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. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Constructions and headedness in derivation and compounding

Arcodia G. F.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2012

Abstract

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. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
OFFPRINT - Constructions and headedness in derivation and compounding.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione dell'editore
Licenza: Accesso chiuso-personale
Dimensione 700.06 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
700.06 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in ARCA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/10278/3719973
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact