Compounding in Modern Greek pp 221-241

Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 2)

Compounding Versus Derivation and Inflection



The relation of compounding with derivation on the one hand and inflection on the other has been a challenging topic with consequences for the architecture of grammar. In Chap. 11, it is proposed that there is no radical separation line between derivation and compounding, and thus, if derivation is to be treated within morphology, compounding should not be excluded from its domain. The proposal is illustrated with evidence drawn from the order of application between compounding and derivation and the existence of items, the so-called affixoids, whose categorial status – stems or affixes – is unclear. With respect to inflection, it is shown that Greek compounds are actively inflected at their right edge. However, cases with a non-active compound-internal inflection are not absent in Greek. They belong to an Ancient Greek pattern and constitute fossilised formations. Finally, by investigating [stem-stem] and [stem-word] structures, it is shown that inflection may occur before or after compounding. As a consequence, one may safely assume that the two processes should be handled within the same grammatical component, that is, morphology.


  1. Amiot, Dany. 2005. Between compounding and derivation: Elements of word formation corresponding to prepositions. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastofsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 183–196. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen. 1992. Amorphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babiniotis, George. 2002. Leksiko tis neas ellinikis glossas [Dictionary of the Modern Greek language]. Athens: Centre of Lexicography.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, Laurie. 2005. The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastofsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 97–108. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, Laurie, and Salvador Valera. 2005. Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Booij, Geert. 2005a. Compounding and derivation. Evidence for construction morphology. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastofsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 109–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Booij, Geert. 2005b. The grammar of words. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Angela Ralli. 1999. Theta-role saturation in Greek compounds. In Studies of Modern Greek generative syntax, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks, and Melita Stavrou, 185–200. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimela, Eleonora. 2005. I prothimatopoiisi stin kritiki dialecto. I periptosi ton sin-, sjo-, so- [Prefixation in the Cretan Dialect. The case of sin-, sjo-, so-]. M.A. thesis, University of Athens.Google Scholar
  12. Dimela, Eleonora. 2010. I prothimatopoiisi stis neoellinikes dialektus: Synchroniki ke diachroniki prosengisi [Prefixation in Modern Greek dialects: A synchronic and diachronic approach]. Ph.D. diss., University of Patras.Google Scholar
  13. Dimela, Eleonora, and Angela Ralli. 2009. Prefixation versus compounding: A case study from the dialects of Aivali and Moschonisia. Patras Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 95–106.Google Scholar
  14. Don, Jan, Mieke Trommelen, and Wim Zonneveld. 2004. Conversion and category indeterminacy. In Morphology, vol. 2, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 943–951. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1969. Wortbildung der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: EB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  16. Fradin, Bernard. 2005. On a semantically grounded difference between derivation and compounding. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. Wolfgang Dressler, Dieter Kastofsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 161–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Garefalakis, Νikolaos. 2002. Lexiko idiomatismon kritikis dialectou (perioxi Sitias) [Lexicon of the Cretan dialect (area of Sitia)]. Sitia: Ekdoseis Dimou Sitias.Google Scholar
  18. Giegerich, Heinz. 1999. Lexical strata in English. Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giurescu, Anca. 1965. Contributi al modo di definire i sostantivi composti della lingua italiana. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 10: 395–400.Google Scholar
  20. Grimm, Jacob. 1826. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Günther.Google Scholar
  21. Hopper, Paul, and Elisabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iacobini, Claudio. 2004. Prefissazione. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, ed. Maria Grossman and Franz Rainer, 97–161. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Idomeneas, Marios. 2006. Kritiko glossari [Cretan glossary]. Athens: Academy of Athens.Google Scholar
  24. Joseph, Brian D. 2003. Morphologization from syntax. In Handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Brian D. Joseph and Richard Janda, 472–492. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected papers from SICOL-1981, The Linguistic Society of Korea, 4–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
  26. Ksanthinakis, Antonios. 1996. To glossiko idioma tis ditikis Kritis. Leksilogio me ermineftika kai etimologika scholia [The dialect of Western Crete: A vocabulary with remarks on interpretation and etymology]. Chania: Dimotiki Politistiki Epixeirisi Chanion.Google Scholar
  27. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Ph.D. diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. Morphological conversion within a restrictive theory of the lexicon. In The scope of lexical rules, ed. Michael Moortgat, Harry van der Huslst, and Teun Hoekstra, 161–200. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  29. Marchand, Hans. 1967. Expansion, transposition and derivation. La Linguistique 1: 13–26.Google Scholar
  30. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  31. Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  32. Naumann, Bernd, and Petra M. Vogel. 2000. Derivation. In Morphology, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 929–942. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Nespor, Marina, and Angela Ralli. 1996. Morphology-phonology interface: Phonological domains in Greek compounds. The Linguistic Review 13: 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newton, Brian. 1972. The generative interpretation of a dialect. A study of Modern Greek phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Olsen, Susan. 2000. Composition. In Morphology, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 897–915. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik, Wortbildungslehre, vol. V. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  37. Rainer, Franz. 2001. Compositionality and paradigmatically determined allomorphy in Italian word-formation. In Naturally! Linguistic studies in Honour of W.U. Dressler, ed. Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison, and Friedrich Neubarth, 383–392. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
  38. Ralli, Αngela. 1988. Eléments de la morphologie du grec moderne: La structure du verbe. Ph.D. diss., Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  39. Ralli, Angela. 2005. Morfologia [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
  40. Ralli, Angela. 2007. I sinthesi lekseon: diaglossiki morfologiki prosengisi [The composition of words: A cross-linguistic, morphological approach]. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
  41. Ralli, Angela. 2008. Composés déverbaux grecs à ‘radicaux liés’. In La Composition dans une perspective typologique, ed. Dany Amiot, 189–210. Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
  42. Ralli, Angela. 2009. Morphology meets dialectology: Insights from Modern Greek dialects. Morphology 19(1): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ralli, Angela. 2010. Compounding versus derivation. In Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, ed. Sergio Scalise and Irene Vogel, 57–76. Amsterdam//Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Ralli, Angela. 2012. Morphology in language contact: Verbal loanblend formation in Asia Minor Greek (Aivaliot). In Morphologies in contact, Studia Typologica 12, ed. M. Thomas Stolz, H.Otsuka Vanhove, and A. Urdze, 185–212. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Ralli, Angela, and Athanasios Karasimos. 2009a. The bare-stem constraint in Greek compound formation. Gengo Kenkyu 135: 29–48.Google Scholar
  46. Ralli, Angela, and Athanasios Karasimos. 2009b. The role of constraints in compound formation: The case of bare-stem constraint. Lingue e Linguaggio VIII: 53–74.Google Scholar
  47. Ralli, Angela, and Maria Raftopoulou. 1999. I sinthesi os diachroniko fenomeno schimatismou lekseon [Compounding as a diachronic word-formation process]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 1998: 389–403.Google Scholar
  48. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  49. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  50. Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  51. Scalise, Sergio. 1992. Compounding in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 175–200.Google Scholar
  52. Scalise, Sergio, Antonietta Bisetto, and Emiliano Guevara. 2005. Selection in compounding and derivation. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastofsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 133–150. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  53. Schmidt, Günter Dieterich. 1987. Das Affixoid: Zur Notwendigkeit und Brauchbarkeit eines beliebten Zwischenbegriffs der Wortbildung. In Deutsche Lehnwortbildung, ed. Hoppe Gabriele, 53–101. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  54. Singh, Rajendra. 1995. Linguistic theory, language contact, and Modern Hindustani: The three sides of a linguistic story. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. Štekauer, Pavol. 2005. Compounding and affixation. Any difference? In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastofsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 151–160. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  56. Ten Pius, Hacken. 2000. Derivation and compounding. In Morphology, ed. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 349–359. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  57. Tollemache, Federico. 1945. Le parole composte nella lingua italiana. Roma: Rores.Google Scholar
  58. Wilmanns, Wilhelm. 1896. Deutsche Grammatik. Abt. 2. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner.Google Scholar
  59. Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilologyUniversity of PatrasRio-PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations