Acknowledgments .- Abbreviations .- Tables .- Introduction .- 1. Defining a Greek compound . 1.1 Introduction . 1.2 Greek as a stem-based language . 1.3 In search of a definition . 1.3.1Single stress . 1.3.2 Bound constituents . 1.3.3 Structural position . 1.3.4 Linking element . 1.3.5 Semantic opacity . 1.3.6 Lexical integrity . 1.3.7 Graphic unity . 1.3.8 Compounds versus syntactic constructions .1.4 Summary . 1.5 References .- 2. Grammatical category and constituents . 2.1 Introduction . 2.2 Nouns . 2.3 Adjectives . 2.4 Verbs . 2.5 Other categories . 2.5.1 Adverbs . 2.5.2 Compounds with a pronoun or a cardinal number . 2.6 Summary . 2.7 References .- 3 Compound marking . 3.1 Introduction . 3.2 Properties . 3.2.1 Stem-driven presence . 3.2.2 Lexically-marked absence . 3.3 Linking elements cross-linguistically . 3.4 Previous analyses . 3.5 Morphological status . 3.6. The parameter of overtly expressed paradigmatic inflection . 3.7 Position . 3.8 The morphological-category parameter . 3.9 Origin . 3.10 Summary . 3.11 References .- 4 Stress and morphological structure . 4.1 Introduction . 4.2 The type of inflection . 4.3 The position of stress . 4.4 Special categories . 4.4.1 Verbal compounds . 4.4.2 Compounds ending in a derived item . 4.4.3 Neuters in -i . 4.5 More compound structures . 4.6 Recursion in compounding . 4.7 Summary . 4.8 References .- 5. Headedness and classification . 5.1 Introduction . 5.2 Classification . 5.3 Headedness . 5.3.1 The notion of head . 5.3.2 Position . 5.3.3 Exocentricity . 5.4 Summary . 5.5 References .- 6. Constraints, allomorphy and form of constituents . 6.1 Introduction . 6.2 The Bare-stem constraint . 6.3 Apparent counter-examples . 6.3.1 Allomorphy . 6.3.2 Allomorphy in compounding . 6.4 Allomorphs of Ancient Greek origin . 6.4.1 Compound types . 6.4.2 -learned compound constituents . 6.4.3. +learned compound constituents . 6.4.4 Mixed types . 6.5 Summary . 6.6 References .- 7. Coordinative compounds . 7.1 Introduction . 7.2 What is a coordinative compound? . 7.3 Classification . 7.4 Headedness . 7.5 Historical development . 7.6 Coordinative compounds in Modern Greek dialects . 7.7 Summary . 7.8 References .- 8. Verbal and deverbal compounds . 8.1 Introduction . 8.2 Categories . 8.2.1 Exocentric formations . 8.2.2 Endocentric formations . 8.3 Compound-internal theta-role saturation . 8.4 Configurations . 8.5 Meaning . 8.6 Summary . 8.7 References .- 9. Deverbal compounds with bound stems . 9.1 Introduction . 9.2 State of the art . 9.3 Compounds or derived words? . 9.4 Grammatical category of bound stems . 9.5 Headedness and restrictions . 9.6 Productivity . 9.7 Summary . 9.8 References .- 10. Compounding versus derivation and inflection . 10.1 Introduction . 10.2 Compounding versus derivation . 10.2.1 Order of application . 10.2.2 Affixoids . 10.3 Compounding versus inflection . 10.4 Summary 10.5 References .- 11. Compounds versus phrases . 11.1 Introduction . 11.2 Properties of NPs . 11.3 Properties of compounds . 11.4 Phrasal compounds . 11.5 Phrasal-compound like phrases .11.6 Constructs . 11.7 Phrasal compounds versus syntactic formations . 11.8 Summary . 11.9 References .- Appendix I Greek: a brief history . 1. Periodization . 2. Geography - Dialectal variation . 3. References .- Appendix II Greek inflection: an overview . 1. Verbal inflection . 2. Nominal inflection . 3. References .- Appendix III List of compounds .- Subject Index

Compounding in Modern Greek

The ‘traditional’ distinction of compounds into endocentric (Eng. doorknob) and exocentric (pickpocket) is based on the presence or absence of a head constituent (Bloomfield, Language, Holt, New York, 1933); since the early eighties, the syntactic notion of ‘head’ has been extended also to derivation, claiming that English derivational suffixes, as e.g. -ness, are heads, either in an absolute sense or in a categorial sense (see Williams Linguist Inq 12:245–274, 1981; Lieber On the organization of the lexicon, Indiana university Linguistics Club, Bloomington, 1981; Lieber, in Yearbook of morphology 1989, Foris, Dordrecht, 1989; among others). In this paper, we shall first review some key issues in the morphological notion of head, illustrating well-known problematic cases, and then we shall discuss the Construction Morphology approach to headedness in derivation and compounding (Booij in The Oxford handbook of compounding, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009; Booij, in Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2010a, 2010 Booij, Construction morphology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010b). The stipulation of a hierarchical lexicon with subschemas expressing intermediate generalizations is a powerful theoretical device in accounting for a phenomenon as headedness variation, as we shall show with a Vietnamese case study; also, inconsistencies in word-class assignment in derivation will be dealt with in a constructionist perspective. Moreover, we shall discuss the consequences of a constructionist approach to the distinction between compounding and derivation.

Constructions and headedness in derivation and compounding

/pdf/compounding-in-modern-standard-arabic-jordanian-arabic-and-2rm0e1u066.pdf

Compounding in modern standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic and English

This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Revisiting exocentricity in compounding: Evidence from Greek and Cypriot*

Η παρούσα διατριβή eξeτάζeι την έννοια κeφαλή (head) στο eπίπeδο της Μορφολογίας
και της Λeξικής Σημασιολογίας μe έμφαση στα eξής τρία eρωτήματα: (α) ορισμός, (β) θέση, και (γ) παρουσία και απουσία κeφαλής σe μορφολογικούς σχηματισμούς.

Συνοπτικά οι βασικές προτάσeις σχeτικά μe την έννοια της κeφαλής eίναι οι eξής:

(α) Αρκeτές από τις έννοιeς μe τις οποίeς έχeι ταυτιστeί η κeφαλή, όπως ο υποκατηγοριοποιητής, δeν eίναι σχeτικές μe την ασυμμeτρία κeφαλής-μη κeφαλής.
(β) η κeφαλή πρέπeι να ταυτιστeί μe τον κατηγοριακό καθοριστή σe eπίπeδο μορφολογίας και μe τον οντολογικό καθοριστή σe eπίπeδο λeξικής σημασιολογίας. 
(γ) Η eφαρμογή της έννοιας κeφαλή στο σχηματισμό σημασιολογικά πολύπλοκων σχηματισμών δeίχνeι ότι η κλίση, η προθηματοποίηση, και η αξιολογική μορφολογία, οι οποίeς δeν φέρουν ορίσματα, πρέπeι να αναλυθούν μe βάση το μηχανισμό της υπόταξης λeιτουργιών χωρίς την προσθήκη eνδeίκτη. Η πρόταση αυτή έχeι eπιπτώσeις στον τρόπο μe τον οποίο ταξινομούνται τα μορφήματα σe eπίπeδο λeξικής σημασιολογίας.
(δ) Όσον αφορά στη θέση της κeφαλής, το φαινόμeνο της ύπαρξης αριστeρόστροφων συνθέτων στην Κατωιταλική δeν πρέπeι να μeλeτάται ανeξάρτητα από το ίδιο φαινόμeνο το οποίο eμφανίζeται τόσο σe άλλeς διαλέκτους, όσο και σe προηγούμeνeς eξeλικτικές φάσeις.
(e) Η μορφολογία δeν χeιρίζeται μόνο ασυμμeτρικές σχέσeις, καθώς η σeιρά των μορφημάτων υπόκeιται σe αλλαγές.
(στ) Από διαχρονική σκοπιά, η σeιρά των συστατικών στα σύνθeτα μπορeί να μην eίναι απόλυτα eλeύθeρη, καθώς φαίνeται να eπηρeάζeται από τον τομέα της σύνταξης.
(ζ) Σχeτικά μe την απουσία κeφαλής, η ανάλυση των eξωκeντρικών συνθέτων δeίχνeι ότι τέτοιοι σχηματισμοί eίναι δομικά παράδοξα τα οποία συνδυάζουν σύνθeση και παραγωγή.

/pdf/headedness-in-word-formation-and-lexical-semantics-evidence-33ifveelz2.pdf

Headedness in Word Formation and Lexical Semantics: evidence from Italiot and Cypriot

The identification of a compound as endocentric or exocentric depends on the notion of head: if a compound has a head (or two), it is called endocentric; if it has no head, it is called exocentric. Exocentricity, however, has been usually assumed as a unitary notion, exactly because the notion of head has been generally interpreted as a unitary notion. In this paper we will first provide typologically based data on the dimension and limits of exocentricity, and then we will argue that the notion of head can be split into three different subparts: categorial head, semantic head and morphological head. Correspondingly, the notion of exocentricity can be split into categorial exocentricity, semantic exocentricity and morphological exocentricity. Our approach, based on features of the constituents and not on constituents as a whole, will hopefully provide a new analysis of exocentricity in compounding. * .

/pdf/exocentricity-in-compounding-2s7j8e3kxq.pdf

Francesca Forza

Papers

Exocentricity in Compounding