Compounding and Derivation: Interactions in Structure and Interpretation

16 Nov


Información aparecida en LINGUIST List:

Full Title: Compounding and Derivation: Interactions in Structure and Interpretation

Short Title: SLE-CDISI
Date: 31-Aug-2016 – 03-Sep-2016
Location: Naples, Italy
Contact Person: Martina Werner

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics; Morphology; Typology

Call Deadline: 09-Nov-2015

Meeting Description:
Compounding and derivation are word-formation processes that build new lexemes. Beyond the usual language-specific and universal problems of definition (see Lieber & Stekauer 2009, 2014), what the two processes have in common (and what differentiates them from inflection) is their combining content morphemes (e.g., roots, stems, affixes), whose interaction raises intricate questions about both the morphosyntax and the compositional interpretation of the output. Historically speaking, affixes may develop from productive compound parts that no longer preserve their free form (e.g., -ship, -hood, -ful), and synchronic formations may exhibit properties in between derivation and compounding as a result of language change (e.g., manlike, trustworthy; see Marchand 1969, Dalton-Puffer & Plag 2001, Trips 2009, Schlücker 2012, Werner 2012, and Olsen 2014 for an overview). In addition, the linguistic tradition has long debated the status of so-called synthetic compounds, in which compounding and derivation interact (e.g., dog-train-er, long-leg(g)-ed), although for various theoretical reasons neither of the two naturally qualifies as preceding the other (see, e.g., Levi 1978, Roeper & Siegel 1978, Selkirk 1982, Lieber 1983, 2004, Booij 1988, 2005, Leser 1990, Ackema & Neeleman 2004, Harley 2009, Borer 2013).
The main difference between these two processes is morphological: derivation adds an affix to a lexeme (root or stem; e.g., play-er), while compounding puts together two lexemes (e.g., fair play). A direct consequence of this difference concerns the interpretation: while affixes usually contribute a compositional (though, possibly, polysemous) meaning to derived words, the semantic relations between the parts of primary compounds, in particular, may be rather underspecified (see the notorious German example Fischfrau ‘fish woman’). But beyond these differences, compounding and derivation have similar structural properties (binary branching, recursion, and headedness; Olsen 2014).

Invited Speakers: Susan Olsen, Paolo Acquaviva


Gianina Iordachioaia (University of Stuttgart) & Martina Werner (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna)

Call for Papers:

Our workshop aims to discuss the patterns of interaction between the morphological units of derived words and compounds, along with their effect on the interpretation of the output and the implications for their theoretical modeling from a crosslinguistic perspective. We invite submissions on synchronic and diachronic studies that address (but are not limited to) the following topics:
1. The morphosyntactic status of the morphological units in compounds and derived words from a crosslinguistic perspective. Language families are known to vary in their structural properties. For instance, compounds are right-headed in Germanic (Williams 1981), but left-headed in Romance (cf. contributions in Scalise & Masini 2012). In addition, while Germanic languages may use linking elements (e.g., state-s-man vs. state employee, Ger. Universität-s-bibliothek ‘university library’, Anmietung-s-vereinbarung vs. Anmiet-vereinbarung ‘rental agreement’), Romance languages usually employ prepositional/case marking on non-heads in so-called ‘analytic compounds’ (e.g., Fr. homme d’Etat, Ro. om de stat ‘statesman’). What is the morphological status of such compound parts in different languages, and what are their theoretical implications for the analysis of compounds in general (cf. Haider 2001, Delfitto, Fabregas & Melloni 2011)? Besides compounds, affixes also exhibit various morphosyntactic interactions with their bases, which have a direct effect on the interpretation of the output (see, e.g., Spanish nominal and adjectival suffixes in Fabregas 2013).
2. Synthetic compounds. How can we reliably characterize the structure of synthetic compounds in relation to derivation and primary compounds? How many types of synthetic compounds are there? Nominal synthetic compounds most often appear with -er and -ing, but we also find them with derived nominals (e.g., student evaluation, law enforcement). Synthetic compounds based on conversion have been controversial in English (see Grimshaw 1990, Borer 2013), but in German we find them with nominalized (converted) infinitives, whose eventive interpretation resembles the typical English synthetic compounds (e.g., Sternebeobachten ‘stargazing’). The question then is what properties of the deverbal head are relevant in the formation of a synthetic compound? For instance, is there a difference between the compounds based on heads with different suffixes (cf. Ger. Sterne-beobacht-erei vs. Sterne-beobacht-en ‘stargazing’) and/or of different lexical categories (cf. nominal vs. adjectival/participial compounds as, e.g., handwritten, long-legged)?
3. Argumental relations with compounds and derived words. In the discussion on synthetic compounds the question of whether the non-head is an argument of the derived head plays a crucial role (see discussion in Grimshaw 1990, Bobaljik 2003, Lieber 2004, Borer 2013). How can we distinguish between genuine argumental relations and those that arise only by association in compounds (see internal argument in teacher evaluation vs. external argument reading in teacher recommendation)? What is the status of relational adjectives that appear with a deverbal noun and seem to realize an argument of the latter in a compound-like behavior (e.g. presidential election; Marchis 2010)? Moreover, do phrases with derived words and arguments (e.g. the training/trainer of the dog) differ from corresponding compounds (e.g., dog-training/-trainer) in terms of argument structure? In Germanic languages the two patterns differ in form (see left- vs. right-headedness), but in Romance languages they are both left-headed and differ only in the (discourse-linked) interpretation of the non-head (cf. Ro. dresorul câinelui ‘trainer.the dog.the.Gen’ vs. dresorul de câini ‘trainer.the of dogs’).
We welcome studies that are couched in both formal and functional approaches to morphology and especially encourage new insights driven by large corpus-oriented data from theoretical linguistics, historical linguistics, language typology, and variational linguistics.
We invite submissions of abstracts for 20+10 min presentations at the email address below, which should also include contact details (name, affiliation, and email address). For the first phase, please submit an abstract of max 300 words (excluding references) to be evaluated for consideration in our workshop proposal. If the workshop is accepted, we will require a full abstract submission (deadline 15 January 2016), which will undergo the general SLE reviewing process. Submission address: Submission deadline: November 9


Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bobaljik, J. 2003. Auspicious Compounds. T. Grüter and T. Takehisa, eds., Papers in Memory of Lara Riente, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics vol 17.2, 65-71. Booij, G., 1988. The relation between inheritance and argument linking: Deverbal nouns in Dutch. In: Morphology and Modularity. In Honour of Henk Schultink. Dordrecht: Foris, 57-74. Booij, G., 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In: Dressler, W., Kastovsky, D., Pfeiffer, O. & Rainer, F. (eds.): Morphology and its Demarcations. John Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 109–132. Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense: Volume III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. & Plag, I. 2001. Categorywise, some compound-type morphemes seem to be rather suffix-like: on the status of -ful, -type, and -wise in Present Day English. Folia Linguistica 34(3-4). 225-244. Delfitto, D., Fabregas, A. & Melloni, C. 2011. Compounding at the interfaces. S. Lima, K. Mullin and B. Smith, eds., Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society: 255-269. GLSA Publications, Amherst. Di Sciullo, A.-M. & Williams, E. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Di Sciullo, A.-M. 2005. Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fabregas, A. 2013. Towards a syntactic account of affix combinations: from nouns to adjectives and vice versa, in Iordachioaia, G., I. Roy & K. Takamine, Categorization and Category Change. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 95-122. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Harley, H. 2009. Compounding in Distributed Morphology, in Lieber & Stekauer (2009). Haider, H. 2001. Why are there no Complex Head-Initial Compounds? In: Schaner-Wolles, C., Rennison, J. & Neubarth, F. (ed.): Naturally! Festschrift for Wolfgang U. Dressler. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, 165-174. Lieber, R. 1983. Argument linking and compounding in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 251–286. Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press. Lieber, R. & Stekauer, P. (eds). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford University Press. Lieber, R. & Stekauer, P. (eds.). 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford University Press. Leser, M. 1990. Das Problem der ‘Zusammenbildungen’: eine lexikalistische Studie. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Levi, J. N. 1978. The Syntax and Semanties of Complex Nominals. Academic Press, New York. Marchand, H. 1969: The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edition. München: Beck Marchis, M. 2010. Relational Adjectives at the Syntax-Morphology Interface in Romanian and Spanish. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Stuttgart. Olsen, S. 2014. Delineating derivation and compounding, in Lieber & Stekauer (2014). Roeper, T. & Siegel, M. E. A. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199-260. Scalise, S. & Masini, F. (eds.). 2012. Special Issue on Romance Compounds. Probus 24:1. Schlücker, B. 2012. Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung. In: Gaeta, L. / Schlücker, B. (eds.): Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Berlin / Boston: de Gruyter, 1–27. Selkirk, E. O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Trips, C. 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Werner, M. 2012. Genus, Derivation und Quantifikation. Zur Funktion der Suffigierung und verwandter Phänomene im Deutschen. (Studia Linguistica Germanica 114) Berlin / Boston: de Gruyter. Williams, E. 1981. On the notions of lexically related and head of a word. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245-274.



Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )


Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: