Compound Morphemes

Organizer Rahimullah Rahime

Compounding is a word formation process based on the combination of lexical elements
(words or stems). In the theoretical literature, compounding is discussed
controversially, and the disagreement also concerns basic issues. In the study of
compounding, the questions guiding research can be grouped into four main areas,
labeled here as delimitation, classification, formation, and interpretation. Depending
on the perspective taken in the research, some of these may be highlighted or
backgrounded.
In the delimitation of compounding, one question is how important it is to be able to
determine for each expression unambiguously whether it is a compound or not.
Compounding borders on syntax and on affixation. In some theoretical frameworks, it is
not a problem to have more typical and less typical instances, without a precise
boundary between them. However, if, for instance, word formation and syntax are
strictly separated and compounding is in word formation, it is crucial to draw this
borderline precisely. Another question is which types of criteria should be used to
distinguish compounding from other phenomena.
 Criteria based on form, on syntactic properties, and on meaning have been
used. In all cases, it is also controversial whether such criteria should be
applied crosslinguistically.

 In the classification of compounds, the question of how important the

distinction between the classes is for the theory in which they are used poses
itself in much the same way as the corresponding question for the
delimitation. A common classification uses headedness as a basis. Other
criteria are based on the forms of the elements that are combined (e.g., stem
vs. word) or on the semantic relationship between the components. Again,
whether these criteria can and should be applied crosslinguistically is
controversial.
 The issue of the formation rules for compounds is particularly prominent in
frameworks that emphasize form-based properties of compounding.
 Rewrite rules for compounding have been proposed, generalizations over the
selection of the input form (stem or word) and of linking elements, and rules
for stress assignment. Compounds are generally thought of as consisting of
two components, although these components may consist of more than one
element themselves. For some types of compounds with three or more
components, for example copulative compounds, a nonbinary structure has
been proposed.

 The question of interpretation can be approached from two opposite

perspectives. In a semasiological perspective, the meaning of a compound
emerges from the interpretation of a given form. In an onomasiological
perspective, the meaning precedes the formation in the sense that a form is
selected to name a particular concept. The central question in the
interpretation of compounds is how to determine the relationship between
the two components.
 The range of possible interpretations can be constrained by the rules of compounding, by the semantics of the
components, and by the context of use. A much-debated question concerns the relative importance of these
factors.

 Keywords

• definition

• head

• synthetic compound

• exocentric compound

• copulative compound

• Recoverably Deletable Predicate

• skeleton and body

• Parallel Architecture

• onomasiological approach

Subjects

• Morphology
 Compounding is a word formation process based on the combination of lexical
elements. The elements can be characterized as words, stems, or lexemes,
depending on the language and on the theoretical framework adopted. In the
theoretical literature, the discussion of compounding is marked by
disagreement on basic issues. Here, these issues will be grouped into four
main areas, labeled as delimitation, classification, formation, and
interpretation. To each of these, a section will be devoted. Not all of the
issues are equally important in all theoretical frameworks and perspectives. A
question that concerns all of them is to what extent theories can be applied
crosslinguistically. The final section gives some general considerations about
the relationship between the different issues. As much of the discussion in
the literature focuses on English, English compounds will be central in the
presentation of issues. However, examples from other languages will be
included as well, in particular when they raise issues that do not arise in
English.
 1. Delimitation

A wide range of criteria have been used to characterize compounds and

distinguish them from other phenomena, in particular syntactic phrases and
derivations. The preference for certain criteria is determined by three
questions, listed in (1).

 A typical compound in English is textbook. It has a range of properties that

can be evaluated for the three factors in (1). Morphologically, it consists of
two uninflected nouns. Phonologically, it has a characteristic stress pattern.
Orthographically, the two components are written together. Syntactically, it
behaves as a noun. Semantically, it refers to a type of book, marked in some
way by text.
 When these properties are considered in the light of (1), a good example of (1a) is the
question of whether orthographic criteria are acceptable. In many linguistic theories,
starting from Saussure (1916), it is assumed that orthography is not itself part of
language. Such considerations have to be distinguished from the question how useful
the criterion is. It is well known that in English, the orthography of many compounds is
variable. Lieber and Štekauer (2009, p. 7) give the example of flower pot, flower-
pot, flowerpot. This makes it difficult to decide whether it is a compound on the basis
of this orthographic criterion, a problem of type (1c). Whereas in English, compounds
are most often written as two words, in other Germanic languages compounds are
generally written together, which highlights the issue in (1b). The combination of
problems involved has led to a fairly general rejection of orthography as a criterion for
compoundhood.

Phonological criteria offer a good example of the problems involved in a positive

answer to (1b). The Dutch examples in (2) illustrate contexts for final obstruent
devoicing.
 The final consonant of the stem in (2a) is realized as /t/ at the end of a word,
but when it is followed by an affix starting with a vowel, whether inflectional
as in (2b) or derivational as in (2c), resyllabification takes place and the final
consonant is realized as /d/. Dutch orthography represents the underlying /d/
in all cases. Compounds as in (2d) do not have resyllabification, so that the
final obstruent is devoiced and realized as /t/.

A criterion for recognizing compounds based on final obstruent devoicing would

necessarily be language-specific. In English, the rule does not apply. In other
languages where it applies, there is no reason to assume that it works in
exactly the same way as in Dutch. Moreover, in many Dutch compounds, the
rule does not have any observable effect.
 In hoofdkussen (lit. ‘head cushion’; i.e., pillow), the context for resyllabification does not
exist. In kunstacademie (‘art academy’), the first component does not have an underlying
voiced final obstruent. This reduces the value of the criterion in case of a positive answer to
(1c). Similar considerations apply to criteria based on stress (cf. Giegerich, 2009).

Morphosyntactic criteria take as their starting point the structure of the compound. Usually,
a structure such as (3) is assumed.

 Adopting the binary structure in (3) means that compounds with more than two basic
components, for example church history textbook, are the result of recursion, in this
example [[church history] [textbook]]. For certain types of compound, for
example philosopher-singer-songwriter, such an analysis is rather unnatural, because the
choice between the possible orders of combination is arbitrary. However, (3) gives a good
basis for discussing morphosyntactic properties of (most) compounds. In English and other
Germanic languages, Y is usually the head of the compound.
 One relevant issue is the status of X and Y. Especially in the German tradition,
there is a tendency to identify intermediate categories between stem and affix.
Fleischer (1969, pp. 63–66) is an influential early source on this, but he refers to
older sources. Often affixoid is used for elements such
as ‑man in postman or ‑ful in careful. This approach is not compatible with a
positive reply to (1c), but rather introduces a cline from more stem-like to more
affix-like elements, resulting in more compound-like or more derivation-like
words.

Another issue pertaining to X and Y in (3) is to what extent they can be inflected.
The problem can be illustrated with the plural inflection in Dutch (4) and Italian
(5).
 there are two singular nouns (Z) formed with the same components, but X is
singular in (4a) and plural in (4b). They have a different meaning in the sense
that (4a) designates a council for a city, whereas in (4b) the council has its
scope over several cities. Both nouns are generally considered compounds in
Dutch. In (5), the contribution of X and Y is reversed. In Italian, N+N
compounds are left-headed. As a consequence, the plural ending can either
attach to the head X, as in (5b), or to the full compound Z, as in (5c).
Dictionaries tend to give (5b), but grammars give both forms, for example,
Dardano and Trifone (1985, p. 120). If (4) and (5) are compounds, meaningful
inflection of components as well as inflection of the compound attaching to
the first component must be accepted.
 A slightly different case is genitive inflection. Some relevant examples from
different languages are given in (6).
 German (6a) is generally considered a compound. It should be noted,
however, that Friedens is the genitive form of Frieden (‘peace’).
Traditionally, the ending ‑s is analyzed as a linking element in German
grammar. Historically, many linking elements have their origin in genitive
endings. Synchronically, however, there are some frequent combinations that
do not correspond to genitives, as in (7).

 As illustrated in (7), all nouns in ‑ung and ‑heit have a linking

element ‑s when they appear as X in a structure such as (3). The genitive
form of these nouns is the same as the nominative, without ‑s, and they do
not have ‑s as an inflectional ending in other forms either. On the status of
linking elements and their relation to syntax, cf. Koliopoulou (2014).
 The English genitive in (6b) is ambiguous. As noted by ten Hacken (1994, pp.
81–83), the ambiguity can be resolved in various ways. One of them is by
means of agreement with the determiner, as in (8).
 As indicated by the brackets, this in (8a) determines the bracketed complex
expression α, whereas these in (8b) is part of the noun phrase β. Therefore, (6b)
may be considered a compound in contexts such as (8a) but not in contexts such
as (8b). From Marchand’s (1969, pp. 65–69) discussion, it is obvious that the
genitive construction illustrated in (8a) is particularly common with human or at
least animate nouns as X.

If Polish (6c) is considered as a compound, it is left-headed. However, traditional

Polish grammar considers it as a lexicalized syntactic construction (e.g.,
Szymanek, 2010, p. 218). Observing the parallelism with the English
construction, ten Hacken (2013a) argues for an analysis as a compound, while
noting the same ambiguity as in (8).
 A third interesting case is that of relational adjectives (RAs). The way inflection
plays a role in RA+N constructions is illustrated for Polish in (9).
 The RA autobusowy agrees with the noun it modifies in case, number, and
gender, as illustrated by the contrast in (9). When the nominative in (9a) is
changed to the genitive in (9b), the ending ‑y on the RA is replaced by ‑ego. For
Matthews (1974, p. 35), who gives Latin examples, this is a sufficient reason to
exclude RA+N constructions from compounding. To the extent they are fixed
expressions, he assigns them to lexicography, analyzing them as idioms. For
Polish, Szymanek (2010, pp. 218–219) adopts a similar position. The opposite
view, defended, for instance, by Levi (1978), appeals to semantic arguments.

As an example of a criterion based on the relation between the components X and

Y and the compound Z in (3), Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) adopt the Right-hand
Head Rule (RHR) not as a generalization over compounds but as a delimiting
criterion for word formation, which can be used to distinguish compounding from
syntax. According to the RHR, Y in (3) is the head of the compound by virtue of its
being the right-hand component. Z inherits the syntactic category and other
properties from Y. This is illustrated in German (10).
 gender is indicated for each of X, Y, and Z. As the two components have
different genders, it can be seen that Z takes its gender from Y, not from X.
Especially in Germanic languages, taking the RHR as a criterion yields results
that coincide with general usage of the term compound. However, (11) gives
some examples of expressions that are excluded by this criterion.
 THANK YOU

teacher, Associate professor Gull Ahmad ‘’Amirzai’’