipedia, 2019

COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION

1. (General) Two elements a and b are in complementary distribution if a, but not b, occurs in those environments where on general grounds we may expect both a and b, while b, but not a occurs in the complementary set of environments. | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
2. (Phonology) Often taken as an indication that two superficially different elements are one and the same at a deeper level. Two sounds /a/ and /b/ are in complementary distribution when one of the two (/a/) occurs in all environments except those in which /b/ occurs and vice versa.
    Example: In English [p] and [p^h] are in complementary distribution, since [p^h] occurs syllable-initially when it is directly followed by a stressed vowel (cf. pin [p^hin]), whereas in all other positions [p] is found. In Hindi, however, [p] and [p^h] can occur in the same position and are distinctive. | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
3. (General) Distinct from contrastive distribution and free variation. The relationship between two different elements of the same kind in which one element is found in one set of environments and the other element is found in a non-intersecting (complementary) set of environments.
    The term often indicates that two superficially different elements are the same linguistic unit at a deeper level, though more than two elements can be in complementary distribution with one another. | Wikipedia, 2023

COMPLEMENTIZER

1. (Syntax) A conjunction which marks a complement clause. In English:
   1. I know that he is here.
   2. I refuted the supposition that he is here.
   3. I am doubtful that he is here.
    | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, 2003
2. (Syntax) A functional category (part of speech) that includes those words that can be used to turn a clause into the subject or object of a sentence. For example, the word that may be called a complementizer in English sentences like Mary believes that it is raining. The concept of complementizers is specific to certain modern grammatical theories; in traditional grammar, such words are normally considered conjunctions. The standard abbreviation for complementizer is C.
    The complementizer is often held to be the syntactic head of a full clause, which is therefore often represented by the abbreviation CP (for complementizer phrase). Evidence that the complementizer functions as the head of its clause includes that it is commonly the last element in a clause in head-final languages like Korean or Japanese, in which other heads follow their complements, whereas it appears at the start of a clause in head-initial languages such as English, where heads normally precede their complements (Sells 1995). | Wikipedia, 2022

COMPLETIVE ASPECT

1. (Grammar) Refers to an aspectual form that expresses an action that has been carried out "thoroughly and to completion". The term perfective aspect is very similar in meaning, but it is distinguished from completive by several authors. (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994) | Glottopedia, 2008
2. (Grammar) Indicates that an action is, has been, or will be definite and complete(d). It implies that the action was definitely accomplished. | H. Schiffman, 2005

COMPLETIVE PHRASAL VERB
(Grammar) E.g., to burn down, to wipe out, to use up, where the particle has a sense of "completion" and does not usually alter the basic meaning of its verb. | Brock Brady, 1991

COMPLEX PRONOUN
(Morphology) For example, in Québec French there are simple pronouns nous 'us', vous 'you plural', elles 'they.F', and eux 'they.M'; and complex pronouns nous-autres 'us', vous-autres 'you', and eux-autres 'them'. | Mireille Tremblay, 2022

* COMPLEXCODA

1. (Optimality Theory) A markedness constraint:

   * COMPLEX_Coda
   Codas cannot be complex.

    | Janina Mołczanow, 2020
2. (Optimality Theory) A markedness constraint:

   * COMPLEXCODA
   One violation per every segment in a coda beyond one (i.e. codas are allowed to consist of at most one segment).

    | Joanna Chociej, 2009
3. (Optimality Theory) A markedness constraint:

   * COMPLEXCODA (Prince and Smolensky (1993 / 2004)
   Syllables must not have complex codas.

    | Dylan Herrick, 1999
4. (Example)
    ○ Ajluni Arabic (Afro-Asiatic; Jordan) does not permit coda clusters because the * COMPLEXcoda constraint over-ranks the SON constraint.

   /qalb/	* COMPLEXcoda	SON	DEP-V-IO	* Coda
   ☞/qalib/			*	*
   /qalb/	*!			*

    | Hana Asaad Daana, Maisa Sadi Jaber, and Sereen Jubran, 2023

COMPLEXITY-BASED ORDERING

1. (Morphology) The Complexity-Based Ordering Hypothesis (CBO) (Hay 2003) posits that cognitive processing restricts affix combinability above and beyond structural restrictions (e.g. inter-nation-al-iz-ation, but *internation-iz-ation-al, despite being interpretable and meeting structural restrictions). Specifically, CBO states that affixes that tend to be parsed during lexical access occur farther from the root (in English) than affixes that do not, because this facilitates lexical access. | Andrea Sims and Jeffrey Parker, 2012
2. (Morphology) Jennifer Hay (2002) proposed a psycholinguistic approach to affix ordering now known as Complexity-Based Ordering (CBO), which claims that affix order is determined by the parsability of the affixes, i.e. more separable affixes can appear only outside of less separable affixes. Hay shows that this principle accounts for why many grammatical affix combinations are unattested. CBO has since been supported by research of derivational affixes (English prefixes, English suffixes and Russian suffixes). | Robert Reynolds, 2013
3. (Morphology) A psycholinguistic model of morphological complexity, according to which an affix which can be easily parsed out in processing should not occur inside an affix which cannot. This model has been called "complexity based ordering". The general claim is that affixes can be approximately ordered along a hierarchy of complexity, with more separable affixes at one end, and less separable affixes at the other end. More separable affixes can attach outside less separable affixes, but not vice-versa. | Jennifer Hay and Ingo Flag, 2004
4. (Morphology) CBO builds on the Parsability Hypothesis (Hay 2001, 2002, 2003). | Stela Manova, 2022

COMPLEXITY FILTER

1. (Syntax) In Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) we account for the different word order and constituency of verbal complexes in Hungarian, Dutch and German by a derivational theory which relies on overt (remnant) XP movement only. The derivations yield paradigms that are not always attested in full in a particular language: there are language specific gaps in the paradigms. Koopman and Szabolcsi argue that these gaps should be accounted for by a new brand of filters, complexity filters, which act on the representations that the derivations generate. Complexity filters are sensitive to overt material only, and impose restrictions on the "size" or "internal complexity" of certain constituents in designated Spec positions at the end of the derivation.
    Movement is not subject to economy conditions: the computational system is blind and fully automatic. Different surface patterns result from the particular history of the derivation: which parts of the structure may be split (expressed by language specific "splitting" parameters), and what "size" constituent is allowed to occupy a particular Spec position at the end of the derivation (expressed by language specific complexity filters). Splitting parameters and complexity filters are independent, but in many cases interact to restrict what size constituent can be pied-piped, and what parts of the structure muse be "chopped up" into smaller pieces. | Hilda Koopman, 2008
2. (Semantics) Katzir (2007) and Fox and Katzir (2011) formalize a notion of complexity that requires formal alternatives to be no more complex than the asserted one. This formal complexity filter on Excl can be stated thusly:

   Complexity Filter on Excl
   Excl(φ) ⊆ {Basic(ψ): ψ is no more complex than φ}

    | Bernhard Schwarz and Michael Wagner, 2024
3. (Example)
    ○ To see how arbitrary the Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) provisions for Hungarian are, consider how the language would look if we simply changed one of them, and kept the others the same. For example, suppose the Hungarian complexity filter forced the movement of XPs smaller than InflP, rather than larger than InflP. The language that results from such an adjustment would have a bizarre collection of properties form the point of view of the accounts which make the X⁰ distinction. But isn't that a point in favor of such theories? | Edwin Williams, 2004
    ○ Fanselow and Ćavar (2001) argue that the German paradigm (1) shows the need for complexity restrictions independent of head status. Verbs pied-pipe their unstressed particles when they undergo V2 movement (1a,1c), while stressed particles are stranded (1b,1d). (1) indeed establishes the need for a morpho-phonological complexity filter for the second position. (1) also shows that lexical entries can be split up in a V2 construction. (1) does not show that elements other than an X⁰ category can occupy the second position, however. The paradigm in (1) constitutes no reason for abandoning the idea that X⁰ elements only undergo V2 movement in German.
   1. a.
      b.
       
      c.
      d.

      dass
      dass
      that
      er
      er

      er
      er
      he
      beginnt
      fängt

      den
      den
      the
      den
      den

      Brief
      Brief
      letter
      Brief
      Brief

      beginnt
      an.fängt
      begins
      ∅
      an

      
       
       
      
      

        '(that) he begins with the letter'
   
    | Gisbert Fanselow, 2004

* COMPLEXONSET

1. (Optimality Theory) A markedness constraint:

   * COMPLEX ONSET
   Don't produce complex onsets (CCV-).

    | Paul Boersma and Clara Levelt, 2000
2. (Examples)
    ○ In an underlying word-initial consonant cluster, *COMPLEXONSET is in conflict with the faithfulness constraints MAX-IO (Input segments must have counterparts in the output) and DEP-IO (The output must preserve all segments present in the input). | Somdev Kar, 2012
    ○ This paper focuses on four strategies of onset reduction employed by a single child (4;0-4;4) acquiring Polish: deletion, coalescence, metathesis, and gemination.
    The OT account makes it possible to envisage the four strategies as different surface responses to the undominated *COMPLEXOnset which militates against onset clusters. The choice of a particular strategy as well as its restriction to a particular word position is not random but follows from the interplay between * COMPLEXOnset, sonority-based syllable structure constraints (Margin Hierarchy, CONTACT LAW), context-sensitive markedness constraints (CODA CONDITION, *Nasal-Fricative) and faithfulness constraints. | Beata Łukaszewicz, 2007

* COMPLEXSEGMENT

1. (Optimality Theory) A constraint:

   * COMPLEXSEGMENT:
   Assign one violation for every output segment with more than one articulator feature.

    | Larry Lyu, 2026
2. (Optimality Theory) 
   • *COMPLEXSEGMENT&_ons*W
     Avoid complex segments and [w] in the domain of the same onset.
   • *COMPLEXSEGMENT&_ons*FRICATIVES
     Avoid complex segments and fricatives in the domain of the same onset.
   • *COMPLEXSEGMENT
     Avoid branching segments.
   
    | Kathleen M. O'Connor, 1999
3. (Optimality Theory) A segmental markedness constraint:

   * COMPSEG: No complex segments.

    | Jaye Padgett, 1995
4. (Example)
    ○ An assumed constraint like *ComplexSegment (e.g. in Padgett 1995) would presumably assign a violation to any segment with more than one place. Its violation profile is shown below, compared with m.KPT ("Don't be dorsal, labial, or coronal").

   m.KPT versus Hypothetical * ComplexSegment

   	m.KPT	*ComplexSegment
   T	1	0
   P	1	0
   K	1	0
   KP	2	1
   TP	2	1
   !	2	1

    Among these candidates, the two constraints are effectively identical; each only differentiates between complex stops and simple stops. However, m.KPT is independently motivated by the constraint building mechanism from the universal markedness scale. The *ComplexSegment constraint would have to be assumed separately. | Nick Danis, 2017

COMPOSITE PROBE

1. (Syntax) In recent approaches to the A' / A-distinction and how it is related to features (rather than structural positions alone), the call for composite probes grew stronger. Composite probes, as van Urk (2015) labels them, are two probes located on a single head, forming a probe conglomerate—an assumption that has been made for TMA-features on T or Infl already for a while (e.g., the combination of tense and φ-features on a single head). | Magdalena Lohninger, Iva Kovač, and Susanne Wurmbrand, 2022
2. (Syntax) Person and number are sometimes forced to probe in unison. Person and number can form a composite probe, and select a target together (Coon and Bale, 2014).
    If two features on the same head can form a composite probe, we might find a composite probe made up of φ-features and A'-features: [Wh, φ] (a composite A / Ā probe). | Coppe van Urk, 2015
3. (Syntax) The phenomenon where two (or more) features present on the same head probe together in unison, searching for the closest goal bearing both of the features involved in the probe, and ignoring goals with only one or the other of the features (Chomsky 2001, Bruening 2001, Pesetsky and Torrego 2001, Haegeman 2012, Rezac 2013, Coon and Bale 2014, Kotek 2014, Deal 2014). | Nicholas Longenbaugh, 2017

COMPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS

1. (Semantics) Usually defined as a functional dependence of the meaning of an expression on the meanings of its parts. | Wlodek Zadrozny, 1995
2. (Semantics) The building up of phrasal or sentence meaning from the meaning of smaller units by means of semantic rules. To account for speakers' knowledge of the truth, reference, entailment, and ambiguity of sentences, as well as for our ability to determine the meaning of a limitless number of expressions, we must suppose that the grammar contains semantic rules that combine the meanings of words into meaningful phrases and sentences. In other words, semantic rules are principles for determining the meaning of larger units like sentences from the meaning of smaller units like noun phrases and verb phrases.
    Our semantic rules must be sensitive not only to the meaning of individual words but to the structure in which they occur. Two rules:
   1. The meaning of [ S NP VP ] is the following truth condition:
      If the meaning of NP (an individual) is a member of the meaning of VP (a set of individuals), then S is true. Otherwise it is false.
   2. The meaning of [ VP V NP ] is the set of individuals X such that X is the first member of any pair in the meaning of V whose second member is the meaning of NP.
    These two semantic rules handle an essentially infinite number of intransitive and transitive sentences, and they account for our knowledge of the truth value of sentences by taking the meanings of words and combining them according to the syntactic structure of the sentence. | Hatice Eroğlu, 2012

COMPOSITIONALITY
(Semantics) A symbolic system is compositional if the meaning of every complex expression E in that system depends on, and depends only on

1. E's syntactic structure, and
2. The meanings of E's simple parts.

• Things said earlier in the conversation.
• The beliefs or intentions of the person uttering S.
• Salient objects and events in the environment at the time that S is uttered.
• The non-semantic character of S's simple parts, such as their shape or sound.

COMPOUND

1. (Morphology) Most Chinese words are compound words, composed of two or more constituent morphemes.
    Morphemes used as constituents in compounds are usually words by themselves, although there are also bound morphemes in the language. | Xiaolin Zhou, William Marslen-Wilson, Marcus Taft, and Hua Shu, 1999
2. (Morphology) Compounding consists of the combination of two or more lexemes, whereas derivation is characterized by the addition of an affix, that is, a bound morpheme, to a lexeme.
    Compounding is accounted for by a set of Word Structure Rules which form part of syntax and combine lexical stems into compounds.
    Compounds have an internal structure that is accessible to other rules of grammar. For instance, there are rules for introducing linking elements into German compounds that must have access to the internal structure of such complex words (Anderson 1992).
    There is no sharp boundary between compounding and affixal derivation, since there are many borderline cases. | Geert Booij, 2005
3. (Morphology)  Compounding, prima facie, presents a seemingly paradigm case of morphology-as-syntax. It is productive, and it manipulates items which are canonically themselves free morphemes and clearly independent terminal nodes. As shown by Lieber 1992, nominal compounding in English and other Germanic languages can even include syntactically complex phrases, as in the following four examples from Tucson Weekly film reviews by James DiGiovanna:
   1. a. These aren't your standard stuff-blowing-up effects. (06/03/2004)
      b. When he's not in that mode, though, he does an excellent job with the bikini-girls-in-trouble genre. (11/30/2006)
      c. I've always found it odd that the people who complain most about realism are comic-book and science-fiction fans. (12/23/2004)
      d. There's the aforementioned bestiality and drooling-stroke-victim jokes. (03/29/2001)
    | Heidi Harley, 2011

COMPOUND PAST
(Grammar) A term used for the Spanish verb tense Preterito Perfecto Compuesto. The English equivalent is normally the Present Perfect, but I prefer the term Compound Past when dealing with this Spanish verb tense. There are two reasons for this:

1. It maintains a certain logic with another verb tense that is of interest here, namely the Simple Past.
2. Since it has been argued that time of speech is less crucial for the choice of the compound or the simple past form in several dialects (see De Mello 1994, Rodríguez Louro 2009), there is no reason to keep "Present" in the term used.

Page Last Modified May 15, 2026

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x