Bauer 2019

Complex Lexical Units
Konvergenz und Divergenz
Sprachvergleichende Studien zum Deutschen
Herausgegeben von
Eva Breindl und Lutz Gunkel
Im Auftrag des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache
Gutachterrat
Ruxandra Cosma (Bukarest), Martine Dalmas (Paris), Livio Gaeta (Turin),
Matthias Hüning (Berlin), Sebastian Kürschner (Eichstätt-Ingolstadt),
Torsten Leuschner (Gent), Marek Nekula (Regensburg), Attila Péteri (Budapest),
Christoph Schroeder (Potsdam), Björn Wiemer (Mainz)
Band 9
Complex Lexical
Units
Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions
Edited by Barbara Schlücker

Die Open-Access-Publikation dieses Bandes wurde gefördert vom Institut für Deutsche
Sprache, Mannheim.
Redaktion: Dr. Anja Steinhauer
ISBN 978-3-11-063242-2
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-063244-6
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-063253-8
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

4.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 2018964353
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2019 Barbara Schlücker, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

The book is published with open access at www.degruyter.com.
Typesetting: Annett Patzschewitz

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Inhalt
Rita Finkbeiner/Barbara Schlücker
Compounds and multi-word expressions in the languages of Europe  1
Laurie Bauer
Compounds and multi-word expressions in English  45
Barbara Schlücker
Compounds and multi-word expressions in German  69
Geert Booij
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Dutch  95
Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot

Compounds and multi-word expressions in French  127
Francesca Masini
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Italian  153
Jesús Fernández-Domínguez
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Spanish  189
Maria Koliopoulou
ompounds and multi-word expressions in Greek  221
C
Ingeborg Ohnheiser †
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Russian  251
Bożena Cetnarowska
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Polish  279
Irma Hyvärinen
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Finnish  307
Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh

Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian  337
Rita Finkbeiner/Barbara Schlücker
Compounds and multi-word expressions
in the languages of Europe
1 I ntroduction
This volume deals with compounds (e. g., boat house, softball) and multi-word
expressions (piece of cake, dry cough) in European languages.1 Compounds and
multi-word expressions (henceforth MWEs) are similar as they are both lexical
units and complex, made up of at least two constituents. The most basic differ-
ence between compounds and MWEs seems to be that the former are the product
of a morphological operation and the latter result from syntactic processes. This
is, admittedly, a very vague distinction. However, as soon as one takes into
account more than one specific language (or language family), it seems that this
is the closest one may come to a definition that is more or less applicable to the
European languages. In fact, in light of Romance examples such as French glace
au chocolat, Spanish helado de chocolate ‘chocolate ice cream’ which have often
been analyzed as compounds although they contain syntactic relational markers,
even the morphological criterion for compoundhood seems to be questionable.
Further complicating matters, whereas in many languages compounds are
regarded as being opposed to MWEs, in other languages, and particularly in Eng-
lish, compounds are often regarded as a kind of MWE. In addition, for languages
that are assumed to have an opposition between compounds and MWEs, the
question arises of whether compounds and MWEs act in competition or comple-
mentation with regard to the formation of new lexical units.
Given this background, the aim of the volume is to present an overview of
compounds and MWEs in a sample of European languages. Central questions
that are discussed for each language concern the formal distinction between
compounds and MWEs (in particular prosodic, morphological, and syntactic
properties), the relation between compounding and MWE formation as well as
the conclusions concerning the theory of grammar and the lexicon that follow
from these observations. Although several comprehensive volumes on com-
pounding and phraseology have appeared in recent (and not so recent) years (cf.
1 We would like to thank Kristel Van Goethem and Carmen Scherer for very valuable comments
on an earlier version of this chapter.
Open Access. © 2019 Finkbeiner/Schlücker, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed

under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-001
2 Rita Finkbeiner/Barbara Schlücker
Scalise (ed.) 1992; Burger et al. (eds.) 2007; Lieber/Štekauer (eds.) 2009a; Gaeta/
Grossmann (eds.) 2009; Scalise/Vogel (eds.) 2010; Gaeta/Schlücker (eds.) 2012),
the relationship between compounds and MWEs with respect to their status in
lexicon and grammar has received comparatively little attention (cf. Hüning/
Schlücker 2015 for an overview). For this reason, this relationship constitutes the
central focus of this volume.
The aim of the present chapter is to review the language-specific properties,
bring them together and compare them against German. German is well-known
for its propensity for (nominal) compounding, as compared to, e. g., French. Also,
there is a rather clear demarcation line between compounds and MWEs in Ger-
man, in contrast to English, for instance. Taking German as a reference point may
help to shed more light on some of the crucial questions with respect to the com-
pound-MWE relationship in the various European languages such as, for instance,
the potential competition between the two processes, or their demarcation line.
By way of language comparison, the differences and commonalities between
languages – both within language families and across these borders – become
clearer, ultimately revealing that a cross-linguistically valid definition of com-
pounds and the demarcation from MWEs may be impossible, given that languages
vary greatly in their defining properties and in the number and productivity of
compound and MWE subpatterns.
The volume contains chapters on English, German, Dutch, French, Italian,
Spanish, Greek, Russian, Polish, Finnish, and Hungarian. Although this sample
is neither complete nor representative of “the” languages of Europe, it neverthe-
less provides thorough analyses of a large set of central European languages.
Importantly, it should be noted that the selection here is mostly due to various
practical reasons, rather than an assessment of the relevance of languages. In
addition to the languages mentioned, the present chapter also comprises an over-
view of the North Germanic languages.
The structure of this chapter is as follows: Section 2 starts with general con-
siderations about the lexicon and the lexicon-syntax interface and discusses
basic notions such as morphological vs. syntactic lexical unit, lexicalization, and
the problem of correspondence. Section 3 discusses compounds and MWEs
against the background of German, sorted by language families. The chapter ends
with a brief conclusion in Section 4.
Compounds and multi-word expressions in the languages of Europe 3
2 Theoretical considerations
At the outset of our overview, a short remark on the notion of MWE is in order. It
is widely known that different research traditions within this field have focused
on different types of MWEs, applying an extremely diverse terminology. In the
early Anglo-American structuralist tradition (e. g., Weinreich 1969; Newmeyer
1974), the focus was on idioms as semantically and/or syntactically irregular
MWEs. Idioms – a notorious example being kick the bucket – were mainly dis-
cussed under the assumption that they posed a problem to rule-based grammar.
Traditional German phraseology, on the other hand, which is influenced by the
Soviet tradition, has been investigating idioms in their own right, as a core phe-
nomenon of the linguistic subfield of phraseology (Häusermann 1977; Fleischer
1982; Burger et al. 2007). This tradition has put much effort into issues of classifi-
cation, studying not only idioms, but also other types of MWEs which need not be
idiomatic, for instance collocations such as starker Raucher (lit. strong smoker,
‘heavy smoker’) or routine formulae such as Kein Problem (‘no problem’) (e. g.,
Burger 1998). However, under the growing influence of theories such as Construc-
tion Grammar (Fillmore/Kay/O’Connor 1988; Goldberg 2006; Hoffmann/Trous-
dale (eds.) 2013), and insights from applied linguistics, such as research in for-
eign language learning (Pawley/Syder 1983; Wray 2002), and with the advent of
new technologies within quantitative linguistics and corpus linguistics (Sinclair
1991; Gries 2008), the notion of MWE has broadened dramatically in the last
decades. In particular, it has become increasingly accepted that there is a large
inventory of lexically partially fixed patterns in the lexicon such as [N by N] (page
by page, year by year, country by country, cf. Jackendoff 2008) that may or may
not be fully compositional, and that may be used productively to create new
instances. Under such a broad view, MWEs are “co-occurrence phenomena at the
syntax-lexis interface” (Gries 2008: 8) that may be defined as syntactic patterns
consisting of at least two words, the combination of which may be more or less
fixed, more or less idiomatic, and more or less productive. Crucially, as idiomatic-
ity is not a defining feature of all of these patterns, their status as stored MWEs
hinges on sufficient frequency and on their function as a lexical unit; hence the
term ‘phrasal lexical unit’, which is regularly employed throughout the volume
and the remainder of this introduction. To decide whether or not a frequent syn-
tactic pattern is a lexical unit, a well-defined notion of lexical unit, and of the
lexicon, is required.
2.1 The notion of the lexicon
It is a widely held assumption that the lexicon is a repository of stored linguistic

knowledge, in particular, a repository of words. In fact, it may seem that under
the last 50 years of linguistic research, this assumption has hardly been chal-
lenged, compared to the lively and ongoing debate about what the most adequate
theory of grammar is (cf. Wunderlich 2006: 1). However, it is clear that our theory
of the lexicon crucially depends on our theory of grammar. For example, whether
the lexicon is viewed as a repository of only words or also of affixes depends on
whether morphology is conceptualized as a subcomponent of the lexicon or as
part of syntax. Under a mainstream view, linguistic knowledge comprises two
components:
One is a finite list of structural elements that are available to be combined. This list is tradi-
tionally called the “lexicon”, and its elements are called “lexical items”. […] The other com-
ponent is a finite set of combinatorial principles, or a grammar. (Jackendoff 2002: 39)
This view entails the idea that lexical items have to be learned, as they are not
predictable. By contrast, grammar – which is often equated with syntax – is
viewed as the domain of rules, or principles, that enable speakers of a language
to productively generate new sentences. For example, it is an idiosyncrasy of Eng-
lish that the word squirrel (and not, say, the word dog, or the word hamburger)
refers to the concept squirrel. Speakers of English have to learn this word with
its specific phonological, categorial and semantic features. However, they do not
have to learn the sentence The squirrel is eating nuts, as they can productively
generate it by combining the respective words according to the rules of grammar.
Therefore, the dichotomy between lexicon and grammar also tends to be concep-
tualized as a dichotomy between words and phrases, and between idiosyncrasies
and rules (Engelberg/Holler/Proost 2011: 1).
However, it has long been recognized that there are a considerable number of
phenomena in the languages of the world that pose a serious problem to the view
of a strict lexicon/grammar divide. Compounds and MWEs are a pertinent case in
point. As to compounds, Jackendoff (2009: 108) points out that on the one hand,
speakers must store thousands of lexicalized compounds, e. g., peanut butter, but
on the other hand, they may build compounds “on the fly”, e. g., bike girl for a girl
who left her bike in the vestibule. Thus, compounds arguably are part of the lexi-
con, but at the same time, compounding is a productive, and therefore rule-based
process. For this reason, it is necessary to distinguish between the properties of
being morphological, and of being lexical (Gaeta/Ricca 2009).
As to MWEs such as kick the bucket, it is obvious that on the one hand, they
are phrasal units, often showing a fully regular syntactic behavior, but on the
other hand, they must be part of the lexicon, as their meaning is non-composi-
tional and has to be learned (Nunberg/Sag/Wasow 1994; Gries 2008). What is
more, there is ample evidence by now that not all MWEs are isolated units that
have to be learned one by one, but that there must be something like MWEs “on
the fly”, as well. That is, there seem to be abstract patterns in the lexicon that can
be used by speakers to create new MWEs (Fillmore/Kay/O‘Connor 1988). For
example, speakers might newly coin the potential, but unattested phrasal simile
heavy as a truck on the basis of the lexicalized pattern [(as) A as NP], which com-
prises established examples such as strong as a horse or dead as a doornail (Fink-
beiner 2008).
This raises the more general question of the interrelation between the lexicon
and the two “rule-based” components of grammar, morphology and syntax. If
both morphology and syntax may feed the lexicon, as is evidenced by compounds
and MWEs, how is the interaction of morphology and syntax with the lexicon to
be represented in our theory of grammar?
2.2 L exicon-syntax interface
In early conceptions of Generative Grammar, the lexicon was conceived of as a

passive repository of morphemes, which would be concatenated in the transfor-
mational component of syntax. Only the later stage of lexicalism, initiated by
Chomsky’s Remarks on Nominalization (1970), led to the recognition of the dual
status of the lexicon as both a repository of words and an active component of the
grammar (Giegerich 2009). Thus, in a lexicalist theory, morphology is acknowl-
edged as an autonomous component of grammar that is part of the lexicon.2 How-
ever, there is still a sharp dividing line between the lexicon, including morphol-
ogy, and syntax. This divide is captured by the principle of lexical integrity, which
says that syntactic processes can manipulate members of lexical categories, but
not their morphological components (Di Sciullo/Williams 1987; Scalise/Guevara
2005). Behind this is the idea that the lexicon (including morphology) is a
‘pre-syntactic’ component that feeds syntax, but not vice versa. Thus, lexical
items, with or without internal morphological structure, are taken from the lexi-
con and inserted into a syntactic tree. The resulting syntactic structures are later
‘spelled out’ in phonology as well as in semantics.
2 A weaker form of lexicalism assumes that inflectional morphology is more closely related to
syntax, while word-formation is more closely related to the lexicon (e. g., Anderson 1982; cf. also
Giegerich 2009).
Under such a conception, one may account for the fact that compounds are
part of the lexicon, while at the same time being the output of a productive mor-
phological component. However, the model does not account for the difference
between listed compounds and novel ones, as morphosyntactically they look
exactly the same. Even more importantly, lexicalism predicts a lexicon free of
syntactic phrases. Thus, not only do MWEs such as idioms and collocations pose
a serious problem to lexicalism, but also phenomena like phrasal compounds,
i. e. compounds with a phrasal modifier constituent (e. g., Pafel 2015; Trips/Korn-
filt 2015), and particle verbs, i. e. verbs with a separable particle (e. g., Lüdeling
2001; Zeller 2001).
The linear view of the lexicon/syntax relation is abandoned in Jackendoff’s
(1997) Parallel Architecture. At the heart of this approach is the hypothesis of
representational modularity, which states that grammar is organized into three
autonomous and generative components: viz. phonological structure, syntactic
structure, and conceptual structure. Each domain generates representations of
its own. The interaction between the components is established by separate inter-
face modules between the systems that contain correspondence rules. In this
model, a lexical entry is exactly such a (small-scale) correspondence rule. It links
a small chunk of phonology with a small chunk of syntax and a small chunk of
semantics. Instead of lexical insertion, there is lexical licensing, in that a lexical
item licenses its chunks of information as the result of three independent pro-
cesses. As Jackendoff (2009) puts it:
A word therefore is to be thought of not as a passive unit to be pushed around in a deriva-

tion, but as a part of the interface components. It is a long-term memory linkage of a piece
of phonology, a piece of syntax, and a piece of semantics, stipulating that these three pieces
can be correlated as part of a well-formed sentence. (ibid.: 107)
The crucial point is that this model allows for including into the lexicon all kinds
of units, not only simplex and complex words, but also phrases of different kinds.
That is, MWEs can be listed in the lexicon as correspondence rules like every
other lexical item. The only difference is that in an MWE such as kick the bucket,
the three syntactic words are associated with three phonological words, but only
with one element in semantics (‘to die’). Complex words, such as compounds, are
treated as instantiations of more abstract morphosyntactic schemata that contain
variables at the three representational levels. Thus, morphology is not a separate
component in Jackendoff’s model. There is no difference between words and
rules, but both are conceived of as declarative schemata that have the status of
(more or less abstract, and more or less productive) lexical units.
The Parallel Architecture has much in common with Construction Grammar
and Construction Morphology (Booij 2010). In a way, one can say that Construc-
tion Grammar, or at least certain variants of it, are realizations of the Parallel
Architecture. At the heart of Construction Grammar is the insight that linguistic
knowledge largely consists of stored knowledge of constructional schemata, from
morphological schemata via lexical, phrasal, and even discourse schemata. Both
the Parallel Architecture and Construction Grammar thus argue for a continuity
between lexicon and grammar.3 In Construction Grammar, this continuum view
culminates in the notion of the ‘constructicon’, which replaces older views of a
lexicon/grammar dichotomy. The constructicon is conceived of as a large struc-
tured inventory of constructions of all levels of abstraction. Under this approach,
compounds and MWEs can easily be treated as on a par with each other, both
being complex constructions sharing certain conceptual or functional features.
2.3 L exicalization
The continuum view of the syntax/lexicon relationship may lay the ground for an
integrated and systematic treatment of both compounds and MWEs as the output
of productive or semi-productive schemata localized in the lexicon. Still, it does
not say anything about the differences in the lexical status between, e. g., the
compounds grass frog vs. grass slug, or the VPs hit the road vs. hit the dog. While
grass frog is a lexicalized compound, grass slug is not, and while hit the road is a
lexicalized MWE, hit the dog is not. Obviously, some outputs of schemata, or
rules, have the status of established lexical items listed in the lexicon, while oth-
ers have not (Hohenhaus 2005; Bauer 2006; Gaeta/Ricca 2009). In order to
account for these differences, one needs a concept of lexicalization.
According to Hohenhaus (2005: 356), the term lexicalization denotes both the
process of listing and the state of listedness, that is, the property of some element
to be a lexical item of a language. The main rationale behind the joint investiga-
tion of compounds and MWEs is precisely their common status as complex lexical
items. In order to delimitate the field of investigation, it is therefore crucial to
3 One difference between the Parallel Architecture approach and Construction Grammar lies in
the conceptualization of productivity. While Jackendoff (2009, 2013) clearly differentiates be-
tween productive and semi-productive phenomena, Construction Grammar is somewhat less
explicit in this respect, assuming a flexible continuum of productivity of constructions. Another
difference lies in the conceptualization of the contents of constructions. While in a homogeneous
approach (e. g., Goldberg 1995, 2006), all linguistic units are taken to be meaningful construc-
tions – there being no autonomous syntactic principles – a heterogeneous approach takes mean-
ingful constructions as only one kind of stored structure, assuming that the grammar can also
contain independent principles of syntactic form or semantic structure (Jackendoff 2013: 78 f.).
properly define the notion of ‘lexical item’. That is, while we want to include grass
frog and hit the road into our field of investigation, we would like to exclude grass
slug and hit the dog. In particular, the following two criteria seem to be crucial in
this respect.
Firstly, a lexical item functions as a semantic, or conceptual unit. For exam-
ple, grass frog refers to a unitary concept, a certain species, and hit the road refers
to a specific kind of activity. Both are concepts that speakers of the language have
stored together with the respective items. By contrast, while speakers of English
will be able to assign an interpretation to grass slug, they do not have stored it as
a unit together with a certain conventional concept, or stable referent. Similarly,
speakers will be able to interpret the phrase hit the dog, but they do so on compo-
sitional grounds, and not because they have learned this phrase together with a
certain concept.
Secondly, for an element to have the status of a lexical item, it must occur
with significant frequency in the language. This criterion has received increasing
attention with the growing influence of usage-based approaches and rapidly
developing quantitative methods in corpus linguistics. It is closely related to the
first criterion, because high frequency makes it more likely that an item is becom-
ing listed with a certain meaning. For example, if during a rainy summer a plague
of slugs that eat all the grass in people’s gardens were to sweep over a country,
and everybody started talking about the nasty grass slugs, it might be that after a
while, this compound would get stored in the English lexicon as a label of this
specific concept (‘certain kind of nasty grass-eating slug’).
2.4 Compounds and multi-word expressions in the lexicon
The criterion of lexicalization, i. e. the property of being a (complex) lexical unit,

thus allows us – at least, theoretically – to distinguish between those instances of
morpho-syntactic schemata that are listed in the lexicon, and those that are not.
However, we also need a good criterion to distinguish, within the class of com-
plex lexical units, between compounds, on the one hand, and MWEs, on the
other. This criterion, obviously, must be found in their internal structure.
Compounds are the output of morphology, while MWEs are the output of syn-
tax. Accordingly, Gaeta/Ricca (2009: 38) suggest a quadripartite typology which
is based on the idea that one has to strictly distinguish between the properties of
being morphological, and of being lexical. The property of being morphological
implies that an item is the output of some morphological schema or rule, which is
different from a syntactic schema or rule. The property of being lexical implies
that an item is lexicalized in the above-mentioned sense, i. e., that it refers to a
stable concept and occurs with sufficient frequency in the language. Cross-classi-
fying the two properties results in the following matrix (ibid.):
(a) [+morphological], [+lexical]

(b) [+morphological], [–lexical]
(c) [–morphological], [+lexical]
(d) [–morphological], [–lexical]
Of these four options, (a) represents the prototypical instance of a lexicalized

compound, i. e., an item that is the output of a morphological process and that is
listed in the lexicon with a stable meaning, e. g., grass frog, play list, or milkshake.
Option (b), by contrast, represents an item that is the output of a morphological
process, but is not listed, e. g., bike girl, grass slug, or Trump problem.4 Option (c)
is represented by MWEs, that is, phrasal, not morphological items for which it is
plausible to assume listedness, either because of semantic idiomaticity or suffi-
cient frequency, or both, e. g., hit the road, heavy smoker, or by and large.5 Finally,
option (d) represents the prototypical syntactic phrase, i. e., a VP such as hit the
dog that is formed according to a syntactic rule, or schema, and whose meaning
is compositional, therefore not requiring separate storage in the lexicon.6 The
quadripartite typology makes it very clear that, contrary to traditional views,
morphological units do not need to be lexical units, while syntactic units may be
lexical units.
Against this background, we may now attempt to pin down the defining cri-
teria of compounds, and of MWEs. In this we do not aim for more than a rough
approximation, as it is clear that the respective criteria are not only in part lan-
guage-specific, but also a matter of controversial theoretical debate. Generally,
we take it for granted that compounds have the features [+morph], [+lex], whereas
MWEs have the features [–morph], [+lex]. Compounds may be defined, following
Bauer (2009a), on both phonological, morphological, and syntactic grounds (cf.
also Lieber/Štekauer (eds.) 2009a; Giegerich 2015; Bauer 2017). First, compounds
4 These items are also called occasionalisms. They may become listed in the lexicon at a later
stage, but not all of them will. Hohenhaus (2005) discusses the question whether there are occa-
sionalisms that are not listable (non-lexicalizable) in principle.
5 Booij (2010: 190) uses the term “lexical phrasal constructions” to refer to these units.
6 While Gaeta/Ricca (2009) focus on the delimitation between compounds and MWEs, i. e., com
plex lexical units, it is clear that the feature combination [–morph], [+lex] also applies to estab-
lished simplex words, such as grass. Likewise, the combination [–morph], [–lex] also applies to
inexistent simplex words, such as the nonce verb to gorp from a textbook sentence on language
acquisition (“The duck is gorping the bunny”), cf. Saxton (2010).
usually behave like single words phonologically. For example, the stress pattern
in English compounds is more like the stress pattern in single words than the
stress pattern in phrases, e. g., gréen card (compound; ‘residence permit’) vs.
green cárd (phrase; ‘green card’, e. g., in a game of cards).
Second, compounds are marked as word-like units morphologically. While
the prototypical case is that a compound is made up of two unmarked lexemes, in
languages with inflection, the non-head may carry an inflection-like element
(e. g., the element -s in German Liebe+s+brief ‘love letter’). Crucially, though, this
inflection-like element does not vary as a function of the compound’s role in the
matrix sentence (Bauer 2009a: 346). What carries the inflection for the compound
as a whole, according to its role in the matrix sentence, is the head (ibid.). For
example, the linking element -s in the German compound Liebe+s+brief is carried
by the non-head, while inflection according to the compound’s role in a matrix
sentence goes to the end of the head, e. g., in den Liebe+s+brief+en (‘in theDAT.PL
love lettersDAT.PL’).
Third, compounds can be defined according to syntactic criteria, most impor-
tantly syntactic inseparability and an inability to modify the non-head. For exam-
ple, one cannot insert an element in between the two constituents of the German
compound Alt+bau ‘old building’, cf. *dieser Alt teure Bau (lit. this old expensive
building), and the non-head (the first constituent) cannot be modified: *dieser
sehr Alt+bau (lit. this very old building).
As for MWEs, scholars like Nunberg/Sag/Wasow (1994) and Gries (2008)
make use of syntactic, semantic, and frequency criteria to arrive at a definition.
As outlined in the beginning of this chapter, in modern phraseological research,
most scholars hold a rather broad view of the notion of MWEs, including many
different types of phrasal units. Syntactically, MWEs are required to consist
of more than two syntactic elements, which may be of different natures. For
example, the collocation heavy smoker consists of two words. In other MWEs, a
word tends to co-occur with a particular grammatical pattern, for instance, the
verb to hem tends to co-occur with the passive. In this case, the MWE consists of
a word and a syntactic frame (Gries 2008: 5). MWEs often are syntactically more
or less fixed, but there are also fully flexible MWEs. For instance, the MWE by and
large is completely fixed (e. g., the reverse order *large and by would be
ungrammatical), while run amok is rather flexible (e. g., it allows for different
tenses).
Semantically, it is usually required that MWEs be semantic units, i. e. that
they have a meaning just like a single word or morpheme. For example, hit the
road roughly means ‘leave’. While many MWEs tend to have a non-compositional
semantics, non-compositionality is not a necessary criterion. For example, while
kick the bucket is semantically non-compositional, too much to ask is fully compo-
sitional. Both can be regarded as semantic units, however. As to the frequency

criterion, for something to count as an MWE, it is required that the observed fre-
quency of the joint occurrence of the constituents be larger than the expected
frequency of joint occurrence. More generally, the degree of frequency of an MWE
can be related to its degree of cognitive fixedness, or “entrenchment”. Naturally,
the frequency criterion can only be employed on empirical grounds.
2.5 Problem of correspondence
While MWEs such as kick the bucket and compounds such as blackbird do not
seem to have much in common except their being complex lexical units, it has
been pointed out repeatedly in the literature that there are certain subsets of com-
pound words and MWEs that closely correspond to each other. For example, in
German, as in many other languages, there are adjectival compounds, e. g., but
ter+weich ‘butter soft’, that have corresponding phrasal similes, e. g., weich wie
Butter ‘as soft as butter’. These expressions share lexical material and have a very
similar meaning. Another case in point are A+N combinations such as schwarzer
Tee vs. Schwarz+tee ‘black tea’ (cf. Schlücker 2014; Hüning/Schlücker 2015). As
both the morphological and the syntactic pattern are stored lexical units, they
pose a problem to the principle of synonymy blocking in the lexicon, suggesting
that this principle might not be as strong as often assumed. For such cases, poten-
tial tasks for the researcher are to find out how much the two competing pro-
cesses overlap, if the overlap is systematic or only applies to a subset of the
respective patterns, whether one is dealing with real doublets, or whether there
are more specific differences in meaning or usage (cf. Masini, this volume;
Schlücker, this volume). For example, Hüning/Schlücker (2015) point out that the
morphological and the phrasal pattern in similes such as butter+weich/weich wie
Butter are competitive only with regard to a relatively small subset of all possible
similes. This can be shown by pairs such as *brot+dumm/dumm wie Brot (lit.
dumb as bread, ‘very dumb’), where one of the two patterns is ruled out. Theoret-
ically, the interesting question is what underlying principles guide the choice of
strategy that is employed in a given language, or in a given context. For German
A+N sequences, for instance, the choice between the morphological and the
phrasal pattern seems to be sensitive to type frequency effects (cf. Schlücker/Plag
2011).
While all contributions to this volume discuss the compound-MWE relation-
ship, some of them focus explicitly on corresponding patterns, while others look
at the issue from a broader perspective. What can be said more generally for the
different languages and language families of Europe is that the potential corre-
spondence between compounds and MWEs cannot be described in a uniform

way, since it is multifaceted and manifests itself in very different ways.
An interesting aspect, from a semantic point of view, is the observation that
in German, compounds such as Rot+kraut ‘red cabbage’, in contrast to their
phrasal counterparts (rotes Kraut), seem to be more inclined to adopt a kind read-
ing. Thus, Rot+kraut denotes a specific kind of cabbage, and not just a cabbage
that is red. Härtl (2016) argues that this semantic specialization of compounds is
not, as is often assumed, an effect of lexicalization, but can also be observed with
novel compounds such as Rot+dach (‘specific kind of roof’) vs. rotes Dach (‘red
roof’), and is therefore “somehow active ‘right from the beginning’ in the life of a
compound” (Härtl 2016: 66; cf. also Lipka 1977).7 From a contrastive point of view,
an interesting question is whether this presupposition of kind reference is true for
compounds in other languages as well. Furthermore, given that Romance lan-
guages employ compounding to a far lesser extent than Germanic languages (cf.
Section 3.3), one may ask whether similar effects in French are connected to the
difference between the ubiquitous, determinerless [N de N] pattern and the ‘regu-
lar’ pattern with definite article [N du/de la N]. Similarly, for Swedish, one might
speculate that the systematic difference between the ‘regular’ pattern with
double determination on the one hand (det röda kors+et ‘the red cross’), and the
reduced pattern with single determination, i. e. with suffixed determiner only
(röda kors+et ‘the Red Cross’) (cf. Section 3.2) on the other hand, might be func-
tional. If this were the case, then one would expect that a novel combination with
double determination such as den stora mur+en ‘the big wall’ would be less
inclined to adopt a kind reading or a naming function when compared to the
combination with single determination, stora mur+en (which should be inclined
to denote a specific type of wall, e. g., the prospective wall between the United
States and Mexico).
In the next section, we are going to take a more detailed contrastive look into
the compound/MWE relationship in the different languages and language fami-
lies of Europe as compared with German.
7 This is not to say that German phrasal patterns cannot adopt a kind reading, which is clearly
not the case (e. g., schwarzes Brett ‘bulletin board’). The point in Härtl (2016: 66) is that “right
from the beginning”, a compound is semantically more specialized, or more restricted than its
corresponding phrase, which may, but must not adopt a kind reading. Potential counterexam-
ples to this hypothesis are pairs such as Warmwasser vs. warmes Wasser (‘warm water’), or
Blondhaar vs. blondes Haar (‘blond hair’), where the compound does not seem to be semantical-
ly more restricted than the phrase; cf. Schlücker (2014).
3 A contrastive overview
The second part of this chapter is devoted to the comparison of German with the
West Germanic, North Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Greek, and Finno-Ugric lan-
guage families in terms of the relationship between compounds and MWEs. It
strives to illustrate the similarities and differences between these languages and
to sketch some more general tendencies of the respective language families with
respect to this relationship. The languages discussed in the following overview
are restricted to those represented in the various chapters of the volume, except
the North Germanic languages, which lack their own chapter and which have
been added to this overview to complete the picture. When relevant, compound
boundaries are marked by “+” in the following.
3.1 West Germanic languages and German
As German is a West Germanic language, more similarities than differences with

other West Germanic languages are to be expected. In fact, German and the other
major members, English and Dutch, are characterized by several common prop-
erties. First of all, there is no doubt whatsoever about the existence and produc-
tivity of the morphological pattern of compounding in these languages. Second,
these languages have both nominal and adjectival compounding, with the former
being unanimously regarded as the most frequent and productive subpattern and
N+N compounding particularly apparent. Verbal compounding, on the other
hand, is regarded as either scarce or non-existent. Regarding English, Bauer (this
volume) and Bauer (2017: 136–140) provide sporadic examples of verbal com-
pounding such as dry-burn or mock-whisper. Similarly, there are a few coordinate
V+V compounds in German, such as brenn+härten ‘flame-harden’, press+ polieren
‘press-polish’. They are, however, very rare and mainly belong to technical termi-
nology. In general, it seems clear that most forms that look like verbal compounds
on the surface are in fact the result of either back-formation or conversion (e. g.,
German frühstücken ‘to have breakfast’, < Früh+stück, lit. early piece, ‘breakfast’).
Then again there are also separable complex verbs, such as particle verbs (e. g.,
English drink up) and quasi-noun incorporation (e. g., Dutch piano spelen ‘play
the piano’ (cf. Booij, this volume)) whose morphological/compound status is
highly problematic given the fact that they are separable. Thirdly, English, Dutch
and German all have MWEs, both those that in principle correspond to com-
pounds and those that do not, such as proverbs or routine formulas. MWEs corre-
sponding to compounds are those that share the basic naming function of com-
pounds and possibly also share lexical material. For instance, there are various
kinds of nominal phrasal constructions with a naming function and which are
therefore on a par with nominal compounds. Thus, they are lexical noun phrases,
sometimes also termed ‘phrasal nouns’. Patterns of lexical noun phrases are eas-
ily found in all these languages, e. g., close apposition (German Prinzip Hoffnung
‘principle of hope’), genitive (or possessive) constructions (English baby’s chair,
German Ei des Kolumbus ‘egg of columbus’), constructions with prepositional
phrases (Dutch restaurant met tuin ‘garden café’), binomials (English fish and
chips), or A+N phrases, often with a relational adjective (Dutch stalen zenuwen
‘nerves of steel’).8
However, in addition to these similarities, there are also differences within
West Germanic. In particular, there is one fundamental contrast that distin-
guishes English from the other two. Overall, in German and Dutch, compounds
can be very clearly distinguished from phrasal constructions on the basis of for-
mal criteria, primarily stress and inflection. This distinction is reflected in spell-
ing, with compounds displaying solid spelling and MWEs being written in two (or
more) orthographic words. There are only very few patterns that resist a clear
classification as either morphological or phrasal, at least at first view, such as
phrasal (particle) verbs. In fact, German and Dutch seem to pattern very much
alike with regard to the (number of) types of compound and MWEs patterns that
exist in both languages.
Leaving aside various minor differences and specific characteristics of each
language, the major difference between German and Dutch seems to lie in the
often noted observation that – at least in the nominal domain – Dutch seems to
use phrasal patterns more often than German, which in contrast opts for com-
pounding more frequently, although both patterns are in principle available in
both languages, e. g., German Tag+es+gespräch, Dutch gesprek van de dag (lit.
talk of the day, ‘nine days’ wonder’), German Stumm+film, Dutch stomme film
(‘silent film’) (cf. van Haeringen 1956; De Caluwe 1990; Booij 2002; Hüning 2010;
Hüning/Schlücker 2010, among others).
In English, on the other hand, the formal distinction between (nominal)
compounds and phrases is notoriously difficult. First of all, the criterion of
inflection is inapplicable in English. Secondly, the (formerly often invoked) cri-
terion of stress has been shown in a number of works (cf., for instance, Plag
2006; Kunter 2011) to be incapable for drawing this distinction because although
the vast majority of (NN) compounds have forestress, as predicted, there are also
numerous exceptions, as can be seen from classical examples such as ′apple
8 Stalen is a relational adjective derived from the noun staal ‘steel’.

cake vs. apple ′pie, ′Madison Street vs. Madison ′Avenue. Thirdly, the distinctive
force of other tests which refer to the idea that compounds, being words, should
be subject to lexical integrity (contrary to phrases), such as the pro-one test,
internal modification, or coordination, have been proven weak in works such as
Bauer (1998), Giegerich (2015) and Bauer (to appear). Also, the forms that evolve
as either morphological or phrasal on basis of the stress criterion do not neces-
sarily coincide with the outcomes of the other tests. For this reason, very diver-
gent opinions on the definition of compounds in English and the demarcation
from phrases can be found in the literature. A literature survey is beyond the
scope of the present paper (but see, for instance, Olsen 2000; Lieber/Štekauer
2009b). Generally speaking, in addition to uniform analyses that assume that
the constructions in question are either all morphological, and thus compounds,
or all syntactic, and thus phrases, it has also been suggested that some of
them are morphological whereas others are syntactic, depending on how the
above-mentioned criteria are weighted (e. g., Giegerich 2004). Finally, it has
been advocated that the inconclusive data are an indication of the fact that the
compound-phrase distinction does not exist and that there is either a continuum
or an overlap between syntax and the lexicon (e. g., Giegerich 2015; Bauer, this
volume). Another problematic case is the ‘descriptive’ or ‘classifying’ genitives,
e. g., lawyer’s fee, mother’s milk. Regardless of their obvious phrasal form, they
are alike compounds in that the genitive dependent has a classifying rather than
a determinative function, that it is immediately adjacent to the head noun, and
that the constituents cannot be separated, e. g., by another modifier. For this
reason, they have often been treated as compounds in the literature (cf. Rosen-
bach 2006: 82–89 for a literature survey).
In sum, the major difference between German (and Dutch) on the one hand
and English on the other is that in English, due to the apparent impossibility of
distinguishing clearly between morphological and syntactic N+N and A+N
sequences, compounds are often regarded as just one kind of MWE, cf., for
instance, Ramisch (2015), Bauer (this volume),9 whereas in German and Dutch,
compounds and MWEs are clearly opposed and there are only few patterns that
elude immediate classifications as either compound or MWE. Apart from that, the
West Germanic languages pattern very much alike regarding the existence of var-
ious specific subtypes of compounds and MWEs. This similarity becomes particu-
larly obvious when German is compared to other languages and language
families.
9 Moon (2015), on the other hand, explicitly excludes compounds from the set of MWEs.
3.2 North Germanic languages and German
The North Germanic languages comprise the continental Scandinavian languages

Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian, as well as the insular Scandinavian languages
Icelandic and Faroese.10 As there is no separate chapter on complex lexical units
in a North Germanic language in this volume, a short general description of the
language family is in order. Generally, North Germanic languages are very similar
to West Germanic languages in many respects. Distinctive features common to all
North Germanic languages that are lacking in West Germanic languages include
the suffixed definite article;11 the agreement of the adjective in gender and num-
ber not only in attributive, but also in predicative position;12 and the existence of
a synthetic passive (termed s-passive or medio-passive,13 cf. Torp 2002). As to
word order, North Germanic languages share with Dutch and German V2 in
declarative sentences, where English dominantly has SV.14 On the other hand,
North Germanic shares with English the predominant VO-pattern, where Dutch
and German have OV.15 Within the North Germanic languages, the insular Scandi-
navian languages differ from the continental Scandinavian languages most nota-
bly in their rich inflectional morphology. While Swedish, Norwegian and Danish
have a rather reduced inflectional morphology, Icelandic has, of all modern Ger-
manic languages, the most differentiated inflection in the nominal, adjectival
and verbal domain (Braunmüller 2007: 248), comparable to that of Ancient Greek
or Latin, but with additional combinatorial phonological changes.
Compounding is a highly productive morphological process in all North Ger-
manic languages, as in German. Generally, compounds in North Germanic lan-
guages, as in German, are right-headed, with inflectional endings attaching to the
word-final element. Also, compounding in North Germanic languages is recur-
10 In this overview, we will concentrate on examples from Swedish, Danish, and Icelandic.
11 E. g., Swedish bil+en (lit. car+the, ‘the car’).
12 E. g., Swedish en stor bil (common gender, ‘a big car’), ett stort hus (neuter, ‘a big house’);
bilen är stor (common gender, ‘The car is big’), huset är stort (neuter, ‘The house is big’).
13 E. g., Swedish dörren öppnade-s ‘the door was opened’, with the -s-suffix marking passive.
14 Cf. Swedish Där kommer hon, German Da kommt sie (Adv V S) (both lit. there comes she), but
English There she comes (Adv S V).
15 This is reflected not only in subordinate clauses, but also in main clauses if one takes into
account the position of infinite verbal parts. Cf. for main clauses Swedish Hon har sett huset,
English She has seen the house (Vfin Vinfin O) (both ‘She has seen the house’), but German Sie hat
das Haus gesehen (Vfin O Vinfin) (lit. she has the house seen); for subordinate clauses Swedish [Jag
vet att] hon har sett huset, English [I know that] she has seen the house (Vfin Vinfin O) (both ‘I know
that she has seen the house’), but German [Ich weiß, dass] sie das Haus gesehen hat (O Vinfin Vfin)
(lit. I know that she the house seen has).
sive (e. g., Danish Kilde+skatte+direktorat+et ‘internal revenue service’ (lit. source
tax directorate), cf. Haberland 1994, Icelandic Norð+austur+atlant+s+haf+s+
fisk+veiði+nefndin ‘The North East Atlantic Ocean Fisheries (lit. Fish-Catching)
Committee’, cf. Bjarnadóttir 2017).16 North Germanic compounds normally dis-
play solid spelling and carry stress on the first constituent. Nominal compound-
ing (N+N, A+N, V+N) is by far the most common process, with N+N being the
most productive pattern, approximately as in German (cf. Thráinsson 1994;
Teleman 2005; Bauer 2009b). Some examples are Swedish ång+båt, Danish
damp+skib, Icelandic gufu+bátur ‘steam boat’ (N+N); Swedish lill+finger, Danish
lille+finger, Icelandic litli+fingur ‘little finger’, ‘pinkie’ (A+N); Swedish skriv+bord,
Danish skrive+bord, Icelandic skrif+ borð, lit. write table, ‘desk’ (V+N).
One difference concerning V+N compounding in the three languages is that
V+N compounds in Swedish and Icelandic use the verbal stem as first constituent
(skriv-, skrif-), while Danish V+N uses the infinitive of the verb ([at] skrive). This
feature of Danish V+N compounds is distinct from German, which is also interest-
ing from a theoretical point of view. If one takes infinitival endings as inflectional
endings, the question arises whether Danish V+N compounds should be regarded
as cases of compound-internal inflection. However, it is clear that infinitival non-
heads are to be distinguished from cases where a non-head exhibits agreement
features with the head. Only the latter case may pose a serious problem to the
delimitation between compounds and syntactic phrases, since in cases with com-
pound-internal agreement there is a potential overlap between compound and
syntactic phrase.
A highly particular feature of Icelandic compounds, in contrast with all other
Germanic languages, is that they systematically exhibit compound-internal
inflection (cf. Bjarnadóttir 2017).17 This pertains both to a subclass of Icelandic
N+N compounds, i. e. those with a genitive (or sometimes also a dative) non-head,
as well as to all A+N compounds. As to N+N compounds, Bjarnadóttir (ibid.: 18)
distinguishes between compounds with a stem as non-head (e. g., fjár+hús ‘sheep
house’); compounds with a genitive as non-head (e. g., vegar+endi, ‘end of road’,
with vegar being one of two possible genitive forms of the noun vegur ‘way’); and
a very small class of compounds with a special stem form or a linking element (cf.
16 Note that compounds in North Germanic languages do not exhibit regular capitalization (in
contrast to German). The examples Kildeskattedirektoratet and Norðausturatlantshafsfiskveiði
nefndin exhibit upper case because they function as proper names.
17 Note that internal inflection, more generally, pertains to all nouns with a suffixed definite
article in Icelandic. Thus, in definite nouns, the noun and suffixed definite article both inflect,
e. g., hestur ‘horse’, hestur-inn ‘theNOM horseNOM’, hesti-num ‘theDAT horseDAT’.
also Thráinsson 1994). While she acknowledges that the nature of the genitives in
Icelandic compounds and the question of whether these are true inflectional
forms or linking elements are matters of debate, Bjarnadóttir (2017: 19) argues for
a genitive/inflectional analysis of these forms. One of her arguments in favor of
this analysis is that the inflected forms of the non-head nouns are always the
“correct” genitives, in spite of the complexity of the inflectional patterns. This
stands in contrast with German, where forms such as Liebe+s+brief (‘love letter’)
are paradigmatically incorrect, the expected genitive feminine being Liebe, not
*Liebes. Internal inflection is also found in the adjectival non-heads of A+N com-
pounds, where agreement of gender, case, and number “is exactly the same
within the compounds as in syntax” (ibid.: 28 f.). For example, in litli+fingur
‘pinkie’ (lit. small finger), the ending -i in litli ‘small’ is a marker for masculine,
singular, nominative, definite. In the accusative case, the compound form would
be litla+fingur, with the ending -a in litla marking masculine, singular, accusa-
tive, definite. Thus, on purely inflectional grounds, it is not possible in Icelandic
to differentiate between a definite noun phrase litli fingurinn ‘the small finger’
and a compound word in definite form, litli+fingurinn ‘the pinkie’. This distinc-
tion can be made only with the help of word stress (and spelling, though this is
not a very robust criterion), with compound words carrying primary stress on the
first constituent, and secondary stress on the second constituent in a binary
compound.
In Swedish and Danish, on the other hand, compounds can be distinguished
from phrasal constructions based on prosodic, morphological, and syntactic cri-
teria. Swedish and Danish compounds, as in Icelandic, carry primary stress on
the first constituent and secondary stress on the last constituent (cf. Teleman
2005; Bauer 2009b). According to the Swedish tonal system, which differentiates
between accent 1 (“acute”) and accent 2 (“grave”), compounds carry accent 2,
which is characteristic for polysyllabic words with primary stress on the first syl-
lable (2sport+ˌbil ‘sports car’, 2läs+glas+ˌögon, lit. read glass eyes, ‘reading glass-
es’).18 The difference between accent 1 and accent 2 is distinctive in pairs such as
2
ande+n (‘spirit+definite’) and 1and+en (‘duck+plural’). For these pairs, accent 2
is a lexical accent differentiating lexical words from inflected word forms. This is
specific for Swedish and contrasts with German. In German, there is a difference
between lexical stress and phrasal stress, but not between lexical stress in words
vs. word forms.
Moreover, in Swedish and Danish, compounds may be distinguished from
phrases on formal grounds. Generally, in contrast to Icelandic, Swedish and Dan-
18 The exponent 1/2 replaces the primary stress sign.

ish compounds do not exhibit internal inflection. While in A+N phrases, the
adjective must carry inflection (e. g., Danish et stort køb ‘a big purchase’, det store
køb ‘the big purchase’), in A+N compounds, it is uninflected (e. g., Danish et
stor+køb, stor+køb+et ‘a wholesale’). Syntactically, while the adjective in an A+N
phrase may be modified (e. g., et meget stort køb ‘a very big purchase’, det største
køb ‘the biggest purchase’), in an A+N compound, it may not (e. g., *meget
stor+køb, lit. very big purchase, *størst+køb, lit. biggest purchase). Further evi-
dence for the compoundhood of A+N compounds comes from definiteness inflec-
tion on the noun. While a single noun in Swedish and Danish takes a postposed
definite article (hus+et ‘the house’), a premodified noun takes a preposed definite
article (cf. Swedish det stora hus+et, Danish det store hus ‘the big house’). Thus,
the correct definite form of the Danish compound hvid+vin ‘white wine’ is
hvid+vin+en, but not *den hvid+vin, as would be expected of a phrase (Bauer
2009b).
In Swedish and Danish N+N compounds, the non-head may be changed mor-
phologically in various ways. However, these forms are normally regarded not as
inflection, but rather as linking elements, as in German (Niemi, S. 2009; Bauer
2009b). Swedish compounds may display vowel deletion (flicka > flick+skola ‘girl
school’), vowel addition (tjänst > tjänst+e+man ‘service man’, ‘clerk’), or the addi-
tion of -s (stol > stol+s+ben ‘chair leg’) (cf. Josefsson 1997; Teleman 2005). Danish
compounds may display an s-link (træning+s+bane ‘training ground’), an e-link
(jul+e+dag ‘christmas day’), an er-link (blomst+er+bed ‘flower bed’) or an (e)n-
link (rose+n+gaard ‘rose garden’). In general, this picture is consistent with West
Germanic languages such as German and Dutch (but not English, which lacks
linking elements).
Apart from compounds on the one hand and regular syntactic phrases on the
other, a large stock of MWEs can be found in North Germanic languages, both
those that in principle correspond to compounds and those that do not. For exam-
ple, in Swedish, there are A+N phrases with a naming function such as röda hund
‘measles’ and hög hatt ‘top hat’; collocations such as ymnig grönska ‘lush green-
ery’ and duka bordet ‘lay the table’; complex verbs incorporating a non-referen-
tial noun such as knipa käft (lit. shut mouth) ‘keep one’s trap shut’ and vålla
storm, lit. cause storm, ‘to cause a great stir’; idioms such as tala i skägget ‘to
express oneself in an obscure way’; and speech act formulae such as Tack för
senast ‘thanks for the other day’. As Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2009: 134) observes,
lexicalized A+N phrases in Swedish may contain both indefinite (hög hatt ‘top
hat’) and definite adjectives (röda hund, lit. red dog, ‘measles’), with definite
adjectives combining with either unmarked nouns (röda hund ‘measles’) or nouns
with the suffixed definite article (röda korset ‘the Red Cross’). However, what is
avoided, according to Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2009), are lexicalizations of the nor-
mal pattern with preposed determiners, definite adjectives and nouns with suf-
fixed article (as in den gula hatten ‘the yellow hat’) (cf. Section 2.5). A specific
feature of Swedish MWEs is their connective prosody (cf. Anward/Linell 1976),
whereby all stressed syllables in the MWE become deaccentuated, except for the
last one. This can be taken as a distinctive feature for telling apart phrasal lexical
units from phrasal syntactic units. In this respect, Swedish clearly differs from
German, which does not distinguish lexical phrases from non-lexicalized phrases
on prosodic grounds.
Generally speaking, the North Germanic MWE systems are very similar to the
MWE system of German. Thus, there are overall commonalities both as to the
number and the types of MWEs, including rather specific idioms such as German
auf keinen grünen Zweig kommen, which directly corresponds to Swedish ej
komma på grön kvist (lit. to not come onto a green branch, ‘to get nowhere’). How-
ever, there are also many language-specific differences in lexicalization which
can be easily demonstrated, e. g., for the case of collocations. For example, in
Swedish, there are several collocations with the verb torka ‘to dry (sth.)’, e. g.,
torka bordet (‘wipe the table’), torka golvet (‘wipe/clean the floor’), torka disken
(‘dry the dishes’). While German has a direct verbal equivalent, trocknen ‘to dry
(sth.)’, it uses three different verbs in combination with the respective nouns: den
Tisch abwischen/*trocknen ‘wipe the table’, den Boden wischen/*trocknen ‘wipe/
clean the floor’, das Geschirr abtrocknen/*trocknen ‘dry the dishes’.
An interesting question is whether there are any tendencies in the North Ger-
manic languages as to the use of compounds compared to their corresponding
MWEs. It is well-known that Dutch, relative to German, tends to prefer MWEs over
compounds, while German, relative to Dutch, tends to prefer compounds over
MWEs (cf. Section 3.1). As to North Germanic languages, as far as we can see,
comprehensive studies on this issue are lacking. There is some evidence, though,
that Swedish tends to use compounds more frequently than corresponding MWEs
compared to other languages. For example, Dura/Gawronska (2007), in a parallel
corpus study on novel expressions, found that legislative concepts such as ‘qual-
ity control’ were realized in the Swedish corpus as compound nouns (kval
itet+s+kontroll), whereas the Polish parallel corpora used nominal phrases (kon
trola jakośki). Combinations with ‘animal food’ were realized as compound nouns
(djur+foder ‘animal food’, fisk+foder ‘fish food’) in the Swedish corpus, but as
lexical noun phrases containing prepositional phrases (karma dla zwierzat ‘ani-
mal food’, karma dla ryb ‘fish food’) in the Polish corpus. Inghult (1991), in an
investigation of the principles of lexical innovations in German and Swedish,
found that only 3 % of all new formations in dictionaries of neologisms were
phrases, while 97 % were word formations. Moreover, he found that Swedish
often has compounds where German has MWEs, for instance, German kupferne
Kanne vs. Swedish koppar+kanna, ‘copper pot’. However, these somewhat out-
dated results from dictionaries should be treated with caution and are in need of
confirmation by corpus-driven studies.
Comparing German and Danish, Farø (2015) finds that Danish tends to have
MWEs where German has compounds, e. g., Danish røget laks vs. German
Räucher+lachs (‘smoked salmon’), Danish stor begivenhed vs. German Groß+
ereignis (‘major event’). However, there are also reverse pairs such as Danish
spanskrør vs. German Spanisches Rohr (‘cane’). For a comparison of Dutch and
Danish, Haberland (1994: 347) remarks that where Dutch would use derivational
processes, Danish would use compounds, cf. Danish vel+smagende ‘well tasting’,
‘tasty’ vs. Dutch smakelijk. While more comprehensive studies on this issue are
lacking, these observations suggest, overall, that the North Germanic languages
tend to pattern with German with respect to the utilization of the two competing
processes.
An interesting commonality between the North Germanic languages, Ger-
man, and Dutch, which clearly sets them apart from English, is put forward by
Klinge (2006). Klinge investigates the [N de N] construction, which is well-known
from French (e. g., prisonnier de guerre). Interestingly, this is also a productive
pattern of formation in English (e. g., prisoner of war), yet not or only marginally
in other West Germanic languages (German, Dutch) or indeed in North Germanic
languages such as Danish or Icelandic. Thus, where English has bird of prey, Ger-
man has Raub+vogel, Danish rov+fugl, and Icelandic rán+fugl. The hypothesis
put forward by Klinge is that this may be explained as a language contact phe-
nomenon. Thus, the originally Romance [N de N] pattern was adopted in English
from Norman French. This would explain why it does exist in English, but not in
Dutch, German, Danish, or Icelandic. Importantly, Klinge argues that MWEs such
as weapons of mass destruction in English are not the result of some isolated lex-
icalization of a syntactic phrase, but instead reflect the presence of a lexical for-
mation pattern [N de N] in English which instantiates such structures directly as
lexical units.
In sum, one can say that the North Germanic languages largely pattern with
German with respect to the availability and utilization of the processes of com-
pounding and MWE formation. The most significant differences between North
Germanic and German are to be found in the Icelandic possibility of compound-
internal inflection, which makes Icelandic compounds look more “syntactic”
than German compounds. However, in many other respects, the commonalities
outweigh the differences.
3.3 Romance languages and German
In Romance, morphological compounding is much more restricted than in Ger-

man. Verbal compounding does not exist (or is very marginal) just as in German,
but the number and productivity of nominal and adjectival compound patterns is
lower than in German. In general, the notion of compound has often been used
also to include phrases, and thus MWEs, for instance nominal constructions con-
taining a preposition or an inflected adjective, e. g., French moulin à vent ‘wind
mill’, Italian macchina da scrivere (lit. machine to write) ‘typewriter’, Spanish
casa de campo ‘country house’, French guerre froid-e ‘cold war’, Spanish mal-a
suerte ‘bad luck’. Obviously, the key reason for classifying such forms as com-
pounds is their semantic-functional property of serving as a conventional naming
entity for a unitary concept. It seems safe to say that in comparison to German
such “syntagmatic/syntactic/improper compounds” (as they are often termed in
the literature) are much more frequent in Romance. This can also be illustrated by
the fact that the German counterparts of all of the above-mentioned examples are
compounds, except for the last two, which are a lexical phrase (kalter Krieg) and
a simplex word (Pech). Just as in German, these MWEs either have a fully regular
syntactic structure (e. g., French homme de la rue, lit. man from the street, ‘average
person’) or are syntactically deficient, for example in that the determiner is miss-
ing, e. g., French château d’eau (lit. palace of water, ‘water tower’) (e. g., Gunkel/
Zifonun 2011; Gunkel et al. 2017: 1625).
Turning to “proper”, morphological compounds, it is striking that for each of
the languages under discussion there is no general agreement in the literature as
to precisely which constructions should be classified as such. Obviously, the
main reason for this is the difficulty in providing generally valid properties of
morphological compounding. This problem is illustrated by the definition given
in Fradin (2009: 417): “Compounds may not be built by syntax (they are morpho-
logical constructs).” Thus, compounds are defined only negatively as non-syntac-
tic, yet this leaves open the exact nature of morphological constructs. The prob-
lem is that many of the criteria that can be positively established for compounds
in other languages, and in particular in German, are not available in Romance.
The first one is the absence of a unitary compound stress rule in Romance (Rainer/
Varela 1992; Arnaud 2015; Fernández-Domínguez, this volume). Thus, com-
pounds and MWEs are basically stressed in the same way, contrary to German
where compounds can clearly be distinguished from phrases on the basis of
stress (modifier vs. head stress). (Native) linking elements, another common
property of German (N+N and V+N) compounds, do not exist in French and Ital-
ian. However, the native linking vowel -i- is found regularly in some adjectival
and nominal compound patterns of Spanish, e. g., roj+i+blanco (lit. red white,
‘red and white’).19 Regarding headedness, French and Italian compounds are gen-
erally left-headed, e. g., French stylo-bille (lit. pen ball, ‘ball pen’), Italian pesce-
spada (lit. fish sword, ‘sword fish’). However, Spanish, in addition to left-headed
compounds, e. g., célula madre (lit. cell mother, ‘stem cell’), also has some right-
headed compound patterns (cf., e. g., Guevara 2012; Rainer 2016), both adjectival
and nominal ones (cf. Fernández-Domínguez, this volume), e. g., drog+adicto (lit.
drug addict, ‘addicted to drugs’). For Italian, on the other hand, Masini/Scalise
(2012) argue that the existence of right-headed compounds does not provide evi-
dence against the assumption that Italian compounding is generally left-headed
because these cases are either neoclassical formations, Latin relics, or English
calques, such as scuolabus ‘school bus’. Another frequently mentioned property
of compounds, which is again particularly valid for compounding in German
(although not for all compound subpatterns) is recursivity. In general, compound-
ing is not considered to be recursive in the Romance languages under discussion
(cf., for instance, Scalise 1992 on Italian), with the exception of coordinate (or:
copulative) compounds (e. g., Arnaud 2015 on French). Also, solid spelling – which
is often said to be indicative of the compound (versus phrase) status in German –
is often found with morphological compounds, as well as hyphenated spelling.20
At the same time, however, there are also compounds with an unstable spelling
(cf. Fernández-Domínguez, this volume) as well as MWEs written as one word
(e. g., Van Goethem 2009; Van Goethem/Amiot, this volume).
So far, this brief overview has shown that in contrast to German it seems
much more difficult to provide clear criteria for morphological compounds as
opposed to MWEs in French, Spanish, and Italian. However, two important crite-
ria are still missing. They are among those that have been established by Lieber/
Štekauer (2009b: 8) as more general, cross-linguistic criteria of compounding,
namely (in addition to stress) (a) syntactic impenetrability, inseparability, and
unalterability, and (b) inflection. The first criterion is difficult to assess. On the
one hand, it is a basic criterion for distinguishing compounds from phrases (cf.,
for instance, Fernández-Domínguez, this volume, Van Goethem/Amiot, this vol-
ume). On the other hand, however, it is well-known that it also applies to some,
though not all kinds of lexicalized phrases (cf., for instance, Gunkel/Zifonun
19 In addition, Latinate and Greek linking elements are found in neoclassical compounding of
all three languages, cf., for instance, Villoing (2012) on French.
20 It goes without saying that spelling is subject to conventional norms and possible changes of
normative rules and, for these reasons, cannot be regarded as evidence for the grammatical sta-
tus of forms. However, in particular non-normative writing tendencies might be indicative of the
writer’s assessment of a form as a conceptual unit.
2011; Arnaud 2015). Thus, syntactic impenetrability, inseparability, and unaltera-

bility can be regarded as a necessary criterion of morphological compounds but
not as a sufficient one that distinguishes compounds from MWEs. The second
criterion, inflection, very clearly distinguishes compounds from phrases in Ger-
man, as compounds contain only stems and not inflected constituents. This crite-
rion is highly problematic for the Romance languages which has, among other
things, to do with the fact that Romance compounds are generally left-headed.
Thus, if in a nominal compound the plural is marked on the head, this results in
word-internal inflection, e. g., French poissonSING-scieSING – poissonsPL-sciesPL (lit.
fishSING/PL sawSING/PL, ‘sawfish’). It seems that the three languages have both con-
structions with word-internal inflection and those without. Thus, plural, for
instance, is sometimes marked only on one (usually the left) constituent and on
both constituents in other cases. In particular, coordinate compounds seem to
regularly inflect for plural on both constituents (e. g., French auteursPL-composi
teursPL ‘songwriters-composers’). The question then is which conclusions can be
drawn from these observations. In other words: how much value is attached to
this criterion regarding the definition of compound? As expected, different posi-
tions can be found in the literature: Whereas some scholars quite naturally accept
inflected forms as word-internal building-forms of compounds (e. g., Scalise 1992;
Guevara 2012; Masini/Scalise 2012; Arnaud 2015), others are more restrictive
(e. g., Villoing 2012, on French).
In sum, it is obvious that although in all three languages at hand there are
constructions that are clearly morphological (and thus compounds) and others
that are clearly syntactic (and thus MWEs) it is very difficult to draw a clear border
between them. In this connection, proposals have been made in the context of
constructionist frameworks which do away with the idea of a clear-cut borderline
between syntax and the lexicon (cf. Masini 2009; Van Goethem/Amiot, this
volume; Masini, this volume). If we compare German and the Romance languages
with regard to compounding and MWEs, three differences can be noted: firstly, in
contrast to the Romance languages, German does allow (with very few exceptions,
cf. Schlücker, this volume) a clear-cut distinction between compounds and
MWEs. Secondly, although empirical evidence cannot be provided here, it seems
that both the number of clearly morphological compound patterns as well as the
specific forms instantiated from these patterns are much rarer in Romance
languages than in German, and for this reason, MWEs prevail in Romance.
Thirdly, if we compare the morphological compound patterns of the Romance
languages and German, two Romance patterns stand out from a German (or
Germanic) perspective. The first one is V+N compounding, a productive pattern
of exocentric compounding, consisting of a verb and a noun which functions as
the direct object of that verb, e. g., French abat-jour (lit. weaken light, ‘lampshade’),
Italian porta+bagagli (lit. carry luggage, ‘trunk’), Spanish cubre+cama (lit. cover
bed, ‘bedspread’). The pattern is regarded as typical for the Romance languages
and it does rarely exist in other Indo-European languages, and not at all in
German nor in Dutch (there are sporadic English examples such as turncoat,
killjoy). Although there have been debates concerning the stem form (and thus
the morphological nature) of the left, verbal constituent, these constructions are
relatively uniformly regarded as morphological compounds in contemporary
works (see the literature cited in this section as well as Ricca 2015, who also
discusses the interlinguistic differences of V+N compounds within Romance).
The second pattern are coordinate compounds (A+A, N+N) which can be said to
be fairly regular and productive in French, Italian, and Spanish (though with
some restrictions regarding specific subpatterns in the individual languages). In
comparison to German, they are interesting for two reasons: first, with regard to
form, coordinate compounds often show inflectional marking on both heads and
thus word-internal marking, which is impossible in German. One could therefore
argue that the pattern is more morphological in German than in Romance.
Second, the existence of N+N coordinate compounds has been widely discussed
in the literature on German (in contrast to A+A coordinate compounds, whose
existence has not been questioned). The main argument is that in many cases of
alleged N+N coordinate compounds it seems hard to establish a semantic
coordinate relationship and thus two semantic heads; instead, a determinative
interpretation is available in equal measure or even preferred. There are only
very few clearly nominal coordinate compounds in German (with an additive
meaning) such as toponyms, for instance the names of federal states that consist
of two regions, e. g., Nordrhein-Westfalen ‘North Rhine-Westphalia’, or technical
terms such as Sprecherschreiber ‘speaker-writer’ which is however restricted to
linguistic terminology. Thus, although in general German seems to be much
more prone to morphological compounding than the Romance languages which
in contrast make much more use of MWEs, there are at least these two patterns
of compounding that constitute an exception from this general distribution of
use of forms.
3.4 Modern Greek and German
Regarding compounds and MWEs, Modern Greek and German display many sim-
ilarities. Compounding in Greek is, just as in German, a very productive device of
word-formation, and both languages have various MWE patterns. As in German,
compounds can be distinguished clearly from syntactic phrases (both MWEs and
common ones) in Greek.
Starting with compounding proper, it is remarkable that virtually all proper-

ties that have been identified for German compounds can also be found in Greek
(for comprehensive descriptions cf. Ralli 1992, 2009, 2013a, 2013b, 2016). The
vast majority of Greek compounds is endocentric and right-headed, e. g.,
domat+o+saláta ‘tomato salad’. Also, Greek compounds have lexical stress. More
precisely, they are single-stressed and therefore form one phonological word,
contrary to phrases (e. g., compound stress on the antepenultimate syllable in
kapnoxórafo ‘tobacco field’ < kapn(ós) ‘tobacco’ xoráf(i) ‘field’). In contrast to
German compounds, however, which (in simple compounds) always have stress
on the first constituent, compound stress in Greek compounds is more variable,
depending largely on the phonological properties of the second constituent.
Thus, there are several single-stressed compound patterns (e. g., Ralli 2013b:
186 f.). Greek compounds consist of either stem or word constituents (most fre-
quently, the left constituent is a stem with the right one either a stem or a word).
In any case, they clearly do not have word-internal inflection. Another important
point relates to linking elements. There is only one linking element, -o-, e. g.,
kapn+o+xórafo ‘tobacco field’, which is almost compulsory in Greek compounds
(there are only a few phonologically conditioned exceptions). For this reason,
Ralli (2008) treats linking elements in Greek and in general as compound mark-
ers. The occurrence of Greek -o- is much more systematic compared to linking
elements in German compounds, which are restricted to particular compound
subpatterns and display a broad variety of forms, including the zero form. Finally,
Greek compounds display solid spelling, contrary to phrases, just as in German.
As to the differences, it seems that recursiveness – which is usually consid-
ered a typical property of German N+N compounds – is possible in Greek, too (cf.
Ralli 2009), but much rarer (cf. Koliopoulou, this volume). More importantly,
while German does not have verbal compounding, it is a productive pattern in
Greek, with either verbs, nouns or adverbs as left constituents, e. g., N+V:
xaropalévo ‘fight (with) death’ (xár(os) ‘death’, palévo ‘fight’), Adv+V: kakopernó
‘live badly’ (kak(á) ‘badly’, pernó ‘pass, live’) (e. g., Ralli 1992). Meanwhile phrasal
compounds, that is, compounds with a phrasal modifier constituent, do not exist
in Greek, in contrast to German.
Greek compounds can clearly be distinguished from phrases on the basis of
stress, the linking element -o- and the absence of inflectional markers. Further-
more, morphological compounds are subject to lexical integrity and thus the
usual tests (as known from the literature on English and other languages) can be
applied: inseparability and the inability to modify the non-head constituent and
refer pronominally to the individual constituents (a comprehensive overview of
the diagnostics for the compound-phrase distinction is given in Bağrıaçık/Ralli
2015, for instance).
As for MWEs, two particularly interesting constructions that relate to the

present issue have been discussed in detail in the literature on Greek, namely
[A N] and [N NGEN] sequences. Classical examples are psixrós pólemos ‘Cold War’
([A N]) and zóni asfalías (lit. belt safety, ‘safety belt’), i. e. an [N NGEN] sequence
with the second, non-head constituent assigned genitive case. These [A N] and
[N NGEN] sequences are lexical units with a stable conventional meaning, many of
them being scientific terms. They are phrasal, and thus syntactic entities, sharing
some features with (morphological) compounds and are inaccessible for the syn-
tactic operations that phrases normally allow. Thus, they are hybrid construc-
tions and have, for this reason, been termed phrasal compounds (not to be con-
fused with compounds containing a phrasal modifier constituent), syntactic
compounds or loose multi-word compounds (cf., e. g., Ralli 1992; Ralli/Stavrou
1998; Bağrıaçık/Ralli 2015; Ralli 2016; Koliopoulou, this volume). They are phrasal
in that they exhibit full inflectional marking as well as phrasal stress, thus they
have two distinct prosodic domains. Also, the [N NGEN] sequences are left-headed.
On the other hand, they behave unlike syntactic phrases, and like morphological
compounds in that they are inseparable and do not allow modification of the
non-head constituent, e. g., *métria psixrós pólemos (lit. moderately cold war).
Also, the [A N] sequences do not allow doubling of the definite article (and nei-
ther do A+N compounds), which is a usual constellation in common A N phrases,
e. g., *o psixrós o pólemos (lit. the cold the war, ‘the Cold War’), but o meγálos o
pólemos (lit. the big the war, ‘the big war’) (Ralli 2016: 3147). Also, many of these
lexical phrases do not have a compositional meaning, just like compounds (e. g.,
Ralli 1992). In addition to these two patterns that have been described in detail in
the works of Ralli (and colleagues), there are also several other lexical syntactic
patterns, consisting of two inflected nouns, cf. Gavriilidou (2013), Ralli (2013a),
Koliopoulou (this volume).
In sum, these sequences are clearly both lexical units and syntactic entities,
and thus MWEs. For this reason, they pose a challenge as to their exact grammat-
ical status, given the fact that they combine syntactic and morphological proper-
ties (which is obviously not necessarily the case for all MWEs). This is particularly
important because they are not individual instances of lexicalization but rather
the result of productive patterns for creating new lexical units, just as with com-
pounding.21 In the light of this, Booij (2009, 2010) offers a formal analysis for
21 Contrary to compounding, though, they seem to be a rather recent pattern. According to Ralli
(2013a), they have been observed only in the last two centuries and have most probably emerged
under the influence of French and English. Also, they are almost always restricted to specific
registers.
Greek lexical [A N] sequences as syntactic compounds (N0) within the framework

of Construction Morphology; similarly, a constructional analysis for various lexi-
cal [N N] sequences is proposed in Gavriilidou (2013).
3.5 Slavic languages and German
Slavic languages, exemplified here by Russian and Polish, differ clearly from Ger-
man with respect to the formation of new lexical items and in particular com-
pounding. Although compounding, and in particular nominal compounding, is
a productive word-formation process in both languages, it is a less important
means for expanding the lexicon than it is in German (and other languages, such
as English), particularly since derivation is highly productive (Uluhanov 2016).22
As in German, nominal compounds, in particular N+N compounds, are the
predominant compound type both in Russian and Polish, e. g., Polish gwiazd+o+
zbiór (lit. starset, ‘constellation’), Russian gaz+o+snabženie (‘gas supply’), fol-
lowed by adjectival compounds, e. g., Polish ciemn+o+niebieski (‘darkblue’), Rus-
sian tëmn+o+sinij (‘darkblue’). Verbal compounding is considered unproductive
in Polish (cf. Szymanek 2009) and only marginally productive in Russian (cf.
Benigni/Masini 2009), although both languages have a rather small inventory of
(older) verbal compounds. Generally, there are neither compounds with verbal
modifiers (V+X) (cf. Ohnheiser 2015: 761) nor phrasal modifiers (XP+X) (cf.
Bağrıaçık/Ralli 2015: 344; Szymanek 2017) in Slavic, in contrast to German. Com-
pounding is mostly right-headed, although there are also some (minor) left-
headed subpatterns. Compounds proper have a linking element, mostly -o-, as in
the above-mentioned examples or, less frequently, -e-, -i-, -u-, and they are writ-
ten in one word (or with a hyphen). Compounds in Polish display lexical stress on
the penultimate syllable which clearly sets them apart from phrases. Finally, Pol-
ish and Russian compounds are hardly recursive; compounds with more than two
constituents are only found with adjectival coordinate compounds, e. g., Polish
polsko-rosyjsko-ukraińskie (‘Polish-Russian-Ukrainian’).
22 In the following, only the most important and basic properties of compounding in Russian
and Polish are described. For further details, such as the difference between proper compounds
and solid compounds, the various kinds of input elements, neoclassical compounding, the gen-
der class shift etc. the reader is referred to the contributions by Ohnheiser (on Russian) and Cet-
narowska (on Polish) in this volume, as well as Szymanek (2009), Benigni/Masini (2009), Ohn-
heiser (2015), Uluhanov (2016), Nagórko (2016).
In addition to the formation of endocentric and coordinate compounds of

various kinds which are familiar from the German(ic) perspective, Polish and
Russian (and Slavic in general) have another frequent and productive type of
compounding, namely synthetic (or parasynthetic) compounding (cf., e. g.,
Benigni/Masini 2009; Melloni/Bisetto 2010; Ohnheiser 2015). This pattern is rare
in German(ic), e. g., English blue-eyed, German blauäuig. In this case, a suffix is
added to the compound simultaneously with the combination of the two con-
stituents, e. g., Polish nos+o+roż+ec (‘rhinoceros’), with nos ‘nose’, róg ‘horn’,
the linking element -o- and the nominal suffix -ec, or Russian rabot+o+da+tel’
(‘employer’), with rabota ‘work’, dat’ ‘give’, the linking element -o- and the nom-
inal suffix -tel’. Importantly, the linking element and the suffix necessarily co-
occur and enter the structure at the same time. For this reason, they are referred
to as co-formatives (cf., e. g., Szymanek 2009; Nagórko 2016). Another interesting
recent phenomenon in Russian are N+N compounds that are modelled on Ger-
manic N+N compounds and which contain stems borrowed from English or Ger-
man, e. g., press-diskussija (‘press discussion’), eskort-uslugi (‘escort service’), cf.
Kapatsinski/Vakareliyska (2013). The authors suggest that they are not instances
of borrowing of individual lexemes but rather a specific compound pattern that
has been developed on the basis of the individual forms.
The observation that Russian and Polish make only limited use of compound-
ing compared to German and English has often been attributed to the fact that –
in addition to the high productivity of derivational processes – these languages
have various productive MWE patterns, in particular nominal ones. For instance,
Szymanek (2009: 465 f.) notes that the equivalents of English N+N compounds
such as telephone number, toothpaste, and computer paper are realized in Polish
either as a noun phrase with an inflected noun modifier, usually in the genitive
(e. g., numer telefonu ‘telephone number’), a noun phrase with a PP modifier
(e. g., pasta do zębów ‘toothpaste’), or a noun phrase with a relational adjective as
modifier (e. g., papier komputerowy ‘computer paper’). Other patterns for the for-
mation of lexical noun phrases (or: phrasal nouns) mentioned in the literature
are N+N sequences with a noun modifier case other than genitive, N conj N (bino-
mials), and A+N patterns. Thus, there are both N+A and A+N patterns, the adjec-
tive being often but not necessarily relational (cf. Masini/Benigni 2012; Cet
narowska 2015; Nagórko 2016; Cetnarowska 2018; Cetnarowska, this volume;
Ohnheiser, this volume). Masini/Benigni (2012) stress that of all these patterns
the A+N pattern is by far the most productive one in Russian.
In a similar way as has been discussed for the various phrasal lexical units in
other languages in the preceding sections, Russian and Polish phrasal lexical
units, or more specifically, lexical noun phrases, can be distinguished both from
free syntactic phrases and from compounds on formal grounds. At the same time,
they also share properties with free syntactic phrases and compounds. For
instance, these lexical noun phrases are inseparable. That is, they cannot be
interrupted by intervening material, e. g., Russian sotovyj telefon (‘mobile phone’),
but *sotovyj služebnyj telefon (lit. cellular official telephone). Also, the individual
constituents cannot be modified internally, e. g., Russian posobie po bezrabotice
‘unemployment benefit’, but *posobie po ženskoj bezrabotice (lit. benefit by
female unemployment). These are properties typical of morphological entities
and unlike free syntactic phrases; also, the function of lexical noun phrases as
lexical naming unit equals that of compounds. On the other hand, lexical noun
phrases display inflectional markers, like free syntactic phrases and unlike com-
pounds, and some patterns contain relational elements, thus prepositions and
conjunctions (as po in the last example), again like free syntactic phrases and
unlike compounds (for a more detailed discussion of the tests employed includ-
ing (apparent) counterexamples cf. Masini/Benigni 2012; Cetnarowska 2015;
Ohnheiser 2015; Cetnarowska 2018; Cetnarowska, this volume; Ohnheiser, this
volume). Thus, again it can be shown that these lexical noun phrases are lexical
entities on the interface of syntax and the lexicon, i. e. lexical entities that are
created in syntax. Building on works by Booij (2009, 2010) on A+N phrases in
Dutch and Greek, among others, constructionist analyses have been proposed for
these Russian and Polish lexical noun phrases in Masini/Benigni (2012), Cet
narowska (2018), Cetnarowska (this volume).
MWEs, and lexical noun phrases in particular, are also known from German,
although it seems likely that these (or comparable patterns) are less productive
in German than they are in Slavic, given the predominance of compounding in
German. There is, however, another process for the formation of lexical items
which stands in a close relationship to MWEs and MWE formation. This process
is specific for Slavic and without a real equivalent in German. It is a process of
shortening phrasal items to a single morphological lexeme.23 More precisely,
there are several shortening processes, among them ellipsis, truncation, clip-
ping and de-suffixation (cf. Masini/Benigni 2012 on Russian; Martincová 2015 on
Slavic in general), e. g., Polish rzut karny (‘penalty throw’) > karny (lit. penal),
Russian mineral’naja voda (‘mineral water’) > mineralka. These processes are
referred to either as shortening, condensation or univerbation, although the lat-
ter term is somewhat misleading as univerbation is often understood elsewhere
23 There are, obviously, also shortening processes such as clipping and contamination in Ger-
man. They are much less systematic in nature than the shortening processes in Slavic however.
Also, they occur only sporadically and are much less frequent. Finally, they do not require MWEs
as input structures.
(i. e. in the non-Slavic literature) as the fixation of a phrasal item as a single

word, without any shortening or change of the form. These shortenings produce
forms that are synonymous to the input phrases. However, they belong to a dif-
ferent register as they are usually considered to be much more colloquial, expres-
sive and informal than the corresponding phrases. They are considered to be
very productive which, according to Martincová (2015), might also be related to
the lower productivity of compounding in Slavic. Importantly, it is usually
assumed that the input of these shortenings are not phrases in general but rather
MWEs (for discussion on this point cf. Masini/Benigni 2012; Martincová 2015). If
this is the case, then the productivity of shortenings presupposes productivity of
MWE formation processes and ultimately, MWE formation not only creates
phrasal lexical units but also systematically underlies the formation of non-
phrasal lexemes in Slavic.
3.6 Finno-Ugric languages and German
Compounding is a productive word-formation pattern both in Finnish and Hun-

garian and can, according to Niemi, J. (2009) and Pitkänen-Heikkilä (2016), even
be considered the most productive word-formation device in Finnish. The output
classes are nominal and adjectival compounds, with N+N compounds being
particularly productive, e. g., Hungarian vér+nyomás ‘blood pressure’, Finnish
tee+kuppi ‘tea cup’. According to Kiefer (2016: 3310), the productivity of nominal
compounding in Hungarian has been considerably increased through loan-trans-
lations of thousands of German nominal compounds at the beginning of the 19th
century. There are very few (apparent) verbal compounds (less than 1 % in Finn-
ish according to Kolehmainen/Savolainen 2007) and these forms are regarded
either as backformations, univerbations from verbal phrases, or derivates rather
than as compounds proper (cf. Kolehmainen/Savolainen 2007; Kiefer 2009, 2016;
Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016). Compounding in Finnish and Hungarian is also similar
to German(ic) in that the vast majority of compounds is endocentric and right-
headed. Furthermore, Finnish and Hungarian compounds display lexical stress
which distinguishes them from phrases. (N+N) compounds are recursive, e. g.,
Hungarian [[vér+nyomás]+ mérő] ‘blood-pressure measuring’, [[[vér+nyomás]+
mérő]+ készülék] ‘blood-pressure measuring apparatus’ (Kiefer 2009). Finally,
compounds are written as one word.
However, there are also clear differences between compounding in German
and in Finnish and Hungarian. The first one is that compounds in Finnish and
Hungarian never have linking elements. The second, and more important one, is
that in addition to uninflected adjectival and nominal modifiers, e. g., Hungarian
feketes+zoftver (A+N) ‘black/illegal software’, Finnish kylmä+varasto (A+N) ‘cool

storage’,24 Finnish and Hungarian compounds also include inflected modifier
constituents, thus, word-internal inflection, e. g., Hungarian bolond-ok+ház-a
(N+N) ‘mad house’, with the plural suffix -ok (and the possessive suffix -a), Finn-
ish käde-n+sija (N+N) (lit. hand’s place) ‘handle’, with the genitive suffix -n.
Regarding Hungarian, Kiefer (2009: 539) argues that they are not productive and
morphologically formed compound patterns but rather univerbations from verb
phrases or possessive noun phrases. Accordingly, there are no compounds with
word-internal inflection in Hungarian. In Finnish, on the other hand, sequences
with an inflected adjectival or nominal modifier constituent (mostly in the geni-
tive, but also in other cases) are considered compounds proper (e. g., Niemi, J.
2009; Karlsson 2015; Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016; Hyvärinen, this volume), similar to
Icelandic (cf. Section 3.2). They form a considerable part of all cases: according to
a corpus study by Niemi, J. (2009), about 14 % of all nominal modifiers are
inflected, about 20 % of all adjectival modifiers and 22 % of the verbal modifiers.
Interestingly, compounds with a genitive modifier often have a possessive inter-
pretation, e. g., tuoli-n+jalka (lit. chair’s leg) ‘leg of a chair’ (cf. Pitkänen-Heikkilä
2016: 3214), which seems to suggest that these sequences are univerbated posses-
sive phrases rather than compounds. However, possessive relationships are also
found with non-genitive modifiers and genitive modifiers may also express other
meaning relations (cf. Hyvärinen, this volume). Niemi, J. (2009: 239 f.) claims that
with respect to syntactic islandhood and lexical integrity, respectively, which
underlie the debarment of word-internal inflection, Finnish compounds differ
from other Standard European languages. Although from a morphological per-
spective, the sequences in question are phrases rather than compounds, they are
regarded as compounds due to their lexical stress pattern which distinguishes
them clearly from phrases.25 Thus, the prosodic structure is regarded as decisive
(and more important than the morphological one) for the classification as com-
pound in the Finnish literature; again as in Icelandic. Recall from the previous
sections that, in contrast, sequences classified as lexical noun phrases (phrasal
nouns) in various languages retain phrasal stress, which is one property that dis-
tinguishes them from morphological compounds.
24 More precisely, in the Finnish literature, this is regarded as the nominative case, as the
nominative equals the base form without any inflectional suffixes (cf., e. g., Hyvärinen, this
volume).
25 An additional, morphosyntactic criterion is that possessive suffixes and clitics that can be
added to Finnish nouns are not allowed inside compounds (Niemi, J. 2009: 241 f.).
Lexical noun phrases, their morphosyntactic properties and the question of

whether there are productive patterns of the formation of lexical noun phrases
have to our knowledge not yet been discussed in the literature, at least not in the
non-Finnish and non-Hungarian speaking one.26 However, lexical noun phrases
obviously exist, e. g., Hungarian nyári szünet (AREL N) ‘summer holidays’, állatok
világa (NPL NPOSS) ‘animal kingdom’, Finnish valkoinen valhe (A N) ‘white lie’, also
in terminology, e. g., Finnish jätteiden poltto (NPL.GEN N) ‘waste combustion’, bat
yaalinen vyöhyke (AREL N) ‘bathyal zone’ (cf. Liimatainen 2008).
In the verbal domain, meanwhile, several interesting phenomena with respect
to the lexicon-syntax interface have been discussed (cf. Hyvärinen, this volume).
For Hungarian, Kiefer (1990, 1992, 2009) and Kiefer/Németh (this volume) describe
the phenomenon of quasi-noun incorporation, that is, combinations of a bare
noun and a verb, e. g., levelet ír (lit. letter write) ‘to do letter writing’, zenét hallgat
(lit. music listen) ‘to do music listening’, in contrast to ‘writing a letter’ or ‘listen-
ing to a (particular) piece of music’. These complex verbs always denote institu-
tionalized activities. They are similar to compounds in that they exhibit compound
stress. Also, the non-head cannot be modified, pluralized and is non-referential,
just as a compound modifier. On the other hand, the noun and the verb can be
separated, e. g., by the negative particle nem ‘not’ (cf. Kiefer 1992: 76) which indi-
cates their phrasal nature. Thus, these complex verbs can be regarded as verbal
MWEs. Quasi noun-incorporation also exists in German and Dutch (as well as in
Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, cf. Section 3.2). For a constructionist analysis
for quasi-noun incorporation in Dutch, see Booij (this volume).
3.7 D
iscussion
This section is devoted to a discussion and summary of the preceding sections.

The first, very simple observation is that all languages examined here have mor-
phological compounds. However, it turned out that the compounds in these lan-
guages do not all share the same defining properties. While lexical (compound)
stress, headedness (either right or left), inseparability and debarment of word-
internal inflection, recursiveness, and linking elements are generally considered
essential criteria for the definition of compound, in particular from a German(ic)
26 There are, however, numerous studies on MWEs in Finnish and Hungarian in the more tradi-
tional sense, written in German or English, in particular on verbal idioms, including various
Hungarian-German and Finnish-German contrastive studies. For an overview on Finnish cf.
Hyvärinen (2007).
perspective, all of them also emerged as problematic in at least one language, or

as non-existent.27 Thus, it seems that there is no universal definition of com-
pound. Rather, as pointed out by Ralli (2013b: 184):
What makes a compound morphological should be defined on a language-specific basis,

since languages vary with respect to the realization of their morphological features and the
use of morphologically-proper units.
Although it is ultimately impossible to weigh the various criteria against each

other, it seems that compounding in German is – hardly surprisingly given the
genetical relation – particularly similar to Dutch as well as the continental North
Germanic languages, but also to Greek.
In addition to the defining criteria, also the number of compound subpat-
terns and the productivity of these patterns vary considerably between the lan-
guages. Verbal compounding, for instance, is regarded as either unproductive or
only marginally productive in most languages, in contrast however to Greek
which has several productive verbal compound patterns. What all languages dis-
cussed here have in common is that nominal compounding, and in particular
N+N compounding, is considered the most frequent and probably also the most
productive compound type (cf. likewise Guevara/Scalise 2009 for a much larger
language sample).
A second observation is that all languages under discussion have MWEs and
in particular MWEs that correspond or equal functionally to compounds.28 Nota-
bly, it has been observed that all languages have various productive patterns that
instantiate these phrasal lexical units.29
In the literature, the existence and productivity of MWE patterns is usually
explained in relation to the existence and productivity of corresponding com-
pound patterns and other word-formation processes, in particular derivation.
Thus, for instance, compounding has been deemed comparatively limited in
27 Guevara/Scalise (2009) correctly point out that defining criteria of compounding such as
those mentioned here usually reflect the Germanic perspective, given the huge amount of stud-
ies on compounding in Germanic, but cannot do justice to compounding from a broader
perspective.
28 In this overview, more attention has been given to nominal MWEs than to verbal ones. This is
due to reasons of space as well as to the fact that the starting point of this study is German, and
that German compounding is predominantly nominal. Verbal lexical phrasal units are studied in
detail in the chapters on Dutch, Finnish, and Hungarian (this volume).
29 As noted in Section 3.6, as far as we are aware there is no English or German speaking litera-
ture on lexical noun phrases and, in particular, on the respective lexical patterns in Finnish and
Hungarian so far. There are, however, studies on complex verbal lexical units.
Slavic due to the productivity of both derivation and MWE formation, whereas
the high productivity of nominal compounding in German has often been used
as an explanation for the fact that the number and productivity of nominal Ger-
man MWEs seem to be lower than in other languages.
Comparing the MWE patterns, it turned out that all languages have, among
others, productive patterns for the formation of [A N] phrasal units (or [N A], in
left-headed configurations). Among these, units with a relational adjective play an
important role. In addition, some languages (among which German, Dutch, Dan-
ish, Swedish, Polish, and Greek) also have morphological A+N compounds, which
raises – for each language – the question of synonymy and synonymy blocking.
Another phrasal pattern that can be observed cross-linguistically are so-called
phrasal similes, i. e. comparative adjectival phrases of the type [(as) A as NP], e. g.,
as red as blood (cf. Section 2.5). Phrasal similes are attested in the West and North
Germanic languages as well as in Finnish and Italian,30 e. g., Swedish mjuk som
silke, German weich wie Seide, both ‘soft as silk’, Italian rosso come il sangue ‘red
as blood’ (note that not all comparisons make sense in their literal meaning, e. g.,
Danish dum som en dør ‘as stupid as a door’). They are particularly interesting
with respect to the question of synonymy and synonymy blocking since all these
languages also have an equivalent A+N compound pattern with a comparative
meaning, e. g., blood-red, Swedish silkesmjuk ‘silky smooth’. It can be observed
that in some cases the existence of a phrasal or morphological form blocks the
other (e. g., Swedish mjuk som smör ‘soft as butter’, but *smörmjuk (lit. butter-soft)),
but in other cases the phrasal and morphological form co-exist (e. g., Danish dum
som snot (lit. stupid as snot, ‘very stupid’), snotdum (id.)). The principles that
underlie the (non-)blocking in the various cases, both within single languages and
cross-linguistically, are however not yet fully understood. While both phrasal A+N
units and phrasal similes seem to arise quite naturally from the usual syntactic
patterns of the various languages, it is very interesting to see that phrasal patterns
that are more specific in that they violate the syntactic rules can also be found in
various languages. A case in point is the [an N1 of an N2] pattern (e. g., a hell of a
guy), again a comparative pattern. It expresses a comparison of N2 to the reference
value provided by N1. Hence, there is a mismatch between the semantic head of the
construction (N2) and the syntactic one (N1), referred to as ‘dependency reversal’ in
Rijkhoff (2009: 76). This pattern exists not only in Germanic, as for instance in
English (a hell of a guy), German (ein Idiot von (einem) Arzt ‘an idiot of (a) doctor’),
Danish (en klovn av en statsråd ‘a clown of privy council’), Swedish (en kretin till
30 More detailed studies on phrasal similes can be found in this volume in the chapters on Ger-
man, Dutch, and Italian.
polisprefekt ‘an imbecile of police chief’) and Dutch (where it is well-known in the
linguistic literature in connection with the famous example schat van een kind (lit.
sweetheart of a child, ‘very sweet child’), cf. Paardekoper 1956), but also in Italian,
French, and Spanish (e. g., esta maravilla de niño ‘this wonder of a child’) (cf. Gun-
kel et al. 2017: 1627 ff.).
One has to add that while in the present context attention is given only to the
formal side, i. e. the morphosyntactic and possibly phonological properties of
patterns such as [(as) A as NP] and [an N1 of an N2], cross-linguistic similarities
(and differences) have also been studied with respect to the semantic side, in
particular themes and images that feed imagery and metaphors in phrasal pat-
terns and that re-occur cross-linguistically, due to cultural links and other factors
(cf. Piirainen 2012, among many others). Thus, from this perspective, it is not
unexpected that similar patterns occur cross-culturally in different, even geneti-
cally unrelated languages.
4 Summary
In this chapter, we sought to present an introductory overview of compound and
MWE formation in a sample of European languages. We started with some general
considerations about the notion of complex lexical unit, the lexicon, and the lex-
icon-syntax interface, and provided some preliminary criteria for the distinction
between compounds and MWEs. In the second part of the chapter, we reviewed
the language-specific properties of compounds and MWEs in West Germanic,
North Germanic, Romance, Greek, Slavic, and Finno-Ugric languages, comparing
them to German. Central questions that were discussed for each language family
included the formal distinction between compounds and MWEs (in particular
prosodic, morphological, and syntactic properties), the relationship between
compounding and MWE formation as well as the conclusions concerning the the-
ory of grammar and the lexicon following from these observations. One major
finding is that while there are great similarities as well as differences regarding
compound and MWE formation in the languages of Europe, a cross-linguistically
valid definition of compounds and MWEs is hard to establish, because the lan-
guages differ greatly with respect to both the compound criteria that can be rele-
vantly applied to them, and the relevant types of compound and MWE patterns
and their degree of productivity. The various chapters of this volume provide
in-depth analyses of the situation in the respective languages and language fam-
ilies, also discussing in more detail the relevant implications for the theory of the
lexicon-grammar interface.
References
Anderson, Stephen R. (1982): Where’s morphology? In: Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571–612.
Anward, Jan/Linell, Per (1976): Om lexikaliserade fraser i svenskan. In: Nysvenska studier
55/56. 76–119.
Arnaud, Pierre J. L. (2015): Noun-noun compounds in French. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.).
673–687.
Bağrıaçık, Metin/Ralli, Angela (2015): Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from
Modern Greek and Turkish. In: STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68, 3. 323–357.
Bandle, Oscar et al. (eds.) (2005): The Nordic Languages. An International Handbook of the
History of the North Germanic Languages. Vol. 2. (= Handbooks of Linguistics and
Communication Science (HSK) 22.2). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Bauer, Laurie (1998): When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? In: English
Language and Linguistics 2. 65–86.
Bauer, Laurie (2006): Morphological productivity. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, Laurie (2009a): Typology of compounds. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
343–356.
Bauer, Laurie (2009b): IE, Germanic: Danish. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
400–416.
Bauer, Laurie (2017): Compounds and Compounding. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 155).
Bauer, Laurie (to appear): Compounds. In: Aarts, Bas/Bowie, Jillian/Popova, Geri (eds.): Oxford
Handbook of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benigni, Valentina/Masini, Francesca (2009): Compounds in Russian. In: Lingue e Linguaggio
8, 2. 171–193.
Bjarnadóttir, Kristín (2017): Phrasal compounds in Modern Icelandic with reference to Icelandic
word formation in general. In: Trips, Carola/Kornfilt, Jaklin (eds.). 13–48.
Booij, Geert (2002): The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert (2009): Phrasal names. A constructionist analysis. In: Word Structure 2, 2.
219–240.
Booij, Geert (2010): Construction morphology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Braunmüller, Kurt (2007): Die skandinavischen Sprachen im Überblick. 3rd ed. Tübingen/Basel:
Francke.
Burger, Harald (1998): Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin:
Schmidt.
Burger, Harald et al. (eds.) (2007): Phraseologie/Phraseology. Ein internationales Handbuch
zeitgenössischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Contemporary Research.
(= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 28). Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter.
Cetnarowska, Bożena (2015): The lexical/phrasal status of Polish Noun+Adjective or
Noun+Noun combinations and the relevance of coordination as a diagnostic test. In:
SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 12, 3. 142–170.
Cetnarowska, Bożena (2018): Phrasal names in Polish: A+N, N+A and N+N units. In: Booij, Geert
(ed.): The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology. (= Studies in
Morphology Series 4). Cham: Springer. 287–313.
Chomsky, Noam (1970): Remarks on Nominalization. In: Jacobs, Roderick A./Rosenbaum,

Peter S. (eds.): Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.
184–221.
De Caluwe, Johan (1990): Complementariteit tussen morfologische en in oorsprong
syntactische benoemingsprocédés. In: De Caluwe, Johan (ed.): Betekenis en productiviteit:
Gentse bijdragen tot de studie van de Nederlandse woordvorming. Gent: Seminarie voor
Duitse Taalkunde. 9–23.
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria/Williams, Edwin (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dura, Elsbieta/Gawronska, Barbara (2007): Novelty extraction from special and parallel
corpora. In: Vetulani, Zygmunt/Uszkoreit, Hans (eds.): Third Language and Technology
Conference (LTC 2007), Poznan, Poland, October 5–7, 2007. (= Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence 5603). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. 291–302.
Engelberg, Stefan/Holler, Anke/Proost, Kristel (2011): Zwischenräume. Phänomene, Methoden
und Modellierung im Bereich zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. In: Engelberg, Stefan/
Holler, Anke/Proost, Kristel (eds.): Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik.
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 1–35.
Farø, Ken (2015): Feste Wortgruppen/Phraseologie II: Phraseme. In: Haß, Ulrike/Storjohann,
Petra (eds.): Handbuch Wort und Wortschatz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 226–247.
Fillmore, Charles J./Kay, Paul/O’Connor, Mary C. (1988): Regularity and idiomaticity in
grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. In: Language 64. 501–538.
Finkbeiner, Rita (2008): Zur Produktivität idiomatischer Konstruktionsmuster. Interpretier-
barkeit und Produzierbarkeit idiomatischer Sätze im Test. In: Linguistische Berichte 216.
391–430.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (1982): Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB
Bibliographisches Institut.
Fradin, Bernhard (2009): IE, Romance: French. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
417–435.
Gaeta, Livio/Grossmann, Maria (eds.) (2009): Compounds between syntax and lexicon. Special
Issue of Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 21, 1.
Gaeta, Livio/Ricca, Davide (2009): Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or
morphological objects? In: Gaeta, Livio/Grossmann, Maria (eds.). 35–70.
Gaeta, Livio/Schlücker, Barbara (eds.) (2012): Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache.
Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte. (= Linguistik – Impulse &
Tendenzen 46). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Gavriilidou, Zoe (2013): NN Combinations in Greek. In: Journal of Greek Linguistics 13, 1. 5–29.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004): Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the
stress criterion. In: English Language and Linguistics 8, 1. 1–24.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2009): Compounding and Lexicalism. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol
(eds.). 178–200.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2015): Lexical structures: compounding and the modules of grammar.
(= Edinburgh Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument
structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006): Constructions at Work. The nature of generalization in language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, Stefan Th. (2008): Phraseology and linguistic theory: a brief survey. In: Granger,
Sylviane/Meunier, Fanny (eds.): Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 3–25.
Guevara, Emiliano/Scalise, Sergio (2009): Searching for Universals in Compounding. In:
Scalise, Sergio/Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.): Universals of Language Today. Dordrecht:
Springer. 101–128.
Guevara, Emiliano R. (2012): Spanish compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 175–195.
Gunkel, Lutz/Zifonun, Gisela (2011): Klassifikatorische Modifikation im Deutschen und
Französischen. In: Lavric, Eva/Pöckl, Wolfgang/Schallhart, Florian (eds.): Comparatio
delectat: Akten der VI. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-deutschen und
innerromanischen Sprachvergleich, Innsbruck, 3.–5. September 2008. Frankfurt a. M.:
Lang. 549–562.
Gunkel, Lutz et al. (2017): Grammatik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich: das Nominal.
Vol. 2: Nominalflexion, Nominale Syntagmen. (= Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche
Sprache 14). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Haberland, Hartmut (1994): Danish. In: König, Ekkehard/Auwera, Johan van der (eds.).
313–348.
Haeringen, Coenraad Bernardus van (1956): Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. 2de druk. Den
Haag: Servire.
Härtl, Holden (2016): Normality at the boundary between word-formation and syntax. In: d’Avis,
Franz/Lohnstein, Horst (eds.): Normalität in der Sprache. In: Linguistische Berichte
Sonderheft 22. Hamburg: Buske. 65–92.
Häusermann, Jürg (1977): Phraseologie. Hauptprobleme der deutschen Phraseologie auf Basis
sowjetischer Forschungsergebnisse. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hoffmann, Thomas/Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) (2013): The Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hohenhaus, Peter (2005): Lexicalization and institutionalization. In: Štekauer, Pavol/Lieber,
Rochelle (eds.). 353–373.
Hüning, Matthias (2010): Adjective + Noun constructions between syntax and word formation in
Dutch and German. In: Onysko, Alexander/Michel, Sascha (eds.): Cognitive Perspectives
on Word Formation. (= Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 221). Berlin/New
York: De Gruyter. 195–215.
Hüning, Matthias/Schlücker, Barbara (2010): Konvergenz und Divergenz in der Wortbildung.
Komposition im Niederländischen und im Deutschen. In: Dammel, Antje/Kürschner,
Sebastian/Nübling, Damaris (eds.): Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik
(= Germanistische Linguistik 206–209). Vol. 2. Hildesheim i. a.: Olms. 783–825.
Hüning, Matthias/Schlücker, Barbara (2015): Multi-word expressions. In: Müller, Peter O. et al.
(eds.). 450–467.
Hyvärinen, Irma (2007): Phraseologie des Finnischen. In: Burger, Harald et al. (eds.). Vol. 2.
737–752.
Inghult, Göran (1991): Lexikalische Innovationen in Wortgruppenform. Zu einer Untersuchung
über die Erweiterung des Lexembestandes im Deutschen und Schwedischen. In: Palm,
Christine (ed.): Europhras 90. Akten der internationalen Tagung zur germanistischen
Phraseologieforschung Aske/Schweden, 12.–15. Juni 1990. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
101–114.
Jackendoff, Ray (1997): The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (2002): Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (2008): Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. In:
Language 84. 8–28.
Jackendoff, Ray (2009): Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics.
In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.). 105–128.
Jackendoff, Ray (2013): Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In: Hoffmann, Thomas/
Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 70–92.
Josefsson, Gunlog (1997): On the principles of word formation in Swedish. Lundastudier i
nordisk språkvetenskap 51. Lund: Lund University Press.
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod/Vakareliyska, Cynthia (2013): [N[N]] compounds in Russian: A growing
family of constructions. In: Constructions and Frames 5, 1. 69–87.
Karlsson, Fred (2015): Finnish: an essential grammar. 3rd edition. Milton Park i. a.: Routledge.
[Trans. by Andrew Chesterman].
Kiefer, Ferenc (1990): Noun incorporation in Hungarian. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40, 1–2.
149–177.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1992): Compounding in Hungarian. Rivista di Linguistica 4. 61–78.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2009): Uralic, Finno-Ugric: Hungarian. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol
(eds.). 527–541.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2016): Hungarian. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 3308–3326.
Klinge, Alex (2006): The Origin of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Investigating Traces of Lexical
Formation Patterns in the (Lingustic) History of Europe. In: Nølke, Henning (ed.):
Grammatica: Festschrift in honour of Michael Herslund/Hommage à Michael Herslund.
Frankfurt a. M./New York: Lang. 233–248.
Kolehmainen, Leena/Savolainen, Tiina (2007): Deverbale Verbbildung im Deutschen und im
Finnischen: ein Überblick. Würzburg. (Internet: https://opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/
opus4-wuerzburg/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1937, last access: 30.5.2018).
König, Ekkehard/Auwera, Johan van der (eds.) (1994): The Germanic Languages. London/New
York: Routledge.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2009): Proper-name nominal compounds in Swedish between
syntax and lexicon. In: Rivista di Linguistica 21, 1. 119–148.
Kunter, Gero (2011): Compound stress in English: the phonetics and phonology of prosodic
prominence. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 539). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) (2009a): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (2009b): Introduction: Status and definition of compounding.
Liimatainen, Annikki (2008): Untersuchungen zur Fachsprache der Ökologie und des
Umweltschutzes im Deutschen und Finnischen: Bezeichnungsvarianten unter einem
geschichtlichen, lexikografischen, morphologischen und linguistisch-pragmatischen
Aspekt. (= Finnische Beiträge zur Germanistik 22). Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.
Lipka, Leonhard (1977): Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierung als Probleme
einer synchronischen Wortbildungslehre. In: Brekle, Herbert E./Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.):
Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskol-
loquium vom 9.–10. Juli 1976. Bonn: Bouvier. 155–164.
Lüdeling, Anke (2001): On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Martincová, Olga (2015): Multi-word expressions and univerbation in Slavic. In: Müller, Peter O.
et al. (eds.). 742–757.
Masini, Francesca (2009): Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist

perspective. Word Structure 2, 2. 254–271.
Masini, Francesca/Benigni, Valentina (2012): Phrasal lexemes and shortening strategies in
Russian: the case for constructions. In: Morphology 22, 3. 417–451.
Masini, Francesca/Scalise, Sergio (2012): Italian compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 61–91.
Melloni, Chiara/Bisetto, Antonietta (2010): Parasynthetic compounds. Data and theory. In:
Scalise, Sergio/Vogel, Irene (eds.): Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 199–217.
Moon, Rosamund (2015): Multi-word items. In: Taylor, John R. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of The
Word. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press. 120–140.
Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.) (2015–2016): Word-formation. An international handbook of the
languages of Europe. (= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 40).
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Nagórko, Alicja (2016): Polish. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 2831–2852.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1974): The regularity of idiom behavior. In: Lingua 34. 327–42.
Niemi, Jussi (2009): Compounds in Finnish. In: Lingue e Linguaggio 8, 2. 237–256.
Niemi, Sinikka (2009): Compounds in Swedish. In: Lingue e Linguaggio 8, 2. 257–269.
Nunberg, Geoffrey/Sag, Ivan/Wasow, Thomas (1994): Idioms. In: Language 70, 3. 491–538.
Ohnheiser, Ingeborg (2015): Compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic. In: Müller, Peter
O. et al. (eds.). 757–779.
Olsen, Susan (2000): Composition. In: Booij, Geert/Lehmann, Christian/Mugdan, Joachim
(eds.): Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/
Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation. Berlin: De
Gruyter. 897–916.
Paardekoper, Petrus C. (1956): Een schat van een kind. In: De Nieuwe Taalgids 49. 93–99.
Pafel, Jürgen (2015): Phrasal compounds are compatible with lexical integrity. In: Language
typology and universals (STUF) 68, 3. 263–280.
Pawley, Andrew/Syder, Frances H. (1983): Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. In: Richards, Jack C./Schmidt, Richard W. (eds.): Language and
Communication. London/New York: Routledge. 191–226.
Piirainen, Elisabeth (2012): Widespread idioms in Europe and beyond: toward a lexicon of
common figurative units. (= International Folkloristics 5). New York i. a.: Lang.
Pitkänen-Heikkilä, Kaarina (2016): Finnish. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 3209–3228.
Plag, Ingo (2006): The variability of compound stress in English: structural, semantic, and
analogical factors. In: English Language and Linguistics 10, 1. 143–172.
Rainer, Franz (2016): Spanish. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 2620–2640.
Rainer, Franz/Varela, Soledad (1992): Compounding in Spanish. In: Rivista di Linguistica 4, 1.
117–142.
Ralli, Angela (1992): Compounds in Modern Greek. In: Rivista di Linguistica 4. 143–174.
Ralli, Angela (2008): Compound markers and parametric variation. In: STUF – Language
Typology and Universals 61, 1. 19–38.
Ralli, Angela (2009): IE, Hellenic: Modern Greek. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
453–463.
Ralli, Angela (2013a): Compounding in modern Greek. (= Studies in Morphology 2). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Ralli, Angela (2013b): Compounding and its locus of realization: Evidence from Greek and
Turkish. In: Word Structure 6, 2. 181–200.
Ralli, Angela (2016): Greek. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 3138–3156.
Ralli, Angela/Stavrou, Melita (1998): Morphology-syntax interface: A-N compounds vs. A-N
constructs in Modern Greek. In: Booij, Geert E./Marle, Jaap Van (eds.): Yearbook of
Morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Springer. 243–264.
Ramisch, Carlos (2015): Multiword expressions acquisition. A generic and open framework. New
York i. a.: Springer.
Ricca, Davide (2015): Verb-noun compounds in Romance. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.).
688–707.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2009): On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessive
modifiers in Dutch and English. In: McGregor, William (ed.): The expression of possession.
Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 51–106.
Rosenbach, Anette (2006): Descriptive genitives in English. A case study on constructional
gradience. In: English Language and Linguistics 10. 77–118.
Saxton, Matthew (2010): Child Language. Acquisition and Development. London: SAGE.
Scalise, Sergio (1992): Compounding in Italian. In: Rivista di Linguistica 4. 175–199.
Scalise, Sergio (ed.) (1992): The Morphology of Compounding. Special issue of Rivista di
Linguistica 4, 1.
Scalise, Sergio/Guevara, Emiliano (2005): The lexicalist approach to word formation and the
notion of the lexicon. In: Štekauer, Pavol/Lieber, Rochelle (eds.). 147–187.
Scalise, Sergio/Vogel, Irene (eds.) (2010): Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Schlücker, Barbara (2014): Grammatik im Lexikon. Adjektiv+Nomen-Verbindungen im
Deutschen und Niederländischen. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 553). Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter.
Schlücker, Barbara/Plag, Ingo (2011): Compound or Phrase? Analogy in Naming. In: Lingua 121.
1539–1551.
Sinclair, John (1991): Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Štekauer, Pavol/Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) (2005): Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Szymanek, Bogdan (2009): IE, Slavonic: Polish. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
464–477.
Szymanek, Bogdan (2017): Compounding in Polish and the absence of phrasal compounding.
In: Trips, Carola/Kornfilt, Jaklin (eds.). 49–79.
Teleman, Ulf (2005): The Standard languages and their systems in the 20th century: Swedish. In:
Bandle, Oscar et al. (eds.). 1603–1626.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1994): Icelandic. In: König, Ekkehard/Auwera, Johan van der (eds.).
142–190.
Torp, Arne (2002): The Nordic Languages in a Germanic Perspective. In: Bandle, Oscar et al.
(eds.). 13–24.
Trips, Carola/Kornfilt, Jaklin (2015): Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in German,
English, Turkish and Turkic. In: Language typology and universals (STUF) 68, 3. 281–321.
Trips, Carola/Kornfilt, Jaklin (eds.) (2017): Further investigations into the nature of phrasal
compounding. (= Morphological Investigations 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Uluhanov, Igor’ S. (2016): Russian. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 2953–2978.
Van Goethem, Kristel (2009): Choosing between A+N compounds and lexicalized A+N phrases:
The position of French in comparison to Germanic languages. In: Word Structure 2, 2.
241–253.
Villoing, Florence (2012): French compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 29–60.

Weinreich, Uriel (1969): Problems in the analysis of idioms. In: Puhvel, Jaan (ed.): Substance
and Structure of Language. Berkeley: University of California Press. 23–76.
Wray, Alice (2002): Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Wunderlich, Dieter (2006): Introduction: What the theory of the lexicon is about. In:
Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.): Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon. Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter. 1–26.
Zeller, Jochen (2001): Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Laurie Bauer
in English
1 I ntroduction
Compounds are traditionally defined as being, in the words of Lieber (2010: 43),
“words that are composed of two (or more) bases, roots, or stems”. Multi-word
expressions (also known as multi-word units or items, henceforth MWEs) can be
defined as “lexical items which consist of more than one ‘word’ and have some
kind of unitary semantic or pragmatic function” (Moon 2015: 120). Since all words
(in the sense of ‘lexeme’, which is what I assume Lieber to mean in the cited pas-
sage) are lexical items, the first thing to note is that these two definitions overlap
(pace ibid.: 121). Things called compounds, if they have ‘some kind of unitary
semantic or pragmatic function’, which they can be argued always to have, are
MWEs, although not all MWEs are compounds.
In this chapter, it will be argued that this fuzzy borderline between compounds
and MWEs is real, that there is no generally accepted way of dividing compounds
from MWEs, and that much of this derives from their common function as lexical
items. Furthermore, there is no generally accepted way of dividing compounds
from syntactic phrases, so that it follows that there is no generally accepted way of
dividing MWEs from syntactic phrases. This situation arises partly from the data,
and partly from the varying views of different scholars, who have tried to draw
dividing lines in different places, thus illustrating the lack of commonality of opin-
ion. Because this chapter focusses on the situation in English, the arguments
affect English specifically, and may not all transfer to other languages. No attempt
is made here to generalise to other languages; that is left for another chapter. The
effect is, however, a claim that there is no agreed definition of a compound in Eng-
lish (and possibly not of an MWE, as noted ibid.).
2 The notion of ‘word’

Word must be one of the least well-defined technical terms in linguistics. There
are innumerable discussions of why this is the case, and there is little point in
adding to them here (cf., e. g., Bauer 2000; Dixon/Aikhenvald 2002; Hippisley
2015; Wray 2015). In some languages, some criterion or set of criteria can be used
Open Access. © 2019 Bauer, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-002
46 Laurie Bauer
to define ‘word’ sufficiently well to allow a definition of a compound as a word to

be meaningful. In English, it is less clear that this is true. Consider just three
potential criteria, which are often used in other languages.
The first of these is stress. In other Germanic languages, stress is often used
as a criterion for compoundhood. Any discussion of English in these terms, how-
ever, falls foul of examples like those in (1).
(1) Forestress End-stress

apple cake apple pie
glass cupboard glass cupboard
(‘cupboard in which glassware is kept’) (‘cupboard made of glass’)
toy factory toy factory
(‘factory that makes toys’) (‘factory which is itself a toy’)
York Street York Avenue
In addition, Bauer (1983b) finds that speakers are inconsistent in assigning stress
to (at least some) such expressions, and also notes (Bauer to appear) variable
usage of stress in the speech of newsreaders. Kunter (2011) finds a reasonable
minority of such forms show variable stress. While most authorities now see
stress as not being a reliable guide to the status of such items as compounds
(Giegerich 2004), this has not always been the case, so that some such expres-
sions have seemed to be changing category from compound to non-compound in
an apparently random fashion. Chomsky/Halle (1968), for example, use stress as
definitional for compounds.
Spelling is, to some extent, linked with stress: railway is written as one word
and has forestress, iron bar is written as two and has end-stress. Other factors are
also involved, however: schoolgirl tends to be written as one word, while univer
sity student has to be written as two, despite parallel stress and semantic read-
ings. Some of the examples in (1) equally show a distinction between stress and
orthography. It is also well-known that English orthography is inconsistent when
it comes to writing some compounds: rainforest, rain-forest and rain forest can all
be found in dictionaries. Matters as difficult to quantify as house-style and fash-
ion can influence such spellings. Spelling cannot be criterial for word status in
English. Nonetheless, some scholars use it in this way, either by default (cf. Hall
1964: 134) or to make dealing with the computational analysis of written text pos-
sible (McEnery/Xiao/Tono 2006: 147).
As a third criterion, consider the notion that words allow for global inflec-
tion, but not for inflection which is internal and applies to some element within
the word. If we consider a compound verb like badge-flash (see (2)), we can see
how this works.
Compounds and multi-word expressions in English 47
(2) I badge-flashed my way to the scene.1
In (2) we see that badge-flash can take a past tense which affects the entire entity
badge-flash. However, even if several members of the police made their way to the
scene in this way, we could not change this to *We badges-flashed our way to the
scene. Global inflection is possible, but not internal inflection. There are two
problematic constructions in English in relation to this criterion. The first is illus-
trated by jobs growth, where the first element of the compound has an apparent
plural. Pinker (1999) sees this as sufficient evidence to say that such construc-
tions are phrasal, not words, others include these as compounds (and, hence, as
words). The other awkward construction in this regard is the classifying genitive
as in cat’s eye (‘reflecting road marker’ or ‘semi-precious stone’). Even if we ignore
the question as to whether the s-genitive in English is inflectional or a clitic (cf.
Bauer/Lieber/Plag 2013: 141 f. for a brief summary), it is not clear whether such
constructions count as single words. They are compound-like in many ways
(Rosenbach 2006), though most scholars exclude them from the set of com-
pounds. Corresponding expressions in other Germanic languages are generally
thought of as compounds, although ‘uneigentlich’ (‘non-genuine, false’) com-
pounds in Grimm’s terminology.
Other criteria for wordhood are frequently used in attempting to determine
whether given constructions are words (compounds) or not. These include the
fixed order of constructions, non-interruptibility of elements, lack of modifica-
tion of internal elements, lack of coordination of internal elements, impossibility
of referring back to individual elements by pronouns, including one, and listed-
ness. Not only do such criteria not define a coherent set of items as words (Bauer
1998), they are often broken in derivatives, whose wordhood is not usually que-
ried. These criteria will be referred to below, as required. The point here is that not
only do the criteria for wordhood not fit compounds particularly well (cf. also
Giegerich 2015; Bauer 2017), they do not allow agreement on what is or is not a
compound in English. The border of compounding is vague partly because the
border of wordhood is vague.
In what follows, a number of constructions will be considered in varying
detail. Some of these constructions will be ones which some scholars see as com-
pounds, others will be MWEs more loosely defined. The borderline between these
two groups of construction will be shown to be non-principled, with different
theoreticians making different decisions as to what is or is not a compound.
1 Karp, Marshall (2006): The rabbit factory. San Francisco: MacAdam, 179.
48 Laurie Bauer
3 F ormal constructions
3.1 N
+N
There are several classes of N+N constructions in English, and while some of them
are regularly considered to be compounds, many of them are equally regularly
considered to be excluded from the category. We can illustrate some of the classes
as in (3).
(3a) Doctor Johnson, Miss Havisham, King George

(3b) Elizabeth Taylor, John Lennon
(3c) President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Theresa May
(3d) beef Wellington, chicken Kiev
(3e) the category adjective, letter A, number nine, Model T
(3f) bank-box, bus-driver, car park, windmill
(3g) Oxford college, cutlery box
(3h) iron bar, copper wire, stone wall
(3i) the film ‘Jaws’, the year 1952
(3j) egg head, hatchback
(3k) father-daughter, hand-eye
(3l) Nelson-Marlborough, Daimler-Benz
(3m) murder-suicide, mind/brain
(3n) singer-songwriter, lawyer-poet
(3o) elm tree, tuna fish
(3p) salad-salad
Names are not usually counted as being compounds. Those in (3c) are generally
seen as instances of apposition, and frequently have a pause and intonation
break between the title and the name (unlike those in (3a) which would other-
wise be parallel). Apposition is usually considered a syntactic construction
rather than a lexical one, and so the examples in (3a–c) and also the examples
in (3i) with common nouns, are excluded from compounds. However, at least
those in (3a) and (3b) must be listed, since they denote individuals and have
little semantic transparency. Those in (3a) appear to be left-headed (Doctor
Johnson is a member of the class of people with title of doctor), while those in
(3b) may not be – it is not clear whether it even makes sense to ask whether Eliz-
abeth Taylor is a member of the set of Elizabeths or the set of Taylors, especially
since asking such a question changes the category of both Elizabeth and Taylor
from proper noun to common noun. The examples in (3e) may also be instances
of apposition, but it is less clear: Model T is something which deserves at least

an encyclopedic entry, if not a lexical entry, and acts as a label for a class of
objects in much the same way as the noun T-junction does. Model T, though, is
left-headed. While headedness is not usually given as one of the criteria for com-
poundhood in English (though cf. Bauer/Lieber/Plag 2013), most of the items
that are seen as clear cases of compounds in English are right-headed. The
examples in (3d) are also left-headed, but here it seems even less likely that
apposition is involved. These items are names of dishes and synchronically at
least have little to do with any semantic content that might be derived from their
second elements. They certainly fit the definition of compound given in Sec-
tion 1 above, and they are listed.
The items in (3f) are the central examples of compounds (though including
examples from rather different subsets), and those from (3h) are examples which
are often thought of as syntactic, but for different reasons. For Giegerich (2015)
the first word in these constructions is an adjective, for others they are syntactic
because their orthography, stress and behaviour under coordination shows them
to be so: copper and aluminium wire and copper wire and cable are both unexcep-
tional. The items in (3g) provide an intermediate step. For some scholars they are
compounds, for others (e. g. Payne/Huddleston 2002) they are syntactic, because
they fail at least one of the criteria for being words. For example, Oxford and Cam
bridge colleges is perfectly acceptable, as is four Oxford and three Cambridge col
leges and cutlery and wine-glass boxes and assorted silver cutlery box.2 Note that
Payne and Huddleston have an overarching principle that any trace of syntactic
behaviour makes something a syntactic structure rather than a principle that any
hint of lexical behaviour makes something non-syntactic.
The items in (3i), as mentioned above, are appositional, and are usually
excluded from the set of compounds, but they contrast with the set in (3o) which
are usually included. Even so, they do not easily allow interruption, though they
do allow coordination, where relevant, as in the movie and book Jaws,3 and they
certainly allow submodification of just one element, as in the thrilling film “Jaws”
or the thrilling film, the notorious “Jaws” (but note the necessity for the determiner
in this last example, which may change the construction).
The items in (3j) are usually considered compounds, but exocentric com-
pounds, often thought of as unheaded (cf. Carstairs-McCarthy 2002). The particu-
lar items listed here fit into the Sanskrit category of bahuvrihi compounds, which
2 Internet: www.spotlightstores.com/party/party-decorator/room-table/decorating-accessories/
amscan-assorted-silver-cutlery-box/p/BP80402188 (last access: 17 Nov 2017).
3 Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Mundus (last access: 17 Nov 2017).
50 Laurie Bauer
others see as regular endocentric compounds interpreted through the figure of

speech synecdoche (sometimes considered to be a type of metonymy) (Bauer
2016).
The types in (3k–p) are various kinds of coordinative compounds. Adams
(2001: 3) excludes all of these from the set of compounds, apparently because
they are unheaded. It should be noted that some of these are exocentric (for dif-
ferent reasons): hand-eye (in hand-eye coordination) is exocentric because it is
used exclusively as a premodifier (and thus, possibly, an adjective), while Nel
son-Marlborough is neither a hyponym of Nelson nor a hyponym of Marlborough.
On the other hand, a singer songwriter is both a singer and a songwriter, and an
elm tree is both an elm and a tree. We have already seen that examples like elm
tree bear some resemblance to instances of apposition, another potential reason
for not including them as compounds. Some scholars include items like that in
(3p) as compounds, while others might see it as reduplication or even just repeti-
tion (a salad-salad is one which contains things typically found in a salad like
lettuce and cucumber, as opposed, say, to a pasta salad).
3.2 A
+N
Again, we can find many classes of construction involving adjectives and nouns.
A+N compounds are usually distinguished from syntactic constructions by their
stress (forestress) and, correspondingly, their orthographic unity, by the fact that
the adjective cannot be submodified or graded, and by the fact that the adjective
can be denied without contradiction. Thus blackbird is a compound by virtue of
its stress, its orthography, the fact that we cannot have a blackerbird or a very
blackbird, and because This blackbird is brown is not a contradiction. The syntac-
tic construction black bird differs from the compound blackbird in all of these
respects. This distinction arises because black in black bird describes, while black
in blackbird categorises.
If we look at intersective adjectives like black, heavy, silly etc. where a black
bird represents the intersection of black things and birds, we discover that they
are not always intersective. A red book may illustrate an intersective use of red,
but a red squirrel does not: red squirrel behaves semantically like blackbird, not
like black bird, despite different stress and orthography. Bauer (2004) points out
that there is a difference in frequency between the forestressed words and the
end-stressed expressions: the forestressed words are more frequent. This would
seem to indicate that there are intersective adjectives used descriptively, intersec-
tive adjectives used to categorise, and intersective adjectives used with forestress
to categorise. Most authorities distinguish the compounds with forestress from
the other two types, but we might equally distinguish the descriptive adjectives
from the categorising ones.
If we now turn to relational adjectives like canine, dental, parental, vernal,
they are not intersective. A canine tooth is not the intersection of canine things
and teeth, but a kind of tooth related in some way to dogs (for fuller discussion
cf. Giegerich 2015). Relational adjectives are rarely descriptive unless they are
figurative or used predicatively, as in his movements were feline, her attitude was
vaguely parental. The precise relationship between the adjective and the noun
has to be discovered by considering the individual example, just as the relation-
ship between nouns in N+N compounds has to be discovered by considering the
individual example: a windmill uses wind power, but a flour mill grinds flour.
Part of the result of this is that relational adjectives are by default categorising.
Nevertheless, there are instances when they, too, can take forestress: consider
for instance dramatic society, mental hospital, primary school. The reason for the
forestress here is not clear. Neither is it clear whether things like mental hospital
are compounds. Scholars disagree on whether A+N constructions with relational
adjectives are compounds or not, but they certainly seem to fulfil a similar pur-
pose. In some cases there are pairs with a modifying noun and a modifying
adjective which may be nearly synonymous (atom bomb, atomic bomb; language
description, linguistic description), while in other instances they contrast in
meaning (a civic centre is not the same as a town centre). Speakers must know
that it is solar flare but sunspot; there does not seem to be a way to predict such
distinctions.
Expressions such as attorney general, court martial, heir apparent, where the
adjective follows the noun it modifies, are usually of French origin, and follow the
French order of noun and adjective. A few such as postmaster general are formed
in English on a French pattern. The pattern does not seem to be productive, so in
principle a full list of these can be given. There seems to be little reason to include
such expressions among compounds, particularly since they are left-headed
though most compounds are right-headed, but they are certainly MWEs.
3.3 Other word-classes +N
Examples of potential compounds formed with other word-classes in the modify-

ing position are given in (4).
(4a) spoilsport, dreadnought

(4b) call girl, show-room
(4c) uptown, downdraught
52 Laurie Bauer
(4d) go-go dancer, pass-fail test, yes-no question

(4e) the … if-there’s-any-sort-of-difficulty-ask-William-and-he’ll-fix-it-for-you
person,4 our fear-of-terrorist-atrocity society,5 after-tax profits
(4f) linesman, salesman, letters column, jobs programme
(4g) cat’s-eye, women’s magazine
The examples in (4a) probably imitate a Romance pattern which is no longer pro-
ductive in modern English. However, a similar type is found with the order of the
elements reversed: prick-tease, for example. The type in (4b) has verbs in modify-
ing position, but is endocentric (show room is a hyponym of room). It is often the
case that modifying verbs in forestressed constructions take the -ing form: dining
room, shooting party, walking stick. These are then usually considered to have
nominal first elements. The type in (4c) shows adverbs/prepositions/particles in
modifying position. Things like through-put may also belong here formally,
though they are probably nominalisations of phrasal verbs. Reverse ordered
forms like put-down are also found. The type in (4d) shows alternatives in modi-
fying position, the alternatives being, in these instances, verbs or adverbs. The
type in (4e) shows apparently unlimited syntactic constructions in initial posi-
tion. These expressions do not have to be idiomatic or even familiar. If these are
compounds, though, and most scholars accept that they are, they allow syntactic
structure within word-structure. The types in (4f–g) have already been men-
tioned, with plurals or genitives in the first element. In both cases there is often
an alternative with an unmarked noun in the first position (lineman and linesman
are synonymous; according to the OED tailor’s tack and tailor tack are synony-
mous). At the same time, a genitive first element can contrast with an unmarked
first element, as illustrated in (5) (data from the OED).
(5) dog-tooth ‘check pattern’ dog’s tooth ‘architectural feature’

dog show ‘event’ dog’s show (Aust) ‘no chance’
dog collar ‘clerical garb’ dog’s collar ‘collar of a dog’
duck-foot ‘having webbed feet’ duck’s foot ‘plant sp.’
4 Meynell, Lawrence (1978): Papersnake. London: Macmillan, 10.

5 Francis, Dick (2006): Under orders. London: Michael Joseph, 87.
3.4 A
djectival compounds
Adjectival compounds are common, with examples like crime-prone, grass-green,

sky-blue, word-final, work-shy, and coordinative compounds are also found: phil
osophical-historic, spicy-mild. It can be argued (Bell 2014) that there are a number
of exocentric compound adjectives in English which are exocentric by virtue of
not containing an adjectival head: words like day-to-day, fly-by-wire, overhead,
through and through, pass-fail. Some of these may look more like non-compound
MWEs, but recall the definition given in Section 1 above, that compounds are
‘words that are composed of two (or more) bases’, and it can be seen that all of
these fit the definition. If this just indicates that the definition is incomplete, then
that is part of the message of this contribution. It must be noted, though, that
corresponding structures in related languages would not be considered adjec-
tives, and the question of their status arises peculiarly in English.
There is a set of adjectives which appears to arise from the participle-form of
phrasal verbs: down-sized, up-graded, out-grown. Whether these are viewed as
compounds may well depend on whether phrasal verbs are viewed as compounds
(see below). They have a form made up of two bases, but those two bases are not
independent at the point of adjective-formation. The same point can be made
with relation to the corresponding denominal forms like black-hearted, green-
eyed, which are not strictly formed as compounds in English, since their structure
is [[black heart]ed], so that they are derivatives based on phrasal structures.
3.5 Verbal compounds
Verbal compounds are something of a discussion point in English word-forma-

tion, following Marchand’s (1969: 100) definitive declaration that “[v]erbal com-
position does not exist in Present-Day English”. The point is that many of the
things that look like compounds, and that we might want to term compounds, are
actually formed by back-formation (to baby-sit, to horror strike) or conversion (to
breath test, to cold shoulder). The argument that these are not compounds follows
the pattern of the argument on hard-hearted in the last section. Nevertheless, it
is clear that there is an increasing number of genuine verbal compounds which
are not formed by these means (Bauer/Renouf 2001; Bauer 2017). Recent exam-
ples are air-quote, dry-burn, and coordinative examples like to blow dry, to stir-
fry (these are controversial examples of coordinative compounds, though some
authorities included them).
English does have a number of V+V constructions which might be viewed as
compounds or as serial verbs (and, if the latter, probably of syntactic not lexical
54 Laurie Bauer
origin). These are most commonly found with verbs of motion as the first verb (go
see, come buy) but go beyond that (I hope see you soon), especially in US English.
Some such constructions can be the base of further derivation, which seems to
imply listedness, if not other features of words (consider go-getter, jump-starter).
3.6 Compounds in minor word-classes
Whether there are compound prepositions is a matter of definition. Things like

into, onto, throughout are written as one word, and are probably instances of fro-
zen syntax. Instances like away from, because of, except for, off of (esp. US Eng-
lish), out of are certainly common collocations in text, but whether they are com-
pounds or not is not clear.
3.7 B
inomials
Binomials are pairs of words linked usually by and, occasionally by or. They are
normally called binominals only if they are fixed collocations. Thus Monday or
Tuesday would not be considered a binominal, but the examples in (6) would be.
(6) Abbot and Costello, bacon and eggs, bread and butter, cat and mouse,
chalk and cheese, fish and chips, gin and it, kit and caboodle, kith and kin,
life or death, milk and honey, salt and pepper, slap and tickle, sun and sand,
whisky and soda; do or die, kiss and tell, make or break, put up or shut up,
wine and dine; black and blue, free and easy, neat and tidy, sick and tired,
spick and span; as and when, back and forth, far and away ‘by a wide mar-
gin’, far and near ‘everywhere’, now and again
There is quite a large literature on the order of the elements in binomials (for a
good summary cf. Benor/Levy 2006), and the fixedness of the order. Binomials
vary in the degree to which each element presupposes the other. In spick and
span we cannot have either element without the other; black can easily occur
without blue, but black and blue is a fixed expression whose implications go
beyond the colours involved; chalk and cheese collocate only when illustrating
how different two things can be; Abbott and Costello illustrates a collocation
which was originally purely arbitrary, but became more fixed as the team became
more established. They also differ in how easily they can be interrupted: bread
and manuka honey is perfectly possible, but sick and really tired is no longer an
example of the relevant collocation. Again, they differ in how easily the coordi-
nated items can be reversed. Eggs and bacon or bacon and eggs seem to be equally
good (and scrambled can be added to eggs in either ordering), jam and bread is
possible, if slightly unusual (it is found in a song in The Sound of Music, for
instance), chips and fish is mainly used when the chips and the fish are referred
to separately rather than as a single dish. Those binomials that have a figurative
reading cannot in general be interrupted or reversed: bread and butter ‘main
source of income’, salt and pepper ‘colour term’, far and away.
3.8 N
+P+N constructions
N+P+N constructions like lady-in-waiting are frequently established MWEs, even

though there are many N+P+N constructions which appear to be perfectly freely
syntactic, as in piece of cheese. The problem of description is exacerbated in com-
parison with a language like French, where N+P+N constructions are often the
translational equivalent of Germanic compounds. For instance, French chemin-
de-fer, lit. way of iron, ‘railway’ is equivalent to Danish jernbane, lit. iron way,
‘railway’ (compare also German, Italian and other European languages), and
French jus de fruits ‘juice of fruits’ is equivalent to English fruit juice. The French
expressions are sometimes called ‘compounds’ (Spence 1969 calls them ‘preposi-
tional compounds’), while an opposing view sees them as syntactic constructions
that may become fixed (Bauer 2001). The English construction is not as wide-
spread as the French one is (because English has more compounds), but there are
plenty of examples (cf. (7)).
(7) lady-in-waiting, line-of-sight, man-about-town, man-at-arms, man-of-war,

mother-of-pearl, pay-per-view, sense of humour, son-in-law, stock-in-trade,
trial by jury
Part of the question here (and, incidentally, also in French) is the status of items
with internal determiners, such as those in (8). Are they a different construction
by virtue of having an NP (or DP) in second position, or are they a variant of the
same construction?
(8) belle of the ball, birds of a feather, two bites of the cherry, a Jack of all
trades, the man in the moon, the man of the moment, a pain in the neck, the
time of your life, will of the wisp
We might also ask whether toponyms such as Burton-in-Lonsdale, Gatehouse-of-

Fleet, Moreton-in-Marsh, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Walton-
56 Laurie Bauer
on-Thames, Weston-super-Mare are part of the same construction type. Again,

there is a variant with determiners: Stow-on-the-Wold, Stanford-in-the-Vale,
Widecombe-in-the-Moor.
To the extent that DPs can form part of the construction, these forms look
more syntactic. But even then, we do not appear to find random DPs: adjectival
modification within that DP does not appear to occur in established construc-
tions of this form, though forms like cat-in-the-new-moon or Marton-in-the-Blue-
Mountains might appear to be possible. On the other hand, with non-established
examples, such as by the light of the new moon, there is no problem with adjecti-
val modification. A fortiori, post-nominal modification does not occur in estab-
lished examples.
Klinge (2005: 366) claims that only the preposition of is particularly produc-
tive in such phrases. He uses this as an argument for the lexical nature of these
constructions. This is hard to establish, since other prepositions are clearly in use
in the more syntactic phrases, and it seems unlikely that the rules of production
for the more syntactic and more lexical types are completely independent. A more
likely explanation is that only relatively non-specific forms are frequent enough
to become established in usage, and that of is the most frequent preposition.
Overall, the descriptive problem here seems to be similar to the descriptive
problem with genitive first elements: the formal description of the construction
includes expressions which are clearly listed (sometimes idiomatic) and others
which appear to be produced productively, possibly by syntactic rules. Perhaps
equivalently, this means that some such expressions are more word-like than
others.
3.9 P
hrasal verbs
Phrasal verbs are usually taken to be syntactic units in English, though many of
them are figurative or idiomatic. Look up is literal when it means ‘raise your eyes
towards the sky’, but idiomatic when it means ‘refer to’ (as in look up a word in the
dictionary) or even ‘improve’ as in business is looking up. Put up is literal in put
your hand up the pipe, figurative in to put someone’s back up (‘annoy’) and idio-
matic in I can put you up in our spare room (‘accommodate’). Note that some
phrasal verbs have two particles, as put up with ‘tolerate’, look up to ‘admire’, but
this construction too can be literal, as in fall out of. Phrasal verbs have syntax-like
behaviour in being interrupted by their direct objects, but are lexical to the extent
that their meaning is not predictable from their elements.
3.10 Phrases as words
It might be claimed that some of the items mentioned above are simply syntactic
phrases that have become more word-like, by a process usually called univerba-
tion. Since univerbation is a diachronic process that proceeds by degrees, and
since there are a number of different univerbation processes, there are many dif-
ferent kinds of expression which, even if they started out containing two or more
words, are currently considered to be single words. Some examples are given
in (9).
(9) altogether, attorney general, bullseye, dyed-in-the-wool, forget-me-not,

thank you, touch and go, wannabe
Because these fit the rough definition of a compound given in Section 1, they are
sometimes considered to be compounds. To the extent that the constituent words
are transparent, they might be considered to be MWEs. (Note that bullseye fits
into the type illustrated in (4g) except that it is written as a single word and the
genitive is not overtly marked.) They might also be considered to be single
unanalysable words, as is implied in the term univerbation. Such items span the
borders of MWEs.
4 F unctional categories
The last section looked at categories that are more or less formally defined; in this
section other types of category are considered, including formation-types that
lead to MWEs. These are grouped together as ‘functional’ categories, in the sense
that they are not formal, but they are nonetheless a heterogeneous group. In par-
ticular, the first section below scarcely seems to be a category at all, but contrasts
with other categories discussed later.
4.1 L iteral interpretation
It may seem trivial that literal interpretations of such constructions exist. For
example, Kim is good at music and maths contains a N+and+N construction
whose interpretation follows from the construction in which the coordinated pair
occurs and the meanings of the words involved. Such examples are typically non-
word-like. Discussion of such types is frequently carried out under the heading of
58 Laurie Bauer
‘semantic compositionality’ or ‘semantic transparency’, which may or may not be

equivalent. It is clear that semantic transparency is a matter of degree rather than
a matter of yes/no; it is less clear – despite a large literature – just what is compo-
sitional (cf. Wisniewski/Wu 2012 for a useful discussion). It must be made explicit,
however, that even listed items may appear perfectly transparent. Consider such
examples as copper wire, singer-songwriter, elm tree, whisky and soda, Bur
ton-in-Lonsdale. Whether that is sufficient to make them compositional is partly
a matter of definition. Some of these show some evidence of word-like behaviour:
for instance, whisky and soda is not reversible to soda and whisky, singer-song
writer is not easily interrupted to give, for instance, singer-sad song writer, sing
er-incompetent songwriter.
4.2 F igurative interpretation
An expression may also be interpreted figuratively. This is not the place to discuss
the various possible figures of speech, or the distinctions between them. Suffice it
to say that a figurative interpretation is a pragmatic interpretation based on the
literal meaning, but providing an interpretation which is not literal. Consider the
established metaphor a dog’s breakfast. We could interpret that as ‘a morning
meal for a dog’, that is literally, but its established meaning is ‘a mess’, and that
involves pragmatically inferring that where a dog has eaten, things are not tidy. A
king’s ransom means ‘a lot of money’, which is pragmatically inferred from the
amount that would be required to ransom a king. To be on the ropes is a metaphor
from boxing and means ‘to be in a desperate position’. As has been shown in a
number of publications (e. g. Lakoff/Johnson 2003), figurative language is ubiqui-
tous in everyday communication, and appears to be cognitively normal and
effortless: indeed, it is often the sign of brain damage if a listener cannot interpret
figures of speech.
4.3 I diomaticity
Following Grant/Bauer (2004), a distinction is drawn here between figurative

interpretation and idiomatic interpretation (called ‘core idioms’ by Grant/Bauer).
On this reading, an idiomatic expression cannot be understood literally (it is not
semantically transparent) nor in terms of the pragmatic inferences of figurative
usage. The label is frequently used for a range of different structures, including
examples like red herring ‘misleading clue’ (once figurative, but the figure is not
recuperable in the current state of the language), kick the bucket ‘die’, chew the fat
‘hold a conversation’, not by a long chalk ‘fall far short’, be in fine fettle ‘be fit and
healthy’ (fettle is now extremely rare except in this phrase). The important point
about this, though, is that expressions of all kinds can be idiomatic, including
compounds (consider blackmail, yellowhammer ‘bird sp.’) and phrasal verbs
(consider put up with ‘tolerate’, pan out ‘conclude’ – perhaps once figurative, but
not now recuperable).
A different type of idiom is the constructional idiom, a syntactic construction
where the idiomatic semantics is provided by the construction, and the construc-
tion may be filled with varied lexical content (Booij 2002). An example from Eng-
lish is found in (10) (cf. also Philip 2008), where all the examples mean ‘not to be
particularly intelligent’.
(10) to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic

to be a couple of shrimps short of a barbie
to be two pennies short of the full shilling
to be several cards short of a full deck (with a variant, not to be playing
with a full deck)
to be a few French fries short of a Happy Meal
to be a beer short of a six-pack
to be a few cakes short of a birthday party
to be a couple of bricks short of a wall
Another type of idiomaticity may be culture-bounded idiomaticity. Svensson

(2008) considers this, looking at what she terms ‘encyclopedic (non)composition-
ality’, which she illustrates with expressions such as The White House and to
expect a baby, which may be understood literally but which have much greater
implications in our society (cf. also Sabban 2008). Examples like this show that
the line between literal/transparent and non-compositionality/transparency may
be more awkward than is often assumed, but also that the line between figurative
and idiomatic is not necessarily easy to perceive.
4.4 Quotations, proverbs and the like
Any language will have a large number of recognised expressions which, in some
way, acknowledge the wisdom of past speakers of the language. Some of these are
quotations (from traditional tales, from literary works, from songs, movies or TV
shows, from religious sources) others are proverbial or even family sayings. Their
length and structure is infinitely variable: in principle, an actor or literary scholar
might know the whole of Hamlet by heart and quote from it freely. Quotations are
60 Laurie Bauer
often abbreviated, mis-quoted or even alluded to. The proverb Too many cooks
spoil the broth may be shortened, as perhaps It’s a case of too many cooks, or, if
someone was complaining about the number of people involved in a project,
someone else might conceivably ask, So how did the broth turn out? Quotations
may often go unrecognised by hearers. Some examples are given in (11).
(11) eye of the needle, fisher of men, the salt of the earth (Biblical); the goose that
lays the golden egg, the grand old duke of York, white rabbits (said on the
first of the month) (folklore); this sceptered isle, pound of flesh, star-crossed
lovers, strange bedfellows (Shakespeare); dim, religious light, a modest pro
posal, a truth universally acknowledged (other literary sources); the curate’s
egg, famous last words, lies, damned lies and statistics (non-literary
sources); the early bird, a gift horse, a watched pot (proverbial)
Also included here are established similes like those in (12).
(12) bald as a coot

black as coal/ink/jet/night
bold as brass
clean as a whistle
cool as a cucumber (cool here means ‘unruffled’)
daft as a brush
pure as driven snow
thick as two short planks (thick here means ‘stupid’)
white as milk/snow
4.5 A
bbreviations
Initialisms and acronyms deserve a marginal place in this discussion, as they are
a means by which MWEs turn into single words. In initialisms, an MWE becomes
an orthographic word: FBI is a single orthographic entity, while its origin, Federal
Bureau of Investigation is an MWE. In acronyms, the MWE turns into a new pho-
nological and orthographic word: the MWE North Atlantic Treaty Organization
turns into NATO (/neɪtəʊ/). Although there is a rather old-fashioned spelling con-
vention whereby some of these items may have their individual letters interrupted
by full stops/periods (N.A.T.O.), the more modern orthography stresses the word-
hood of the outcome. For the most successful acronyms, the original MWE
becomes lost, and a new morpheme arises: scuba < self-contained underwater
breathing apparatus.
Blends may be seen as a cross between compounds and abbreviations. In a

blend, typically, the first part of the first word and the last part of the second word
are telescoped together with some loss of phonological material. An example is
infotainment < information + entertainment or administrivia < administration + trivia.
Because blends can be seen as a type of compound, they are MWEs.
4.6 R
hyming slang
The essence of rhyming slang is that a word is replaced with a (usually two- or
three-word) phrase which rhymes with the original. In this first stage, non-
MWEs are deliberately replaced by MWEs. The word kids is replaced by dustbin
lids, the word stairs is replaced with apples and pears. Note that there is no
semantic link between the original word and the rhyming replacement, though
occasional examples may be (or may be thought to be) jocularly appropriate,
such as trouble and strife for wife. To make things more difficult, the rhyming
word is then often deleted, so that kids becomes dustbins and stairs becomes
apples and what was an MWE is now replaced by a polysemous lexeme. Although
this is often termed ‘Cockney rhyming slang’ it is not restricted to London Eng-
lish. Not only is it also found, for instance, in Glasgow, Australia and New Zea-
land, but occasional expressions of rhyming slang creep unacknowledged in
the vocabulary of the wider language community: to do bird (bird lime = time [in
prison]), let’s have a butcher’s (butcher’s hook = look), my old china (china plate
= mate), use your loaf (loaf of bread = head), rabbit on (rabbit and pork = talk).
All of these retain the distinctly informal style level of the originals, and form
new idiomatic MWEs.
All the examples provided above are established examples. But rhyming
slang can also be used productively. One website cites Jar Jar Binks for forty winks
(‘a snooze’), clearly postdating the relevant Star Wars movie, and not necessarily
widely known.
4.7 C
ollocation
Collocations are sets of words which habitually occur together, even if they are
perfectly transparent. A standard example concerns the way in which dry changes
its meaning depending upon what it collocates with, as shown in (13).
(13) a dry cough (not producing catarrh)

a dry lecture (not interesting)
62 Laurie Bauer
a dry state (where alcohol is not sold)

a dry wall (built without cement)
a dry wine (not sweet)
a dry wit (dead-pan)
dry eyes (without tears)
dry ground (not wet)
dry toast (not buttered)
dry weather (not raining)
Collocations are not always of the same strength. Sometimes the ability to predict
one of the items in the collocation from the other is strong, sometimes it is weak.
This can be measured in terms of the mutual information each element provides
as to the identity of the other element(s) in the collocation (Xiao 2015). This may
complicate the process of deciding what belongs in the lexicon in a theoretical
sense, but does not interfere with the notion that more than just the individual
word might have to be listed.
Note that while dry in dry ground can be submodified (very dry ground), and
many of these expressions can be interrupted (a dry French wine, dry red-rimmed
eyes) some of them seem to be more word-like (*very dry toast, dry battery does
not appear to allow random insertions).
A particular kind of collocation is that provided by light verbs. It is make a
difference, give a lecture, make a mistake, take the opportunity, take a shower,
have a smoke. There does not seem to be any straightforward semantic reason for
the selection of these light verbs, and speakers (including native speakers) will
often use a different one from the one expected, and say things like do a
mistake.
Another similar case is provided by adjectives that take complements, and
then collocate with fixed prepositions, as in afraid of, averse to, different from/
than/to, proud of. The case of different, which becomes a matter of prescription,
shows that the preposition is not always fixed, but generally speaking the prepo-
sition has to be seen as being chosen by the head adjective. This puts such con-
structions of the borderline between being lexical combinations and syntactic
structures showing government.
4.8 F ormulae
Formulae are the way things are said rather than the way they could be said (cf.
also Sabban 2008). In many European languages, there is an expression which
can be translated as ‘good day’ which is a greeting. In England, good day is a
farewell. In Australia and New Zealand, good day (with a phonetically very much
reduced first syllable) is again a greeting. In the usage of young New Zealanders
around the turn of the millennium, spot you later, and laters were farewells
(Bauer/Bauer 2003). The fact that these are greetings and farewells (as opposed to
other potential expressions which are not, such as until we meet again, till the
next time or soon), with the corresponding increase in usage of these precise
phrases, makes them into formulae. Corresponding to the rather old-fashioned
How do you do? heard in England, How are you doing? can be heard in other parts
of the English-speaking world, but as a day-to-day greeting rather than as a greet-
ing on first introduction. How is it going? is an alternative possibility, but not How
does it go? There are many perfectly grammatical possible ways of saying things
that are never used, and those that are used, and their precise meaning, may be
unexpected.
Formulae, then, are particular types of collocation, with high frequency in
particular social environments. While they have syntactic structure (in the case
of How do you do a rather outmoded syntactic structure), some of them may be
learned as listed, fixed expressions, or have the status of words (as with
good-bye).
4.9 L exicalisation
Lexicalisation is the process of becoming a lexical item. It depends on semantic

shift (often called idiomatisation, e. g. Lipka 1994) and formal change. Although
it may be difficult or impossible to measure degrees of lexicalisation, it is a matter
of more or less not either/or. At the one end, the most lexicalised items like lord
are historically derived from elements meaning ‘loaf ward’, and all internal struc-
ture and the meaning of the original elements has been lost. At the other end, we
have freely produced syntactic constructions which are perfectly transparent in
form and meaning. The terminology of lexicalisation is very variable, and various
intermediate stages have been postulated (cf., e. g., Bauer 1983a). In formal terms,
we find constructions whose elements are transparent, instances where the ele-
ments have undergone some phonetic erosion (e. g. Christmas which phonologi-
cally contains neither Christ nor mass any more), to constructions whose ele-
ments probably cannot be perceived without formal instruction (such as dearth,
related to dear). Semantically, transparent elements may have to be interpreted
figuratively (e. g. hedgehog or fire dog), or, even if appearing formally transparent,
be semantically totally opaque (such as blackmail and woodchuck). It will be clear
from these examples that various factors influence lexicalisation, but many
MWEs are, almost by definition, somewhere on the lexicalisation spectrum.
64 Laurie Bauer
5 D
iscussion
While this wide range of MWEs has to be recognised (however difficult they may
be to systematise), there are a number of expressions which do not appear to be
sufficiently lexical to fit in the category. Any study of n-grams will come up with
expressions like in a, which collocate not because in a is constituent with its own
meaning, but because all members of the category preposition are typically fol-
lowed by determiner phrases, typically headed by determiners like a in initial
position. The high number of such cross-constituent collocations has thus more
to do with the productivity of syntax than anything lexical. Similarly, colligations,
such as the fact that the verb construct is transitive, is not a matter of lexis but a
matter of grammar (again, perhaps, a matter of government). It is true that con
struct a building is likely to be more frequent than construct a daisy, but this has
as much to do with the nature of the world as with the nature of lexical items.
While it makes little sense to suggest that construct demands in its complement
something with a feature [+ constructible], as has been done on occasions, it
makes rather more sense to say that pragmatically the need for a sentence which
contains construct a daisy is likely to be extremely low (although it might be pos-
sible if people were decorating a kindergarten and making flowers out of recycled
material to use as decorations). As McCawley remarked many years ago (McCaw-
ley 1971), if someone says my toothbrush is pregnant, it is unlikely to be their
grammatical competence which is at fault.
The borderline between things which happen to collocate because they are
syntactically likely to arise in similar contexts and what is lexical is not necessar-
ily an easy one to draw. I tend to think that is like a is on the grammatical side, but
Wikberg (2008: 136 f.) makes a case for it on the basis that it is a formula used to
introduce similes.
Borderlines like these, and one mentioned earlier between government and
lexical structure, are potentially problematic, and the entire idea that there are
such borderlines is worthy of further discussion. At one extreme we find a view,
which we can characterise as essentially Chomskian, that virtually everything we
produce is the result of free syntactic rules in operation. The other extreme posi-
tion, and one worth arguing for, would be that there is no such thing as free syn-
tax, but that everything is lexically-driven, with MWEs, fixed phrases and strongly
restrictive constructions accounting for the fact that speakers do not say many
things which might appear to be grammatical. I distrust extreme views, and sus-
pect that there is some of each involved, but that the limits of each require careful
motivation. It seems to me that a line like Carroll’s (1871) ‘Twas brillig and the
slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe shows that there must be some syntax
separate from vocabulary items, while the range of MWEs discussed in the phra-
seological and constructional literature shows that much of what we say on a

day-to-day basis requires minimal independent syntax to be formed into perfectly
normal conversational turns. In saying that, I imply consciously that there may be
a difference between written and spoken language in this regard. All of these are
open questions.
Two questions have been ignored in this presentation. The first is frequency.
It might seem that MWEs must be frequent enough to be recognised by speakers,
but there are many constructions that are invented on the spur of the moment and
yet fit (at least some of) the criteria for recognising MWEs. Consider, for instance,
examples in (4e) and (10). Frequency is a correlate of lexicalisation, but low fre-
quency does not prevent something from being an MWE.
The second point to be considered is speaker accuracy. As was pointed out in
relation to light verbs, speakers are not always consistent in what they say, and
what start out as errors may spread and cause language change. This seems to go
beyond performance errors in the sense of Chomsky (1965). Listening to current
spoken English suggests that there is huge variation in complementation patterns
at the moment, something else that lies on the borderline between government
and lexical collocation (if these can be fully distinguished).
In this contribution, I have presented a sketch of some of the types of MWE
that can be found in English. The classification I have used is, however, not
exhaustive, and the various categories I have used are not mutually exclusive, so
that I consider the classification used here to be no more than an ad hoc frame-
work for discussion and not a typology. Various alternative classifications are
provided in Granger/Meunier (eds.) (2008), but while I see the value of these clas-
sifications, I do not think we are yet at a point where a typology of MWEs is possi-
ble. Partly, as I have tried to suggest above, this is because the very nature of
MWEs is pluricentric. There is no simple distinction between lexical and syntac-
tic, there is no simple distinction between compositional and non-compositional
or between lexicalised and non-lexicalised. Rather there is a host of expressions
which link to syntactic structure and to semantic structure (and, indeed, even to
phonological structure, although I have not discussed matters such as allitera-
tion and rhyme here) in multiple ways. Compounds are one type of MWE, which
may not easily be distinguished from other MWEs, because they are part of the
network and give rise to the same problems of description and interpretation that
other MWEs do.
That brings us back to the starting point of this contribution. It is hard to
define compounds because they overlap with other MWEs in sharing features of
wordhood, they overlap with syntax in that some things which have been called
compounds are viewed by others as syntactic, because some of them, at least, are
semantically transparent, and because some of the things that some scholars call
66 Laurie Bauer
compounds arise from pieces of syntactic structure being frozen. While anyone is
free to define compounds as they see fit, agreement on any definition which can
determine which of the structures that have been canvassed here are really com-
pounds seems a long way off.
References
Adams, Valerie (2001): Complex words in English. Harlow: Pearson.
Bauer, Laurie (1983a): English word-formation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, Laurie (1983b): Stress in compounds. A rejoinder. In: English Studies 64. 47–53.
language and linguistics 2. 65–86.
Bauer, Laurie (2000): Word. In: Booij, Geert/Lehmann, Christian/Mugdan, Joachim (eds.):
Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation. Berlin/New
York: De Gruyter. 247–257.
Bauer, Laurie (2001): Compounding. In: Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.): Language universals
and language typology. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 695–707.
Bauer, Laurie (2004): Adjectives, compounds and words. In: Nordic Journal of English Studies 3,
1. 7–22.
Bauer, Laurie (2016): Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation. In: Siddiqi, Daniel/
Harley, Heidi (eds.): Morphological metatheory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
461–477.
Bauer, Laurie (2017): Compounds and compounding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Bauer, Laurie (to appear): Stressing about the news. In: New Zealand English Journal.
Bauer, Laurie/Bauer, Winifred (2003): Playground talk. Wellington: Victoria University.
Bauer, Laurie/Lieber, Rochelle/Plag, Ingo (2013): The Oxford reference guide to English
morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauer, Laurie/Renouf, Antoinette (2001): A corpus-based study of compounding in English. In:
Journal of English Linguistics 29. 101–123.
Bell, Melanie J. (2014): The English noun-noun construct: a morphological and syntactic object.
In: Ralli, Angela (eds.): Morphology and the architecture of grammar. 59–91. (Internet:
https://geertbooij.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm8_proceedings.pdf, last access:
20.4.2018).
Benor, Sarah/Levy, Roger (2006): The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English
binomials. In: Language 82. 233–278.
Booij, Geert (2002): Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon. In: Journal of
Germanic linguistics 14. 301–329.
Carroll, Lewis (1871): Through the looking glass and what Alice found there. London:
Macmillan.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2002): An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1965): Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam/Halle, Morris (1968): The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Dixon, R. M. W./Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2002): Word: a typological framework. In: Dixon,

R. M. W./Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.): Word. A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. 1–41.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004): Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the
stress criterion. In: English Language and Linguistics 8. 1–24.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2015): Lexical structures. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Granger, Sylviane/Meunier, Fanny (eds.) (2008): Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grant, Lynn/Bauer, Laurie (2004): Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong
tree? In: Applied Linguistics 25. 38–61.
Hall, Robert A. Jr (1964): Introductory linguistics. Philadelphia/New York: Blackwell.
Hippisley, Andrew (2015): The word as a universal category. In: Taylor, John R. (ed.). 246–269.
Klinge, Alex (2005): The structure of English nominals. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business
School. [Doctoral dissertation].
Kunter, Gero (2011): Compound stress in English. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 539). Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark (2003): Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lieber, Rochelle (2010): Introducing morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lipka, Leonhard (1994): Lexicalization and institutionalization. In: Asher, R. E. (ed.):
Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol 4. Oxford: Pergamon. 2164–2167.
Marchand, Hans (1969): The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd
ed. Munich: Beck.
McCawley, James D. (1971): Where do noun phrases come from? In: Steinberg, Danny D./
Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.): Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
217–231.
McEnery, Tony/Xiao, Richard/Tono, Yukio (2006): Corpus-based language studies. London/New
York: Routledge.
Moon, Rosamund (2015): Multi-word items. In: Taylor, John R. (ed.). 120–140.
Payne, John/Huddleston, Rodney (2002): Nouns and noun phrases. In: Huddleston, Rodney/
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.): The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. 323–524.
Philip, Gill (2008): Reassessing the canon: 'Fixed' phrases in general reference corpora. In:
Granger/Meunier (eds.). 95–108.
Pinker, Steven (1999): Words and rules. London: Phoenix.
Rosenbach, Anette (2006): Descriptive genitives in English: a case study on constructional
gradience. In: English language and linguistics 10. 77–118.
Sabban, Annette (2008): Critical observations on the culture-boundness of phraseology. In:
Granger/Meunier (eds.). 229–241.
Spence, Nicol C. W. (1969): Composé nominal, locution et syntagme libre. In: Linguistique 2.
5–26.
Svensson, Maria Helena (2008): A very complex criterion of fixedness: Non-compositionality.
In: Granger/Meunier (eds.). 81–93.
Taylor, John R. (ed.) (2015): The Oxford handbook of the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wikberg, Kay (2008): Phrasal similes in the BNC. In: Granger/Meunier (eds.). 127–142.
Wisniewski, Edward J./Wu, Jing (2012): Emergency!!!! Challenges to compositional
understanding of noun-noun combinations. In: Hinzen, Wolfram/Machery, Edouard/
68 Laurie Bauer
Werning, Markus (eds.): The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. 403–417.
Wray, Alison (2015): Why are we so sure we know what a word is? In: Taylor, John R. (ed.).
725–750.
Xiao, Richard (2015): Collocation. In: Biber, Douglas/Reppen, Randi (eds.): The Cambridge
handbook of English corpus linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
106–124.
Barbara Schlücker
in German
1 I ntroduction
This chapter reviews multi-word expressions, compounds, and their mutual rela-
tion regarding their status in grammar and lexicon in contemporary German.1
Both multi-word expressions and compounds are lexical units and morphosyn-
tactically complex. That is, they are made up of a minimum of two words or
stems,2 which sets them apart both from simplex lexemes and from morphologi-
cally complex words derived by other word-formation processes, in particular
derivation and conversion.3 As lexical units, they have the common function of
providing labels for all kinds of concepts. This apparent similarity – which
becomes immediately obvious from the existence of parallel units such as
Frischluft / frische Luft ‘fresh air’ – raises various questions concerning the status,
the function, and the division of labor between multi-word expressions (hence-
forth: MWEs) and compounds, but also regarding the identification and demarca-
tion of these forms. These questions will be discussed in this chapter. To start
with, it has been noted time and again that the dividing line between MWEs and
compounds cannot always be clearly drawn. While many of the problems that are
discussed in the following – such as the theoretical considerations concerning
MWE formation and the status of MWEs and compounds in the mental lexicon –
have cross-linguistic implications, the question of identification and demarcation
of the forms is language-specific. Therefore, we will start our overview with a
brief survey of the relevant properties in German. The chapter is organized as
follows: Section 2 defines the central terms in the context of the object of investi-
1 I would like to thank Geert Booij, Jesús Fernández, Rita Finkbeiner, and Katerina Stathi for
very valuable comments on earlier versions of this chapter.
2 Although the notion of word is known to be notoriously problematic, it is used in most defini-
tions of multi-word expressions, relying (usually without further discussion) on orthography as
the defining criterion. In addition, one also finds other (unspecified) terms such as ‘element’
(Gries 2008). The term ‘stem’ is mentioned here because stems rather than words form the basic
constituents in compounds.
3 Strictly speaking, conversions, although derived by a morphological process, are not morpho-
logically complex.
Open Access. © 2019 Schlücker, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-003.
70 Barbara Schlücker
gation of the study, in particular the scope of the units known as MWEs. This
section covers general aspects such as the relation between morphology and the
lexicon, as well as MWE formation, the proportion of compounds and MWEs in
the German lexicon, and the relation between both processes with respect to their
function as providing lexical units. Section 3 gives a more detailed overview of
German MWEs and compounds classified according to lexical category. Section 4
discusses the theoretical implications of the findings. The chapter ends with a
brief conclusion in Section 5.
2 G
eneral aspects
2.1 Identifying compounds and MWEs in German
In his chapter “Idioms and other fixed expressions: Parallels between idioms and
compounds”, Jackendoff (1997a: 164) writes:
Another part of the goal is to show that the theory of fixed expressions is more or less coex-
tensive with the theory of words. Toward this end, it is useful to compare fixed expressions
with derivational morphology, especially compounds, which everyone acknowledges to be
lexical items.
The main reason for investigating MWEs and compounds and their interrelation
is the fact that they are quite similar with respect to (i) their status as lexical units
and their function of providing labels for concepts and (ii) their form, as both are
morphosyntactically complex, i. e. consisting of a minimum of two words or
stems. What follows from this first description is that if MWEs and compounds
are similar in being both lexical units and consisting of two (or more) words/
lexemes, the crucial difference lies in the way these words are combined. Gaeta/
Ricca (2009) have made this point very clear, distinguishing strictly between the
properties of being [± lexical] and [± morphological], where “lexical” means that
a unit has a stable referent, a unitary meaning and possibly a non-negligible fre-
quency of occurrence (ibid.: 39). While both MWEs and compounds are [+ lexi-
cal], compounds are [+ morphological] but MWEs are [− morphological]. This
means that only lexical units can be regarded as compounds that are the output
of the morphological operation of compounding, which in turn must clearly dif-
fer from the syntactic operations of the language in question. For this reason, we
will start with a concise description of compounding.
In German, nominal and, to a more limited extent, adjectival compounding
are productive word formation patterns, whereas verbal compounding is regarded
Compounds and multi-word expressions in German 71
as either non-existent or highly restricted (e. g., Motsch 2004; Fleischer/Barz

2012). Compounding is generally right-headed. In direct comparison with parallel
phrases, compounds can best be characterized by the following properties:
(i) Stress, which is on the left (modifier) constituent in compounds but on the
head in phrases (Fríschluft – frische Lúft ‘fresh air’).
(ii) The stem form of the modifier, i. e. the absence of inflection (FrischØluft –
frische Luft).
(iii) Inseparability, i. e. compounds cannot be interrupted by any intervening
material which is perfectly possible for phrases (frische, angenehme Luft
‘fresh pleasant air’).
(iv) Linking elements, although they do not occur in all subkinds of com-
pounds, for instance Geigenbogen ‘violin bow’.4
(v) Spelling, as compounds are consistently written as one word (or are
hyphenated), contrary to phrases.5
In addition, there are several properties that apply only to specific subtypes of
compounding. To the extent that they are relevant to the present issue they will
be discussed in Section 3.
The properties mentioned distinguish compounds not only from phrases but
also from univerbations in the strict sense (“Zusammenrückung”), such as zulasten
(lit. on burden of, ‘account of’), demzufolge (lit. as a result of this, ‘accordingly’) or
Möchtegern (‘would-be, wannabe’). These lexical units are inseparable and written
in one single word. They are, however, not the result of a word formation process
but rather fossilized phrases. This can be seen in the fact that they can contain
inflected material instead of stem forms, such as lasten (pl.dat.) in zulasten, dem
(dat.sing.) in demzufolge or möchte (1./3.pers.sing.pres.act.) in Möchtegern.
Also, they retain phrasal stress. Contrary to compounding, the formation of such
units is unsystematic and cannot be predicted. Thus, they are lexical but not mor-
phological units. Accordingly, if we rely on the properties of [± lexical] and [± mor-
phological] only, univerbations are no different from MWEs (see below). However,
due to their inseparability and solid spelling they are generally considered words.6
4 Linking elements in German are not inflectional elements although some of them have evolved
diachronically from inflectional affixes, cf. footnote 6.
5 It can be observed that German language users sometimes write compounds as two separate
words (cf. Scherer 2012, for instance) and it has been speculated that this might be an increas-
ing tendendy due to influence from English. This breaks the official German spelling rules,
however.
6 From a diachronic perspective, it can be seen that a particular type of univerbation forms a
close link between MWEs and nominal compounds. In addition to compounds proper that can be
MWEs, according to this first sketch, are [+ lexical] and [− morphological]

which means that they are formed syntactically. Following definitions of MWEs
as advanced by Gries (2008) or Burger (2015), for instance, MWEs are character-
ized as syntactic patterns that consist of a minimum of two words (but not longer
than a sentence), forming either a lexical or a grammatical pattern. They may but
need not exhibit idiosyncratic semantic and/or syntactic properties, i. e., MWEs
may but need not have a non-compositional meaning and the constituent parts
may but need not be in a fixed order, immediately adjacent or syntactically defi-
cient. For example, the MWEs in (1a) have a non-compositional meaning, but
fully regular syntactic properties (that is, the VP ein Fass aufmachen can be
inflected as with any other VP, and can be passivized or modified, e. g., ein großes
Fass aufmachen (lit. to open a big barrel, ‘make a big fuss’). The examples in (1b),
on the other hand, have a fully compositional meaning. Finally, the examples in
(1c) have a non-compositional meaning and they exhibit special syntactic proper-
ties, that is, the order of words is fixed and they cannot be separated, determiners
are lacking and the adjective gut ‘good’ is uninflected (a historic relic) which is,
according to present-day syntax, ungrammatical.
(1a) ein Fass aufmachen (lit. to open a barrel, ‘make a fuss’),7 um ein Haar (lit.
by a hair, ‘very nearly’)
(1b) Dank sagen (lit. say thanks, ‘thank’), leere Menge (‘empty set’), in Zusam
menhang mit (‘in connection with’)
(1c) Knall auf Fall (lit. bang on fall, ‘suddenly’), auf gut Glück (lit. on good luck,
‘on the off chance’)
found since Old High German (and before), a second type of compounds, the so-called ‘genitive
compounds’, or, in Grimm’s terminology, “uneigentliche Komposita” (‘false compounds’) arise
sporadically in Old High German and Middle High German times and become more frequent later
on. They are univerbations of a prenominal genitive construction and, for this reason, contain
genitive case marking. In Early High German, this pattern becomes productive and collapses
with the older compound type. As a result, the former case markings are reanalyzed as linking
elements, and the newly coined forms are no longer conceived of as univerbations, thus (former)
syntactic patterns, but as word formation proper (cf. Pavlov 1983, for instance). For instance, the
genitive construction (des) menschen herz (‘(the) human’s heart’) is reanalyzed as a nominal
compound Menschenherz (‘human heart’) and the former suffix -en (sing.gen.) is reanalyzed as
a linking element.
7 The German MWE is the result of folk etymology relating to the English verb fuss, due to the
phonological similarity of English fuss and German Fass ‘barrel’ and the equivalence between
German (auf)machen and English make.
As formal and semantic irregularities are not defining criteria of MWEs, their
identification hinges crucially on (a) the function of the combination of words as
a semantic unit and (b) the frequency of occurrence, which means that the fre-
quency of occurrence of the particular combination of words is larger than expect-
ed.8, 9
This definition (and many similar approaches in the literature) have led to a
rather broad view of MWEs that encompasses many different types of lexical
phrasal units, some of which are not regarded as MWEs in older and more tradi-
tional phraseological theory. In particular, collocations which may have a fully
compositional meaning, are nowadays usually regarded as MWEs, e. g., billige
Kopie (‘cheap copy’), den Kopf schütteln (‘to shake one’s head’), eine Entschei
dung treffen (lit. to hit a decision, ‘to make a decision’). Presumably, they make up
a large part of all MWEs in German. Another group are partially fixed (or: lexically
filled) patterns, that is, patterns that contain open slots that can be filled with
various lexical items to produce new MWEs, cf. (2):
(2a) [X um X] ‘X by X’: Stein um Stein (‘brick by brick’), Jahr um Jahr (‘year
by year’)
(2b) [Wer X (der) Y] (‘he who X, Y’): Wer rastet, der rostet (‘He who rests, rusts’),
Wer suchet, der findet (‘He who seeks, finds’), Wer schreibt, der bleibt (‘He
who writes, remains’)
The observation that some phrasal patterns are systematically and productively
used to form lexical units can already be found in early traditional German phra-
seological research (cf. Häusermann 1977; Fleischer 1982). Quite influentially, the
idea of productive syntactic patterns in the lexicon has been discussed in detail in
cognitive and constructionalist frameworks (cf. Fillmore/Kay/O’Connor 1988;
Jackendoff 1997b; Kay/Fillmore 1999, among many others), often in connection
with the term ‘constructional idiom’ (Jackendoff 1997a; Jackendoff 2002; Booij
2002). Finally, and especially in connection with recent developments in usage-
based and corpus linguistics and rapidly increasing corpus sizes, the idea
emerged that the vast majority of MWEs are indeed realizations of abstract
8 The first criterion can serve to exclude frequently co-occuring sequences such as and the,
which obviously do not form a semantic unit. Yet, it is not clear what exactly a semantic unit is;
Gries (2008: 6), for instance, defines it as “to have a sense just like a single morpheme or word”.
This, however, seems too narrow given the meaning of proverbs or (some) verbal idioms such as
ein Fass aufmachen / make a fuss.
9 Other properties which are in principle compatible with these properties make use of the psy-
cholinguistic dimension, e. g., psycholinguistic stability or retrieval as a whole.
atterns, with numerous relations between these patterns (e. g. Steyer 2015, 2016).
p
Crucially, the idea of abstract MWE patterns implies that there are also occasional
MWEs, that is, nonce-MWEs that are formed ad hoc, and even potential MWEs
that might be formed according to these patterns but have yet to do so, just as is
the case with occasional and potential compounds. Obviously, such ideas chal-
lenge the original idea of MWEs as idiosyncratic stored items in the lexicon. We
will come back to this issue in Section 4.
For the purpose of the present chapter, some constraints on the range of
MWEs to be discussed are in order. First, MWEs are usually also thought to encom-
pass proverbs, sayings, quotations, and routine formulas, e. g. Good Morning or
Happy Birthday. However, these kinds of MWEs do not denote referents (either
objects or events), but rather have a propositional function due their sentence
character, or, in the case of routine formulas, a purely pragmatic (communica-
tive) function. As the present discussion focuses on MWEs that parallel com-
pounds, they are excluded in what follows. Similarly, as will be discussed in more
detail in Section 3, we will not be concerned with MWE patterns that systemati-
cally lack equivalent compound forms.
2.2 Proportion of MWEs and compounds in the German lexicon
Given the potential functional overlap between MWEs and compounds, the ques-
tions of what share they hold in the (German) lexicon and whether any regulari-
ties can be observed concerning their distribution arise. Obviously, the answers
are determined by various factors: first, they crucially hinge on the definition of
MWEs and the question of which combinations are considered MWEs. Further-
more, we might ask how to deal with occasional and possible/potential forma-
tions, i. e. concrete patterns that might be instantiated from abstract MWE
patterns.
Most remarks in the literature on the distribution of MWEs and compounds
relate to lexical categories. It has often been assumed that verbal MWEs make up
the largest part of German MWEs (e. g., Burger 2001: 34). Nominal MWEs are usu-
ally considered much less frequent (e. g., Barz 1996: 131, 2007: 28; Donalies 2008:
308). According to Fleischer (1996a: 152, 1997a: 17–20), MWEs are most frequent in
the verbal and least frequent in the adjectival domain, with the nominal and the
adverbial domain in between. Fleischer (1996b: 336) and Barz (2007: 28) relate
this distribution to differences in productivity of compounding (or word-forma-
tion in general) in the respective lexical categories: whereas nominal compound-
ing is highly productive in German, there are considerably less word-formation
patterns in the verbal domain and verbal compounding in particular is consid-
ered marginal or non-existent. In addition, is has been observed that the distribu-
tion also depends on register: nominal MWEs seem to be much more frequent in
terminology, e. g., medical language or professional titles, than in general usage
(Möhn 1986; Fleischer 1996a; Barz 2007).
However, these assessments about the distributions among the lexical cate-
gories crucially depend on what counts as an MWE. “Classical” verbal idioms
such as jdn. auf die Palme bringen (lit. bring so. on the palm, ‘drive so. nuts’)
stand out for their semantic and morphosyntactic idiosyncrasies and are there-
fore more often perceived as MWEs. Collocations, on the other hand, in particular
nominal ones, have not always been recognized as fixed units, as many of them
have a fully compositional meaning. They have often not been included in dic-
tionaries or phraseological lists. However, inclusion in such dictionaries or lists
usually forms the basis for the sort of assessment mentioned above. Thus, given
a broader view on MWEs like that introduced in the preceding section, it seems
hard to say whether (or to what extent) a distribution of compounds and MWEs
by lexical category can be established at all.
2.3 R
elation between MWEs and compounds in the German
lexicon: complementarity or competition?
An old and widespread idea about the lexicon is that it usually does not contain
real synonyms or doublets which means that the co-existence of compounds and
MWEs with identical meanings and grammatical function/distribution is not
expected (for discussion cf. Haiman 1980, for instance). It has also been assumed
that real doublets only exist between terminology and general vocabulary (Barz
1996: 132). However, this view is probably too strict. Obviously, there are also
examples of “real” doublets within the general lexicon, some of the (often cited)
examples being Schwert des Damokles / Damoklesschwert (‘sword of Damocles’),
Grüntee / grüner Tee (‘green tea’), schwarzer Markt / Schwarzmarkt (‘black mar-
ket’), halbherzig / mit halbem Herzen (‘half-hearted’), although in some cases
there are clear differences in the frequency of use of both forms.10 Also, there
might be regional variation concerning the use of an MWE vs. compound.
As to the differences, MWEs are often assumed to be more expressive than
parallel morphological units, e. g., jdn. übers Ohr hauen (lit. hit so. across the ear)
10 For instance, Schuster (2016: 195) shows that the distribution of schwarzer Markt vs.
Schwarzmarkt (‘black market’) has changed considerably in the period of 1946−2009 [ZEIT cor-
pus], with an initial proportion of the compound of about 10 % and 90 % at the end.
vs. jdn. betrügen, both meaning ‘cheat so.’. Expressivity is often due to metaphor-
ical meaning, e. g. grüne Welle (lit. green wave, ‘phased traffic lights’), blondes
Gift (lit. blond poison, ‘blonde bombshell’), but it may also arise from phonolog-
ical-prosodic properties, like rhyme or alliteration, as in binomial constructions
such as null und nichtig (‘null and void’), hegen und pflegen (‘nurture’) (cf. Flei-
scher 1997b: 164 f.). However, although expressivity and imagery might be the ini-
tial driving forces for the coinage of an MWE, these properties might wear out over
time and the forms are no longer perceived as particularly expressive (cf. Fleis-
cher 1997a). Furthermore, compounds might also have a metaphorical meaning,
such as Dickmops (lit. fat pug, ‘fat person, fatty’), Baumdiagramm (‘tree dia-
gram’), Kuchenhimmel (lit. cake heaven, ‘place that serves excellent cake’).
The question of whether the relation between compounds and MWEs is to be
characterized as complementary or competitive depends on the ideas about the
status and the formation of MWEs. According to the traditional view, MWEs are
not formed by abstract patterns (or rules) in the way compounds are. Rather, their
emergence has been regarded as a secondary, purely semantic process of idioma-
tization (e. g. metaphoric or metonymic) of syntactic units, which might in turn
have an effect on the morphosyntactic properties of the unit in question (e. g.,
Fleischer 1997a: 11; Barz 2007: 31). Barz (1996: 132, 2007: 30) regards MWEs as less
economic than complex morphological units due to their complexity, i. e. the
number of constituent parts, although they are often semantically more explicit
since the relation between the constituents is morphosyntactically expressed,
unlike with compounds. A typical example is an adjectival phrasal simile such as
so rot wie Blut (‘as red as blood’) and the corresponding adjectival compound
blutrot (‘blood-red’) (cf. also Section 3.4). The comparison between ‘blood’ and
‘red’ is expressed explicitly in the phrase while this relation is implicit in the com-
pound and must be inferred by the reader. At the same time, the morphological
counterpart is structurally less complex than the phrasal unit.
According to this view, MWE formation can be regarded as complementary to
compounding and is employed if compounding is not available (cf. Section 2.2) or
(at least in some cases) for the purposes of increasing expressivity (e. g., Fleischer
1997b). However, on a broader view on MWE formation that acknowledges – in
addition to sporadic, secondary idiomatization of phrases – the (widespread)
existence of more abstract MWE patterns, both with or without a compositional
meaning, MWE formation is not complementary to compounding but rather com-
peting or at least on an equal footing. If this is indeed the case, we ought to ques-
tion whether more can be said about the distribution of MWEs and compounds in
the lexicon than the preferences concerning lexical category. In other words: Are
there more (or other) factors influencing or determining the choice between both
patterns?
In recent years, several studies have approached this question for German
with a focus on nominal units, both A+N and N+N. The study by Schlücker/Plag
(2011) adopts an analogical approach, investigating the idea that the choice
between MWEs and compounds depends on the individual lexemes involved. The
study examines the formation of new A+N combinations. It shows that there are
no general preferences for coining new A+N lexical units as either MWE or com-
pound, but that the choice depends on the way the individual adjectives and
nouns have been used before, i. e. either as a compound (e. g. voll (‘full’): Vollbart
‘full beard’, Vollmond ‘full moon’) or an MWE (e. g. offen ‘open’, offenes Geheimnis
‘open secret’, offenes Ohr ‘sympathetic ear’) or both (e. g. rot (‘red’): Rotwein ‘red
wine’, Rotkohl ‘red cabbage’; rote Bete ‘beetroot’, rote Grütze ‘red fruit jelly’).11 Put
simply, constituents that have previously been used in compounds tend to be
realized as compounds when coining new combinations, and those that have pre-
viously been used in MWEs tend to be realized as MWEs. Thus, the choice between
the forms is determined by the existence and number of related similar construc-
tions in the mental lexicon of the language users. This analogical effect has been
shown to be stronger for adjectives than for nouns.12 There is also evidence for the
co-existence of both patterns as well as for analogical effects from the diachronic
perspective. Studying the diachronic development of German A+N sequences
since 1700, Schuster (2016) shows that both patterns have continuously co-ex-
isted and that there is no clear trend towards either of the patterns or the disap-
pearance of the other. Again, the choice for either an MWE or a compound seems
to depend on individual adjectives. Thus, some adjectives consistently form A+N
phrases whereas others always occur in compounds. A third group is productive
in both patterns which also leads to the formation of doublets, e. g. rotes Wild –
Rotwild (‘red deer’) which both can be found in 19th century dictionaries (cf.
Schuster 2016: 278). It is only for the third group of adjectives that a diachronic
tendency towards compounding can be observed, as in the case of Rotwild which
is the only acceptable form in present-day language.13
11 The same holds for the noun; examples are not provided for reasons of space.
12 In addition, morphological and semantic properties also play a role in the determination of
the form, cf. Schlücker/Plag (2011); Schlücker (2014). Regarding semantics, there is a comple-
mentary distribution of metaphorical and metonymic A+N combinations such that the former
are always realized as MWEs (e. g., roter Faden: lit. red wire, ‘thread’) and the latter (almost) al-
ways as compounds (e. g., Blauhelm ‘Blue helmet’). However, the bulk of A+N combinations have
neither a metaphorical nor a metonymic meaning and are found in both forms.
13 To be sure, the phrase rotes Wild is fully grammatical, as it is formed according to the syntac-
tic rules for a nominal phrase with an adjectival modifier in present-day German. It is however
not a conventional lexical unit denoting the concept of red deer, and thus no MWE.
Presupposing the existence of doublets in present-day language, Schlücker/

Hüning (2009) (on A+N combinations) and Roth (2014, 2015) (on A+N and N+N
combinations) examine the factors that determine the choice of use of either of
the forms.14 Based on corpus data, these studies show that, among other things,
the context may influence the choice of use of either form. For instance, if an A+N
unit is preceded by another adjectival modifier, speakers prefer compounds over
MWEs, obviously to avoid the immediate sequence of two syntactic adjectival
modifiers (e. g., heißer Grüntee vs. heißer grüner Tee ‘hot green tea’). Similarly,
sequences of two postnominal genitive attributes are avoided in favor of com-
pounds. On the other hand, in a compound the modifier cannot be specified.
Specification of the modifier thus forces the speaker to use the phrase, cf. sehr
extreme Position vs. *sehr Extremposition (‘very extreme position’), Abbau von
500 Stellen vs. *500 Stellenabbau (‘reduction of 500 jobs’).
Furthermore, Roth (2014, 2015) also demonstrates the influence of sentence
length. It is known that long sentences generally contain more long words than
shorter sentences. In accordance with this idea, compounds are shown to be used
more often than phrases in longer sentences. Also, compounds appear more often
in the context of other long words in the same sentence. Finally, within the same
text consistence of use seems to play an important role, thus speakers tend to
consistently use either the compound or the MWE.
In sum, it seems that there are competing abstract patterns as well as specific
doublet forms and that, in addition to factors such as expressivity or register, the
actual use in a particular context as well as analogical relations are also factors
determining their distribution of use.
3 Overview of German MWEs and compounds

This section provides an overview of MWEs and compounds in German, classified
according to lexical/syntactic category and syntactic function, respectively.
Although it is doubtful whether a reliable general assessment of the quantitative
14 Schlücker/Hüning (2009) deal for the most part with Greek- and Latin-based relational adjec-
tives such as sozial ‘social’ and optimal ‘optimal’. Roth’s (2014, 2015) choice of comparable pat-
terns (i. e. compounds and collocations) relies on the quantitative method of distributional se-
mantics which determines the meaning of an expression on the basis of its context in an
automatical procedure. Expressions with very similar or identical lexical constituents in the
context are considered semantically equivalent, although it is obvious that subtler meaning dif-
ferences cannot be detected in this way.
distribution of MWEs and compounds according to lexical category can be made

(cf. Section 2.2), it seems justified to say that at least some categories differ greatly
with respect to the productivity and the use of MWEs and compounds. Thus, there
are categories where either compounding or MWE formation prevail, and other
cases where they co-occur. Contrary to other languages, however, in most cases
German allows a clear demarcation between MWEs and compounds on formal
grounds.
3.1 Prepositions and conjunctions
German has various prepositional MWEs, such as auf Grund ‘due to’, in Anbe
tracht (‘in consideration of’). Some of them have morphological counterparts, in
particular derivatives formed by the suffix -lich (‘belonging to X’), e. g. in Bezug
auf – bezüglich (‘pertaining to’), in Hinsicht auf – hinsichtlich (‘regarding’). There
are also morphological counterparts that resemble compounds, often consisting
of a P+N sequence, e. g. aufgrund (lit. onP groundN, ‘due to’), anhand (lit. atP handN,
‘on the basis of’). They are, however, not the output of compounding but the
result of univerbation, that is, they are former phrases that have become fixed
and, as a result, are now written as one word (cf. Section 2.1). This is also obvious
from the phrasal stress pattern of these forms (stress on the nominal head, e. g.
aufgrúnd), in contrast to genuine P+N compounds which have modifier stress,
e. g. Vórdach (lit. in front ofP roofN, ‘porch roof’). In many cases, this transition is
still in progress which means that both writing norms officially co-exist, e. g. zu
Gunsten – zugunsten (‘in favor of’). They are, for the reason just mentioned, no
instances of MWE/compound doublets however. The same holds for grammatical
MWEs such as conjunctions, e. g. wenn auch (‘although’). Although there are a few
non-phrasal counterparts, such as wenngleich (‘albeit’), these are not compounds
but univerbations.
3.2 Adverbs and adverbials
Fleischer (1997b: 149–153) stresses that adverbial MWEs display great structural
variety. Many of them contain prepositions. Some frequent patterns are given in
(3). Note that these examples are diverse regarding syntactic category (so some
are structurally equivalent to the prepositional MWEs in the previous section,
with others equivalent to the binomials discussed in Section 3.5). The various
forms are grouped together due to their common adverbial function, in order to
compare them with adverbial word-formation.
(3a) Prepositional phrases: auf Anhieb (‘straightaway’), in der Tat (lit. in the
deed, ‘indeed’), unter vier Augen (lit. under four eyes, ‘in private’),
von Hause aus (lit. from home out, ‘by nature’)
Various kinds of binomials:
(3b) Conjoined nouns: Tag und Nacht (‘day and night’), bei Nacht und Nebel (lit.
at night and fog, ‘in secrecy’)
(3c) With prepositions: von Zeit zu Zeit (‘from time to time’), von Kopf bis Fuß
(‘from top to toe’), von Haus zu Haus (‘from house to house’)
(3d) Identical constituents (adverbs): durch und durch (‘out and out’), nach und
nach (‘little by little’)
It is obvious (and has also been discussed by Fleischer 1997b) that many of these
MWEs are instantiations of partially fixed abstract patterns (cf. Section 4).
Adverbial compounding, on the other hand, is highly restricted and often not
recognized as a word formation type on its own. Adverbial compounds are only
found with a handful of adverbs and prepositions, in particular directional
adverbs such as hin ‘to, there’ and her ‘to, there’ (cf. Fleischer/Barz 2012), e. g.
herauf (lit. there up, ‘up’), hinüber (lit. there over, ‘over’), dorthin (lit. thereto,
‘there’), daneben (lit. there next, ‘alongside’). However, in some (though not all)
cases these forms seem to be univerbations rather than compounds proper. Also,
contrary to genuine compounds, the head cannot be clearly identified in most
cases and they are not right-headed, as is usual in German. These restrictions
on adverbial compounding can explain the enormous amount and structural
diversity of adverbial MWEs, in particular given the fact that adverbial deriva-
tion is also restricted to a handful of affixes. For the domain of adverbs and
adverbials, this supports the idea of MWE formation as a complementary device
to compounding.
3.3 C
omplex verbs
The verbal domain is usually regarded as the most diverse and extensive domain of
German MWE formation. Verbal MWEs (the classical “idioms”), either with a fully or
a partially non-compositional meaning, such as bei jdn. einen Stein im Brett haben
(lit. have a stone in so.’s plank, ‘be in so.’s good books’) or den Wald vor lauter Bäu
men nicht mehr sehen (‘not see the wood for the trees’) have long been at the core of
phraseological research. In addition, there are various abstract verbal MWE pat-
terns and verbal collocations (mostly N+V). However, there are no corresponding
verbal MWE and compound patterns, due to the absence of verbal compounding in
German. We will therefore only briefly discuss some patterns, in particular in con-
nection with the question of the demarcation between syntactic and morphological
verbal units.
The first one are light verb constructions. They are either [NP V]VP or [PP V]VP
sequences. All of them have corresponding morphological forms, either simplex
or derived, but no compounds. The correspondence is also obvious as most of
them (though not all) contain a corresponding lexical item, e. g. einen Beschluss
fassen/beschließen (lit. grab a decision, ‘decide’), zur Anzeige bringen / anzeigen
(lit. bring to record, ‘report’), but in Kenntnis setzen / informieren (lit. set in knowl-
edge, ‘inform’). The phrasal and the morphological forms are equal in meaning,
but often differ in argument structure. There are also differences in register as the
phrasal constructions are more formal.
Another group are particle verbs. Particle (or: phrasal) verbs such as anlächeln
‘smile at’, abschicken ‘send off’, austrinken ‘drink up’ have been widely discussed
for German as well as for other Germanic languages in connection with their unclear
status as either morphological or phrasal entities (cf. Los et al. 2012; Dehé 2015;
McIntyre 2015; Booij, this volume; a. o.). The central problem is that they are syntac-
tically and morphologically separable in some contexts, e. g. Er schickt den Brief ab.
(‘He sends the letter off’); past participle: abgeschickt (‘sent off’), i. e. with the
ge-prefix in the middle of the word rather than at the beginning, as usual. Insepa-
rability, however, is usually considered a basic property of morphological units.
Interestingly, it seems that German particle verbs are mainly discussed in morpho-
logical research (often in connection with the question of whether they form a word
formation pattern on their own or not) but are rarely considered in phraseological
research. For English, on the other hand, they are quite naturally also included in
phraseological work, cf. Gries (2008) and Ramisch (2015), for instance.15
Particles in German particle verbs often have prefixal counterparts, but there
are also particles that are homonymous to prepositions, adverbs, adjectives, and
nouns (cf. Fleischer/Barz 2012). Thus, even forms like herumbrüllen (lit. yell
around, ‘yell’), schönreden (lit. talk st. beautiful, ‘sugarcoat’) or totarbeiten (lit.
dead work, ‘work to death’) that on the surface look like compounds since they
involve lexical stems rather than prefixes, are in fact particle verbs since they are
separable.
For this reason, particle verbs have often been regarded as problematic
regarding the demarcation between MWEs and compounds/morphological units.
Whereas the cases discussed so far in this chapter raise the question of the way in
which (clearly) morphological and (clearly) syntactic lexical patterns relate to
15 However, Moon (1998) argues against the classification of particle verbs as verbal MWEs in
English.
each other, they rather demand a solution for the fact that there are also interme-
diate constructions. We will come back to the issue of intermediate construc-
tions in Section 3.5 and 4.
Finally, another unclear, intermediate group are N+V patterns of the type Rad
fahren / radfahren (‘ride a bike’), brustschwimmen (‘breaststroke’) or Eis laufen /
eislaufen (‘ice-skate’). They have been widely discussed in the literature, regard-
ing both their orthography and their morphosyntactic properties. However, con-
trary to particle verbs, they do not seem to form a homogeneous group. Thus,
several co-existing subtypes of these N+V patterns have been identified, with dif-
ferent analyses as either verbal compounds, backformations or incorporation (cf.
Fuhrhop 2007, among many others).
3.4 Adjectival compounds and MWEs
Häcki Buhofer et al. (2014) list numerous adjectival collocations, mostly an adjec-
tive preceded by a modifier (adverb, adjective or other), cf. (4):
(4) streng geheim (lit. strictly secret, ‘top secret’), bitter nötig (‘urgently
necessary’), geradezu klassisch (‘almost classical’), verschwindend klein
(‘vanishing small’), spielend leicht (lit. playing easy, ‘easily’), furchtbar
traurig (‘terribly sad’), immens wichtig (‘immensely important’)
The modifiers in these phrases express gradation, i. e. they either intensify or

diminish the property denoted by the adjective. A gradational meaning can also
be found in adjectival compounds, as those in (5).
(5) dunkelrot (‘dark red’), tiefrot (lit. deep red, ‘bright red’), heilfroh (lit.
salvation glad, ‘really glad’), stinkfaul (lit. stinking lazy, ‘bone-idle’),
grundverkehrt (‘fundamentally wrong’), hochbegabt (‘highly talented’)
However, real doublets are rare, e. g., schwerkrank – schwer krank (lit. heavily ill,
‘critically ill’). In addition to such compounds having a gradational meaning,
adjectival compounds very often have a determinative meaning, that is, the mod-
ifier specifies the property denoted by the adjectival head, often, though not
always, in a comparative way, cf. (6).
(6) graublau (‘grey-blue, powderblue’), hautnah (lit. skin close, ‘very close’),
schneeblind (‘snow-blind’), butterweich (lit. butter soft, ‘beautifully soft’)
Thus, the morphological and the syntactic units discussed above only partially
overlap in the semantically restricted domain of gradation and cannot generally
be regarded as competing patterns.16
In addition to the adjectival collocations as in (4), there are also partially
fixed MWE patterns in the adjectival domain. One of them are adjectival phrasal
similes as in (7) (cf. Burger 2015: 56 f.; Hüning/Schlücker 2015).17 It is a typical
example of a partially filled MWE. The property denoted by the adjective is – by
means of the comparative conjunction wie ‘as’ – compared to a reference value
provided by the noun.
(7) [(so) A wie (ein) N] [(as) A as (an) N]): so weich wie Seide (‘as soft as silk’)
Interestingly, the same comparison can also be expressed by an N+A compound,

as mentioned above, e. g. seidenweich ‘silky smooth, as soft as silk’ , cf. (6). Thus,
it seems that these are examples of equivalent morphological and syntactic lexi-
cal patterns which in turn raises the question of the relation between the patterns
and the distribution of the specific forms.18 First, it seems that the formation of
comparative compounds is more restricted than that of phrasal similes. There are
plenty of phrasal comparisons, both with a compositional and a non-composi-
tional meaning, that do not allow the formation of a corresponding compound,
cf. (8).
(8) (so) stumm wie ein Fisch / *fischstumm (lit. as mute as a fish, ‘as mute as a
maggot’)
(so) sanft wie Regen / *regensanft (‘as soft as rain’)
16 For some examples in (5) and (6) it may be a matter of debate whether they only have a gra-
dational or a determinative meaning or both, e. g. dunkelrot (‘dark red’). The crucial point here is,
however, that the determinative meaning is not available for the syntactic pattern and that for
this reason there is only partial overlap between the morphological and the syntactic pattern.
17 Adjectival binomials form another pattern, cf. (i). However, nominal, verbal and adverbial
binomials seem to be much more frequent than adjectival ones. Yet another pattern is given in
(ii), cf. Fleischer (1997b: 149). However, the patterns do not have a direct morphological counter-
part, neither regarding form nor semantics.
(i) [A und A] ([A and A]): fix und fertig (lit. fix and ready, ‘beat, strung out’), still und leise (‘silent and
quiet’)
(ii) [zum + infinitive + A] ([to the + infinitive + A]): zum Weinen schön (lit. to the crying beautiful, ‘mov-
ingly beautiful’), zum Bersten voll (lit. to the bursting full, ‘full to bursting’)
18 Interestingly, adjectival phrasal similes and corresponding N+A compounds do also exist in
other languages (cf. Finkbeiner/Schlücker, this volume), such as Dutch (cf. Booij, this volume),
Italian (cf. Masini, this volume), and Finnish (cf. Hyvarinen, this volume).
(so) dumm wie Brot / *brotdumm (lit. as dumb as bread, ‘as thick as
brick’)
(so) frech wie Dreck / *dreckfrech (lit. as cheeky as dirt, ‘as bold as brass’)
An obvious explanation would be that the formation of the compound is blocked

due to the existence of the MWE, in line with usual assumptions of non-existence
of synonymy in the lexicon. This explanation is not convincing, however, given
the existence of numerous doublets as those in (9):
(9) (so) weich wie Seide / seidenweich (‘as soft as silk’)

(so) weiß wie Schnee / schneeweiß (‘snow-white’)
(so) hart wie Stein / steinhart (‘rock-hard’)
(so) stark wie ein Bär / bärenstark (lit. as strong as a bear, ‘strong as an ox’)
On the other hand, there are also compounds that lack corresponding phrasal
comparisons. In these cases, the phrasal expressions are not ungrammatical but
are not conventionalized lexical units and therefore much rarer, as can be seen
from corpus data, cf. (10).19
(10) kirschrot [586] / rot wie eine Kirsche [6] (‘cherry-red’)

zitronengelb [832] / gelb wie eine Zitrone [7] (‘lemon yellow’)
blitzschnell [8.585] / schnell wie {ein/der} Blitz [63] (‘as quick as a/the
flash’)
The distribution of forms is also dependent on the context, as discussed for A+N
sequences in Section 2.3. Whereas both patterns can be used predicatively or
adverbially, only compounds can occur in attributive position. Thus, although
the phrasal pattern might be more expressive, especially since it also allows non-
sensical, apparently unmotivated comparisons which compounds generally do
not (e. g. frech wie Dreck, dumm wie Brot, cf. (8)),20 compounds are more versatile
concerning their syntactic distribution.
Furthermore, it has been assumed that both the phrasal and the morpholog-
ical pattern have developed a semantic subpattern with an intensifying rather
than a comparative meaning (cf. Hüning/Booij 2014; Hüning/Schlücker 2015).
Thus, in cases like hart wie Stein / steinhart (‘rock-hard’), stark wie ein Bär / bären
19 Counts are from all corpora available through www.dwds.de.

20 A counterexample of a nonsensical comparison in a compound is rotzfrech (lit. cheeky as
snot, ‘impudent’).
stark (lit. as strong as a bear, ‘strong as an ox’) the noun does not provide an
actual measure for comparison but rather functions as an intensifier (‘very hard’,
‘very strong’). This intensifying meaning is available for both phrasal similes and
compounds, although it is not entirely clear under which condition comparative
patterns develop an intensifying meaning. Importantly, neither the phrasal nor
the morphological pattern do always have this intensifying meaning. For instance,
the adjective weich ‘soft’ occurs in numerous comparative patterns, both phrasal
and morphological, and all of them have a comparative rather than an intensify-
ing meaning. More specifically, two subgroups can be observed, one relating to
the softness of the surface and the other to the softness of the substance, cf.
(11)–(12).
surface
(11a) seidenweich, samtweich (‘silky smooth’, ‘velvety’)

(11b) (so) weich wie {Seide / Samt} (‘as soft as {silk / velvet}’)
substance
(12a) butterweich, gummiweich, wachsweich, watteweich

(‘buttersoft’, ‘as soft as rubber’, ‘as soft as wax’, ‘cotton-soft’)
(12b) (so) weich wie {Butter / Gummi / Wachs / Watte}
(‘as soft as {butter / rubber / wax / cotton}’)
In these cases, the various measures of comparison are literally present, thus
samtweich is different from seidenweich in the way velvet is different from silk. In
particular, the groups in (11) and (12) have clearly different meanings and cannot
be used interchangeably. It might then be concluded that an intensifying mean-
ing can only develop if only one comparative measure is conventionalized, as in
the case of hart (hart wie Stein / steinhart) and stark (stark wie ein Bär / bären
stark), and not several.21
21 There are also intensifying modifiers in compounds that have developed into a productive
intensifying pattern such that the modifier has completely lost its literal meaning, often dis-
cussed in connection with the term affixoid. A case in point is the intensifier stock ‘stick’ which
first occurred in morphological and phrasal comparisons such as stocksteif / steif wie ein Stock
‘as stiff as a stick’ but later, after having developed an intensifying meaning, was used as an in-
tensifier of other, totally unrelated adjectives, e. g. stockdunkel (‘very dark’), stockbesoffen (‘very
drunk’) (cf. Hüning/Booij 2014; Hüning/Schlücker 2015). The abovementioned example of grund-
(‘ground’) (cf. (5)) seems to be a similar case.
These observations lead to the conclusion that phrasal similes and adjectival
compounds are an example of the co-existence of corresponding phrasal and
morphological lexical structures. They show that blocking as a principle con-
trolling the lexicon does not seem to be as strong as sometimes assumed. Also, as
both patterns share lexical material and semantic subgroups (comparative/inten-
sifying) they cannot be regarded as complementary. Rather, it can be assumed
that both patterns as well as their instantiations are related to each other via their
constituents and their meanings. The choice between either form in the case of
doublets as in (9), (11), and (12) is likely to be determined by expressivity (in favor
of the phrasal structure) as well as syntactic flexibility and conciseness (favoring
the compound), but also other factors determined by the actual context, e. g. sen-
tence length (cf. Section 2.3).
3.5 Nominal compounds and MWEs
Nominal compounding, in particular N+N compounding, is without doubt the

most frequent and productive type of compounding in German. However, nomi-
nal MWEs also come in a variety of forms, cf. (13) and (14) (cf. Burger 2001, for
instance). Thus, contrary to what has been assumed in the literature nominal
compounding and MWE formation do not seem to complement each other; in
particular, it is not the case that MWE formation is poorly developed due to the
obvious productivity of nominal compounding.
(13a) Postnominal genitives: Schlaf der Gerechten (‘sleep of the just’), Geschenk
des Himmels (lit. gift from heaven, ‘godsend’), Macht der Gewohnheit
(‘force of habit’)
(13b) Prenominal genitives: des Rätsels Lösung (lit. the puzzle’s solution, ‘the
answer to this problem’)
(13c) Prepositional constructions: Dame von Welt (lit. lady of world, ‘sophisti-
cated woman’), Nerven aus Stahl (‘nerves of steel’)
(13d) Close apposition: Häufchen Elend (lit. heap misery, ‘picture of misery’),
Vater Staat (lit. father state, ‘Uncle Sam’)
(13e) Binomials: Grund und Boden (lit. ground and soil, ‘property’), Sack und
Pack (‘bag and baggage’)
(14) A+N phrases:

lahme Ente (‘lame duck’), heißes Eisen (lit. hot iron, ‘hot potato’), krumme
(14a)
Sachen (lit. bent things, ‘criminal activities’)
gelbes Trikot (‘yellow jersey’), echte Grippe (lit. real flu, ‘influenza’),
(14b)
schwarzes Brett (lit. black board, ‘notice board’)
Some of them have a (fully or partially) non-compositional meaning, e. g. lahme

Ente (‘lame duck’) or Nerven aus Stahl (‘nerves of steel’). Others differ from corre-
sponding free phrases regarding their morphosyntactic properties. For instance,
nouns in binomials do not occur with determiners (never inside the construction
and only rarely before), which would be ungrammatical in a normal coordinative
construction. Also, their order is not interchangeable, again contrary to free coor-
dinative structures.22 Prenominal genitives are no longer productive in pres-
ent-day language (except with proper names and kinship terms) and thus are
only found with fossilized forms.
Compared to the patterns in (13) and (14), those in (15) are more specialized
regarding semantics and conditions of use:
(15a) N+A constructions: Forelle blau (lit. trout blue, ‘blue trout’), Sonne pur (lit.
sun pure), Rahmspinat tiefgefroren (lit. cream spinach deep-frozen)
(15b) [ein N1 von einem/einer N2] (‘[an N1 of an N2]’): ein Berg von einem Mann (lit.
a mountain of a man, ‘a man like a mountain’), eine Null von einem Stürmer
(lit. a null of a striker, ‘a useless striker’), ein Arsch von einem Professor (lit.
a butt of a professor, ‘an idiot of a professor’)23
(15c) [N1 von N2] (‘[N1 of N2]’): Salat von Flusskrebsen (lit. salad of crayfish), Gra
tin von Tomaten (lit. gratin of tomatoes), Suppe von Spinat und Bärlauch
(lit. soup of spinach and wild garlic)
The pattern in (15a) is characterized by a postponed uninflected adjective. Its use

is highly restricted and productive only in advertising catalogues, as slogans,
brand names, or product descriptions (cf. Dürscheid 2002). The pattern in (15b) is
productive; it has an evaluative meaning and expresses a comparison of N2 to the
reference value provided by N1. Thus, there is a mismatch between the semantic
head of the construction (N2) and the syntactic one (N1). Finally, the pattern
in (15c) can be described as a register-specific construction for haute cuisine lan-
guage. Here, N1 must denote a dish and N2 an ingredient. This prepositional
22 This view is somewhat simplified as there does not seem to be a strict border between con-
ventionalized binomials and free coordinative constructions. It can be observed that nouns in
occasional binomials do not occur with determiners, but their internal order is interchangeable
(cf. D’Avis/Finkbeiner 2013, for instance), so they might be regarded as in-between forms.
23 I owe the last two examples to Rita Finkbeiner.
construction is used instead of the compounds Flusskrebssalat ‘crayfish salad’,

Tomatengratin ‘tomato gratin’, Spinat-Bärlauch-Suppe ‘spinach & wild garlic
soup’ that are the usual (and only) way of expressing these concepts in everyday
language.
The examples discussed above show that some of the nominal MWE patterns
differ morphosyntactically from the corresponding free phrases. This also holds
for the A+N phrases in (14). More specifically, some of them form an example for
the existence of intermediate constructions, that is, constructions that are neither
clearly phrasal nor morphological, similar to particle verbs (cf. Section 3.3). Two
groups of A+N phrases can be distinguished. The first one (cf. (14a)) consists of
phrases with a metaphorical meaning (either of the modifier alone or both modi-
fier and head), e. g. heißes Eisen (lit. hot iron, ‘hot potato’). The special meaning
of these forms requires the adjective and the noun to be unseparated. Thus, if
there is an intervening adjective (e. g., heißes gefährliches Eisen ‘hot dangerous
iron’) or if the adjective is used predicatively (das Eisen ist heiß ‘the iron is hot’)
only the literal meaning is available. However, these phrases allow comparative
forms and the modification of the adjective, just as free A+N phrases, e. g. ein sehr
heißes Eisen (‘a very hot potato’). Thus, although the meaning of the adjective is
metaphorical (e. g. ‘hot’ standing for ‘tricky’, ‘delicate’), it specifies the meaning
of the nominal head and can as such be modified itself, just as in any regular A+N
phrase. In the second group (cf. (14b)), in contrast, the adjective has a classifica-
tory function. It does not specify a property of the nominal head but rather iden-
tifies a subclass of the concept denoted by the head. For instance, a yellow jersey
is not just a shirt that is yellow but the kind of shirt worn by the leader of the Tour
de France race. Importantly, it is exactly this classifying meaning that is also a
general characteristic of A+N compounds, e. g. Gelbgold (‘yellow gold’): a kind of
gold that is an alloy of gold with silver, Stummfilm (‘silent film’): a kind of film
without spoken words. Due to this classifying function, the adjective in classify-
ing A+N phrases cannot be modified. The adjective serves to the identification of
the subclass. This is a categorial property that is not gradable: either something
belongs to the category of yellow jersey or not. Thus, neither intensification or
comparative forms are allowed. Similarly, the adjectival modifier in A+N com-
pounds can never be modified. Thus, if we compare metaphorical A+N phrases
(as in (14a)) and classifying A+N phrases (as in (14b)), it becomes obvious that the
former are clearly phrasal in nature while the latter have both phrasal and mor-
phological features. The classifying A+N phrases allow syntactic rules of agree-
ment and case assignment of the adjective (just like in any phrase and unlike
adjectives in A+N compounds), and are meanwhile inseparable, with the adjec-
tive precluding comparative forms and modification (as morphologically com-
plex words, cf. A+N compounds). For this reason, it seems that classifying A+N
phrases constitute an intermediate construction. Following a proposal for the

analysis of A+N phrases in Dutch in Booij (2010: Chapter 7), they can be analyzed
as syntactic compounds, and thus as lexical items (N0) with a complex internal
syntactic structure (cf. Schlücker 2014: 173–187).24 With this analysis comes the
idea that classifying A+N phrases are instantiations of a productive abstract
pattern (or schema), and thus a phrasal pattern for the formation of new lexical
entities, just like the morphological pattern of (A+N) compounding. Metaphorical
A+N phrases, on the other hand, are idiosyncratic forms that result from the
lexicalization (including semantic specialization) of individual regular A+N
phrases.
4 Theoretical implications
In the past decennia of phraseological research it has become obvious that the
existence of abstract, partially fixed phrasal patterns in the lexicon is not
restricted to a handful of MWE patterns, such as binomials, but rather seems to be
a fundamental characteristic of MWEs more generally. Such patterns are assumed
to underlie MWEs both with and without a compositional meaning and both with
and without deviant phonological, morphological, or syntactic properties.
The crucial point here is that under this view, MWE patterns are syntactic
patterns in the lexicon, and thus are lexical patterns on a par with morphological
ones. Booij (2002, 2010) argues that constructional idioms are syntactic expres-
sions that function as alternatives to morphological expressions. In his defini-
tion, constructional idioms are
syntactic constructions with a (partially or fully) non-compositional meaning contributed

by the construction, in which – unlike idioms in the traditional sense – only a subset (pos-
sibly empty) of the terminal elements is fixed. (Booij 2002: 302)
This definition can capture many pattern-like, partially-fixed MWEs as, for
instance, in (2), (7), or (15b). In addition, it also covers other, more grammatical
kinds of MWEs such as analytic causative constructions or analytic progressives
(cf. Booij 2002, 2010). These are productive patterns with the same function as
their morphological, synthetic counterparts and, just like these morphological
counterparts, their productivity can be shown to be subject to certain restrictions.
24 For further details, including an analysis of the adjective as either A0 or AP, cf. Booij (2010:
176 ff.) and Schlücker (2014: 177 ff.).
Culicover/Jackendoff/Audring (2017) point to another parallel between mor-

phological and MWE patterns. Obviously, not all MWEs are instantiations of a
partially fixed pattern, for instance verbal MWEs that share syntactic structure
(e. g., [V NP]VP or [V NP PP]VP) but do not have a common lexical element. Culi-
cover/Jackendoff/Audring (2017) argue that many MWEs – both those with and
those without fixed elements – display a fully regular syntactic behavior. So, for
instance, in the case of classical verbal idioms such as kick the bucket or sell [NP]
down the river, there are no differences concerning the morphosyntactic behavior
between the idiomatic and the literal phrases except for their meaning (and,
arguably, the morphosyntactic properties that result directly from this mean-
ing, such as the non-passivizability of kick the bucket ‘die’). Other MWEs are
lexically restricted, such as for instance go/drive [NP] nuts/crazy/bananas/
insane/*wild/*demented/*meshuga. The (non-)admissibility here is unpredicta-
ble with regards to the meaning of the MWE, and therefore has to be stored. The
authors argue that the same contrast can be found in morphological patterns
which may either be morphosyntactically unrestricted and therefore fully pro-
ductive, as with the s-plural in English, or unsystematically restricted as is the
case with several derivational affixes, leading to a restricted productivity or
unproductivity of these patterns. Again, these restrictions must be stored. Thus,
the resemblance Culicover/Jackendoff/Audring (2017: 14) identify between mor-
phological and MWE patterns is that of the difference between what they call
“relational” and “generative” patterns: Relational patterns are stored items that
are related to more general patterns in the lexicon, and, via them, to similar
stored items. Generative patterns are also relational, but in addition are produc-
tive and can be used to generate new expressions. Thus, morphological and MWE
patterns are of a very similar nature in that they are both determined by the co-ex-
istence of relational and generative patterns.
One consequence that follows from this line of thought is the existence of ad
hoc MWEs – that is, MWEs that are occasionally coined and used but not stored
– but also the existence of potential MWEs, which are MWEs that fit the morpho-
syntactic and semantic specifications of a particular MWE pattern but which have
not yet been realized, just as is the case with occasional and potential word for-
mations. Empirically based research (cf., for German, Finkbeiner 2008; Steyer
2015, for instance) has provided ample evidence for this idea. However, it obvi-
ously fundamentally clashes with the notion of MWEs as stored items not only in
traditional phraseological research but also in older “mainstream” generative
grammar which views MWEs as a residual collection of idiosyncratic expressions
stored in the lexicon.
Finally, against the background of the basic similarity between morphologi-
cal and MWE patterns, it is quite possible to accept the idea of intermediate con-
structions that have both phrasal and morphological properties like the syntactic
compounds discussed at the end of Section 3.5 (in addition to clearly morpholog-
ical and clearly syntactic patterns). They can be regarded as a link or transitional
category between morphological and syntactic lexical patterns. In other words,
morphological and syntactic lexical patterns form a continuum and these inter-
mediate constructions are situated in the middle.
In sum, treating MWEs in the way advocated here has a crucial impact on
ideas about the structure of the lexicon and the division of labor between mor-
phology and syntax.
5 C
onclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of German MWEs from the perspective of
relating MWEs and MWE formation to compounds and compounding. It has been
shown that in German, MWEs for the most part can be clearly distinguished from
compounds on formal grounds. This chapter has focused on MWEs that have – or
at least could have in principle – corresponding compounds with a similar mean-
ing and function. In general, it can be seen that the proportion of compounds and
MWE differs between lexical categories. These differences – or at least some of
them – can be explained by the idea about the avoidance of synonymous expres-
sions in the lexicon. On the other hand, however, it has also become clear that
there are numerous parallel and thus competing abstract patterns and even dou-
blets on the level of specific forms.
From a theoretical perspective, it has been argued that MWEs should not gen-
erally be regarded as individual and idiosyncratic formations that are derived
from “regular” syntactic phrases in a secondary process of idiomatization and
lexicalization. Instead – and in accordance with numerous findings in recent lit-
erature – it can be assumed that abstract patterns underlie MWE formation and
that, therefore, MWE formation can be regarded as being on a par with word for-
mation. Thus, just as there are abstract morphological patterns for the formation
of lexical units there are also syntactic ones.
References
Barz, Irmhild (1996): Komposition und Kollokation. In: Knobloch/Schaeder (eds.). 127–146.
Barz, Irmhild (2007): Wortbildung und Phraseologie. In: Burger, Harald et al. (eds.):
Phraseology. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 27–36.
Booij, Geert (2002): Constructional Idioms, Morphology, and the Dutch Lexicon. In: Journal of
Germanic Linguistics 14, 4. 301–329.
Booij, Geert (2010): Construction morphology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Burger, Harald (2001): Von lahmen Enten und schwarzen Schafen. Aspekte nominaler
Phraseologie. In: Häcki Buhofer, Annelies/Burger, Harald/Gautier, Laurent (eds.):
Phraseologiae Amor. Aspekte europäischer Phraseologie. Festschrift für Gertrud Gréciano
zum 60. Geburtstag. Hohengehren: Schneider. 33–42.
Burger, Harald (2015): Phraseologie: eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. 5th ed.
(= Grundlagen der Germanistik 36). Berlin: Schmidt.
Culicover, Peter W./Jackendoff, Ray/Audring, Jenny (2017): Multiword Constructions in the
Grammar. In: Topics in Cognitive Science 9, 3. 552–568.
D’Avis, Franz/Finkbeiner, Rita (2013): “Podolski hat Vertrag bis 2007, egal, ob wir in der Ersten
oder Zweiten Liga spielen.” Zur Frage der Akzeptabilität einer neuen Konstruktion mit
artikellosem Nomen. In: Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 41, 2. 212–239.
Dehé, Nicole (2015): 35. Particle verbs in Germanic. In: Müller et al. (eds.). 611–626.
Donalies, Elke (2008): Sandstrand, sandy beach, plage de sable, arenile, piaskowy plaża,
homokos part. Komposita, Derivate und Phraseme des Deutschen im europäischen
Vergleich. In: Deutsche Sprache 36, 4. 305–323.
Dürscheid, Christa (2002): “Polemik satt und Wahlkampf pur” – Das postnominale Adjektiv im
Deutschen. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21, 1. 57–81.
Fillmore, Charles J./Kay, Paul/O’Connor, Mary Catherine (1988): Regularity and idiomaticity in
grammatical constructions. The case of “let alone”. In: Language 64, 3. 501–538.
Finkbeiner, Rita (2008): Zur Produktivität idiomatischer Konstruktionsmuster. Interpretier-
barkeit und Produzierbarkeit idiomatischer Sätze im Test. In: Linguistische Berichte 216,
4. 391–430.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (1982): Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEG
Bibliographisches Institut.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (1996a): Phraseologische, terminologische und onymische Wortgruppen
als Nominationseinheiten. In: Knobloch/Schaeder (eds.). 147–170.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (1996b): Zum Verhältnis von Wortbildung und Phraseologie im Deutschen.
In: Korhonen, Jarmo (ed.): Studien zur Phraseologie des Deutschen und des Finnischen II.
Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. 333–344.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (1997a): Das Zusammenwirken von Wortbildung und Phraseologisierung in
der Entwicklung des Wortschatzes. In: Wimmer, Rainer/Berens, Franz-Josef (eds.):
Wortbildung und Phraseologie. Tübingen: Narr. 9–24.
Fleischer, Wolfgang (1997b): Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 2nd ed.
Tübingen: Narr.
Fleischer, Wolfgang/Barz, Irmhild (2012): Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th
ed. Berlin: Schmidt.
Fuhrhop, Nanna (2007): Verbale Komposition: Sind brustschwimmen und radfahren Komposita?
In: Kauffer, Maurice/Métrich, René (eds.): Verbale Wortbildung im Spannungsfeld
zwischen Wortsemantik, Syntax und Rechtschreibung. Tübingen: Narr. 49–58.
morphological objects? In: Gaeta, Livio/Grossmann, Maria (eds.): Compounds between
syntax and lexicon. Special Issue of Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 2, 1.
35–70.
Gries, Stefan Th. (2008): Phraseology and linguistic theory: a brief survey. In: Granger,
Häcki Buhofer, Annelies et al. (2014): Feste Wortverbindungen des Deutschen. Kollokationen-
wörterbuch für den Alltag. Tübingen: Francke.
Haiman, John (1980): The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation. In: Language 56,
3. 515–540.
Häusermann, Jürg (1977): Phraseologie: Hauptprobleme der deutschen Phraseologie auf der
Basis sowjetischer Forschungsergebnisse. Tübingen: Narr.
Hüning, Matthias/Booij, Geert (2014): From compounding to derivation. The emergence of
derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. In: Folia Linguistica 48, 2. 579–604.
Hüning, Matthias/Schlücker, Barbara (2015): 24. Multi-word expressions. In: Müller et al.
450–467.
Jackendoff, Ray (1997a): The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1997b): Twistin’ the night away. In: Language 73, 3. 534–559.
Jackendoff, Ray (2002): Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kay, Paul/Fillmore, Charles J. (1999): Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:
The What’s X doing Y? construction. In: Language 75. 1–33.
Knobloch, Clemens/Schaeder, Burkhard (eds.): Nomination, fachsprachlich und gemein-
sprachlich. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Los, Bettelou et al. (2012): Morphosyntactic change: a comparative study of particles and
prefixes. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
McIntyre, Andrew (2015): 23. Particle-verb formation. In: Müller et al. 434–449.
Möhn, Dieter (1986): Determinativkomposita und Mehrwortbenennungen im deutschen
Fachwortschatz. In: Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 12. 111–133.
Moon, Rosamund (1998): Fixed expressions and idioms in English: a corpus-based approach.
Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Motsch, Wolfgang (2004): Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. 2nd ed. Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter.
Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.) (2015): Word-formation. An international handbook of the
languages of Europe. Vol. 1 (= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK)
40.1). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Pavlov, Vladimir M. (1983): Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache im Bereich
der Wortbildung (1470–1730): Von der Wortgruppe zur substantivischen Zusammen-
setzung. (Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache (1470–1730) VI).
Berlin: Akademie.
Ramisch, Carlos (2015): Multiword expressions acquisition: a generic and open framework. New
York: Springer.
Roth, Tobias (2014): Wortverbindungen und Verbindungen von Wörtern. Lexikografische und
distributionelle Aspekte kombinatorischer Begriffsbildung zwischen Syntax und
Morphologie. Tübingen: Narr.
Roth, Tobias (2015): Kompositum oder Kollokation? Konkurrenz an der Syntax-Morpholo-
gie-Schnittstelle. In: Schmidlin, Regula/Behrens, Heike/Bickel, Hans (eds.):
Sprachgebrauch und Sprachbewusstsein. Berlin/Boston i. a.: De Gruyter. 155–176.
Scherer, Carmen (2012): Vom Reisezentrum zum Reise Zentrum. Variation in der Schreibung von
N+N-Komposita. In: Gaeta, Livio/Schlücker, Barbara (eds.): Das Deutsche als komposi-
tionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte. Berlin/
New York: De Gruyter. 57–81.
Schlücker, Barbara (2014): Grammatik im Lexikon. Adjektiv+Nomen-Verbindungen im
Deutschen und Niederländischen. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 553). Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter.
Schlücker, Barbara/Hüning, Matthias (2009): Compounds and phrases. A functional
comparison between German A+N-compounds and corresponding phrases. In: Italian
Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 21, 1. 209–234.
Schlücker, Barbara/Plag, Ingo (2011): Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. In: Lingua 121,
7. 1539–1551.
Schuster, Saskia (2016): Variation und Wandel. Zur Konkurrenz morphologischer und syntak-
tischer A+N-Verbindungen im Deutschen und Niederländischen seit 1700. (= Konvergenz
und Divergenz (KuD) 4). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Steyer, Kathrin (2015): Patterns. Phraseology in a state of flux. In: International Journal of
Lexicography 28, 3. 279–298.
Steyer, Kathrin (2016): Corpus-driven Description of Multi-word Patterns. In: Pastor, Gloria
Corpas et al. (eds.): Workshop Proceedings “Multi-Word Units in Machine Translation and
Translation Technologies” (MUMTTT2015). Genf: Editions Tradulex. 13–18.
Geert Booij
in Dutch
1 I ntroduction: morphological and phrasal

lexical units
It is a generally accepted insight in linguistics that not only words, but also com-
binations of words (multi-word expressions, MWEs) may function as lexical
units, and can be stored in the mental lexicon. MWEs may vary in size, from two
words to a complete sentence (for instance, a proverb) (Hüning/Schlücker 2015).
The existence of MWEs raises interesting questions about the organization of the
grammar of natural languages, and their relationship to morphological word
combinations. This is the topic of this article, with Dutch being the object
language.1
The number of MWEs in Dutch is enormous (cf. Schutz/Permentier 2016 for a
recent survey). In this article I will discuss a specific subset of MWEs in Dutch,
namely phrases that function as alternatives to compounds. Compound forma-
tion in Dutch serves to expand three major word classes, nouns, adjectives and
verbs. They provide names for types of entities, properties, and events respec-
tively. I will compare these types of compound with their phrasal counterparts
with a similar naming function: noun phrases, adjectival phrases, and verbal
phrases. As Koefoed (1993: 3) points out: “Naming is creating a link between an
expression and a concept. The expression is often a word, but can also consist of
more than one word.” The other function of phrases is that of description. Koe-
foed gives the phrase vaderlandse geschiedenis ‘national history’ as an example,
it is the conventional name for a particular form of history, and may be contrasted
with the phrase de geschiedenis van het vaderland ‘the history of the native coun-
try’ which is a description (Booij 2009a: 219).
1 The existence of such a wide range of MWEs also raises the psycholinguistic question which
role they play in lexical processing. As far as Dutch is concerned, there are a number of psycho-
linguistic studies (Levelt/Meyer 2000; Sprenger 2003; Sprenger/Levelt/Kempen 2006; Noote-
boom 2011) to which the reader is referred. However, this psycholinguistic dimension will be left
out of consideration here.
Open Access. © 2019 Booij, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-004
96 Geert Booij
In most cases, these two structural options for creating names complement
each other, but there is also some competition. A comparison of these two options
provides insight into the organization of grammar, the role of the lexicon, and the
division of labour between morphological and syntactic devices.
The topic broached in this article may be qualified as a study of the relation
between compounding and forms of ‘periphrastic word formation’. The latter
term is used in Booij (2002c) as a characterization of the function of Dutch parti-
cle verbs. Traditionally, the term ‘periphrasis’ is applied to word combinations
that fill cells of inflectional paradigms, for instance the cells for the perfect tense
forms of Dutch verbs, combinations of an auxiliary (hebben ‘to have’ or zijn ‘to
be’) and a past participle. As we will see below, phrasal word combinations can
be used to fill in certain gaps in the word formation system and compete with
synonymous complex words. This is the idea of complementarity between mor-
phological and phrasal lexical units.
Investigating this relationship also makes sense from a diachronic perspec-
tive, since syntactic word combinations are the historical source of the various
types of compounding that we find in Germanic languages like Dutch. Hence, it is
important to understand the differences and similarities between phrasal and
morphological constructions, and it may not always be easy to make this distinc-
tion due to this historical source of compounds. This demarcation problem has
been pointed out by Hermann Paul in chapter XIX of his Prinzipien der Sprach
geschichte (Paul 1898), where he argues that “[d]er Uebergang von syntaktischem
Gefüge zum Kompositum ist ein so allmählicher, dass es gar keine scharfe Grenz-
linie zwischen beiden gibt” (ibid.: 304). Paul’s observation on the blurred bound-
ary between phrases and compounds implies that we need to investigate in more
detail how we can distinguish compounds from phrases with a similar form and
function. In this article, I will therefore first discuss the formal demarcation of
compounds from phrases (Section 2). In Section 3, the naming functions of vari-
ous types of compounds and their phrasal counterparts are discussed in detail.
Section 4 shows how syntax plays a role besides compounding in the construc-
tion of complex numeral expressions. In Section 5, it is briefly argued what these
empirical findings imply for a proper theory of the organization of grammar, and
why Construction Morphology (CxM) offers an insightful account of the relevant
facts.
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Dutch 97
2 Demarcation of compounds and phrases

The demarcation of compounds and phrases in Dutch is based on a number of
criteria: lexical integrity, orthography, phonological properties, and morphologi-
cal properties. Before I discuss these criteria in detail, let me first give a number
of relevant examples of compounds and their phrasal counterparts that consist of
combinations of the same word classes:
(1) compound phrase

N+N opoe+fiets opoe’s+fiets
lit. grandma+bike, ‘retro-bike’ ‘grandma’s bike’
A+N rood+baars rode+wijn
‘red bass’ ‘red wine’
A+A donker+geel rijk2 versierd
‘dark-yellow’ ‘richly decorated’
N+V raad+plegen koffie+zetten
lit. advice+seek, ‘to consult’ lit. coffee make, ‘to make coffee’
A+V lief+kozen schoon+maken
lit. love+fondle, ‘to caress’ lit. clean make, ‘to clean’
P+V over+komen over+komen
lit. over+come, ‘to happen to’ lit. over come, ‘to come across’
The N+N and A+A phrases in (1) do not have a naming function, they are descrip-
tive in nature. The A+N phrase rode wijn can be used as a name for a particular
type of wine, or as a description. Yet, I discuss these phrases here because we are
focusing on the formal differences between compounds and phrases, whether
with a naming or a descriptive function.
Not all types of Dutch compounds have a counterpart in phrasal form; this
applies to the following types:
(2) V+N compounds eet+kamer ‘dining room’

N+A compounds sneeuw+wit ‘snow-white’
V+A compounds druip+nat ‘drip-wet, dripping wet’
In these cases we cannot find phrasal counterparts because verbs cannot modify
a nominal head, and nouns and verbs cannot modify adjectives in pre-adjectival
2 In this example, rijk functions as an adverb.

98 Geert Booij
position. Hence, for these types of word combinations there is no phrasal inter-
pretation possible, and thus, the demarcation issue does not arise.
2.1 L exical Integrity
The first criterion that comes to mind for the demarcation of words and phrases is
that of Lexical Integrity. The criterion of Lexical Integrity can be defined as fol-
lows: ‘Syntactic rules cannot manipulate parts of words’. In other words, words
are islands for syntactic operations. This narrow definition of Lexical Integrity as
being restricted to syntactic operations does not exclude the possibility that the
internal structure of words is accessible for other purposes, such as semantic
interpretation, as should be the case (cf. Booij 2009b for detailed discussion of
various definitions of Lexical Integrity).
The word combinations listed as phrases in (1) all allow for syntactic splits:
(3a) opoe’s oude fiets

‘grandma’s old bike’
rode en witte wijn
‘red and white wine’
(3b) rijk en kostbaar versierd
‘richly and costly decorated’
(3c) Jan zet koffie
‘John makes coffee’
Hij maakt de kamer schoon
lit. He makes the room clean, ‘He cleans the room’
Dit komt niet goed over
lit. This comes not well over, ‘This does not come across well’
In the cases (3a), the nominal head can be modified additionally, and hence we
get a syntactic split between the first and the second word. The same applies to
the adjectival head in (3b). The three verbal phrases in (3c) are all examples of
so-called separable complex verbs (cf. Section 3.3). The non-verbal part is split off
from the verb in main clauses (Booij 2010; Los et al. 2012). The word combinations
in (1) that are classified as compounds, on the other hand, cannot be split. In the
case of compound verbs this is clear from their not being split in main clauses:
(4) *opoe-goede-fiets ‘grandma-good-bike’ / goede opoefiets ‘good grandma’s

bike’
*rood-grote-baars ‘red-big-bass’ / grote roodbaars ‘big red-bass’
*donker-diep-geel ‘dark-deep-yellow’ / diep donkergeel ‘deeply

dark-yellow’
*Jan pleegde zijn ouders raad / Jan raadpleegde zijn ouders ‘Jan consulted
his parents’
*Hij koost zijn vrouw vaak lief / Hij liefkoost zijn vrouw vaak ‘He caresses his
wife often’
*Dat komt mij niet weer over / Dat overkomt mij niet weer ‘This will not
happen to me again’
There are two cases where it seems as if parts of compounds can be split. First,
Dutch features gapping of parts of words: a compound constituent can be omitted
under identity with another constituent of the same prosodic form in a phrase, as
in:
(5a) land- en tuinbouw ‘agri- and horticulture’

(5b) voor- en achterkant ‘front- and back-side’
ere- en eerste divisie lit. honour- and first division, ‘premier and first
(5c)
league’
(5d) natuurbeheerders en -beschermers ‘nature managers and -protectors’
However, as shown in Booij (1985), this kind of ellipsis is not syntactic in nature.
Instead, it is a prosodic process in which one of two identical prosodic words is
omitted. Both in compounds and phrases, the word constituents correspond to
separate prosodic words (also referred to as ‘phonological words’). That is, this
type of gapping is phonological in nature. This explains why a compound constit-
uent like divisie in eredivisie can be omitted under identity with a separate word
divisie, as in (5c): they are identical prosodic words, although their morpho-syn-
tactic status is different.
The second type of split is found in phrases with coordinated elative com-
pounds (cf. Hoeksema 2012) such as:
(6) door- en doornat lit. through- and through-wet, ‘very wet’

dood- en doodziek lit. dead- and dead-ill, ‘very ill’
In elative compounds the first part functions as an intensifier. Again, this is not
a case of syntactic gapping. We cannot assume underlying structures like door
nat en doornat or doodziek en doodziek as the sources of the phrases in (6) since
such phrases are ill-formed. Instead, what is at stake here is the repetition
of an intensifier word in the left part of a compound, a case of word-internal
coordination.
100 Geert Booij
2.2 O
rthography
A+A compounds and A+A phrases are not always that easy to distinguish. In A+A
phrases, the first adjective functions as an adverb. However, Dutch adjectives can
be used as adverbs without being morphologically marked as such. Hence, when
we come across an A+A sequence such as jong getrouwd lit. ‘young married’ this
word sequence can be interpreted either as a compound or as a phrase. The dif-
ference between compound and phrase is primarily a semantic one. When we
spell jonggetrouwd, it is considered a compound with a naming, classifying func-
tion, and the meaning is ‘recently married’. When we use the phrase jong get
rouwd, the phrase has a descriptive function ‘married at a young age’. In the latter
case, we can modify the adjective jong:
(7) Ze zijn nogal jong getrouwd

lit. They are rather young married
‘They have married at a rather young age’
The orthography thus expresses a primarily semantic distinction here. Lexical-

ized word combinations may be felt as one word (the process of univerbation),
have lost their syntactic flexibility, and are therefore spelled as one word. Thus,
spelling may reflect lexicalization and univerbation.
However, orthography is not always revealing when we try to determine the
status of Dutch word combinations. This is the case for separable complex words:
the two parts of a separable complex verb are spelled as one word, without inter-
nal space, when they are adjacent:
(8) Matthias was de kamer aan het schoonmaken ‘Matthias was cleaning the
room’
Ik merkte dat de boodschap niet overkwam ‘I noticed that the message did
not come across’
This spelling convention reflects that these word combinations are felt as lexical
units, with often idiosyncratic meaning aspects. On the other hand, these separa-
ble complex verbs are not words in the morphological sense, as they cannot
appear in second position in main clauses. In Section 3.4 I will come back to this
issue.
Dutch orthography requires compounds to be written without an internal
space. However, many users of Dutch occasionally do insert a space between the
two parts of a compound. This may be partially due to the influence of English
orthography in which many compounds are written with an internal space.
Another factor might be that from a phonological point of view compounds are
similar to phrases in that each constituent word forms a phonological word of its
own. For instance, the N+N compound tandextractie ‘tooth-extraction’ consists of
the phonological words /tɑnd/ and /ɛkstrɑksi/. These two words form separate
domains of syllabification. Hence, the first part tand is a syllable of its own. This
implies that the underling final /d/ of tand is in syllable-final position, and not in
the onset of a syllable with the vowel /ɛ/ as its nucleus. It is therefore subject to
the constraint of Dutch that obstruents are voiceless in coda position (Auslautver-
härtung), and thus tand is pronounced as [tɑnt], and the phonetic form of tandex
tractie is [tɑntɛkstrɑksi].
This phonological similarity between compound constituents and phrasal
constituents, which both consist of more than one phonological word, may lead
to uncertainty as to how spell compounds properly.
2.3 P
honological properties
Are there phonological properties that distinguish compounds from phrases? In

the case of nominal compounds, main stress is in most cases on the first constit-
uent, but there are exceptions, such as boerenzóon ‘farmer’s son’. In nominal
phrases, on the other hand, main stress is on the head, except when contrastive
stress is involved. That is, the location of stress is dependent on information
structure. Thus, stress location may not always differentiate between nominal
compounds and nominal phrases, but does so in pairs like ópoefiets (compound)
versus opoe’s fíets (phrase). A+A compounds and A+A phrases also vary in stress
location, again dependent on information structure, that is, on what counts as
new and what as old information. For instance, the A+A compound donker+geel
can be pronounced as donker+géel or, with emphatic or contrastive stress, as
dónker+geel. Hence, stress location does not provide an unambiguous clue to the
formal status of A+A sequences.
In verbal compounds of the type N+V and A+V, main stress is on the N and A
respectively. The same applies to the corresponding separable complex verbs.
Therefore, stress location cannot be used to distinguish between these compound
verbs and the corresponding separable complex verbs. In verbal compounds with
prepositions or adverbs as first constituents, however, main stress is on the second
constituent, whereas in the corresponding separable complex verbs it is located
on the non-verbal part. Thus we get a contrast between, for instance over+kómen
‘to happen to’ (compound) versus óver+komen ‘to come across’ (particle verb).
Hence, stress can differentiate here between compounds and phrasal predicates.
Because of this stress difference, the unstressed first constituents of these complex
102 Geert Booij
words may be considered prefixes, as Dutch native verbalizing prefixes such as

be- do not carry the main stress of a complex verb either (cf. Section 3.4).
2.4 M
orphological properties
Morphological properties can also be used to distinguish compounds from

phrases. In present-day Dutch there is no regular case marking anymore. Hence,
when morphemes such as s, en, or e, historically case or stem endings, appear in
the middle of a word sequence, they are linking elements, as in:
(9) koning+s+zoon ‘king’s son’

her+en+huis lit. gentleman’s house, ‘mansion’
zonn+e+schijn3 ‘sun shine’
The presence of a linking element is a clear mark of compound status. The only
apparent exceptions to this criterion are nouns used in the possessive construc-
tion (Booij 2010: 216–222). The N+N sequence opoe-s fiets ‘grandma’s bike’, for
example, is a phrase: the -s is not a linking element here, but a marker of the
possessive construction. This word sequence exhibits the normal flexibility of
phrases, witness a phrase like opoe’s zwarte fiets ‘grandma’s black bike’. The
stress pattern is also revealing, as in this word sequence the word fiets can carry
main stress.
In the case of A+N sequences, the presence of the inflectional ending -e on
the adjectives reveals the phrasal status of such sequences. In Dutch, prenominal
adjectives have an ending -e, unless the noun phrase as a whole is singular indef-
inite, and the head noun is neuter. In the examples (10), the noun boek ‘book’ is
neuter, and the word vrouw ‘woman’ has common gender:
(10) een goed boek ‘a good book’

het goed-e boek ‘the good book’
(de) goed-e boeken ‘(the)good books’
een mooi-e vrouw ‘a beautiful woman’

de mooi-e vrouw ‘the beautiful woman’
(de) mooi-e vrouwen ‘(the) beautiful women’
3 In zonneschijn, the final schwa of zonne ‘sun’ has disappeared in present-day Dutch, and zon
is now the Dutch word for ‘sun’.
The inflection of prenominal adjectives indicates that these adjectives are words
by themselves; within compounds an adjectival modifier cannot be inflected
(compare the compound snel+trein ‘fast train, intercity train’ with snelle trein ‘fast
train’). It is only the head of a compound that can carry inflectional markers.
There are two complications, however. The first one is that in some types of
noun phrases the adjective does not carry an overt inflectional marker (Booij
2002a: 43 ff.; Tummers 2005). This applies to adjectives ending in -en /ən/ (11a),
where a sequence of two syllables with a schwa as vowel is avoided. It also holds
for adjectives in A+N phrases that denote an individual (11b), the function of an
individual (11c), or an institution (11d), where the presence of the inflectional
marker -e is optional:
(11a) het open / *opene boek ‘the open book’

(11b) een wijs / wijze man ‘a wise man’
(11c) een toegepast / toegepaste taalkundige ‘an applied linguist’
(11d) het gemeentelijk / gemeentelijke museum ‘the municipal museum’
In these cases, the absence of the inflectional ending -e should not be taken as an
indication of compound status. The stress pattern is that of noun phrases, with
main stress on the nominal head.
The second complication is that some A+N phrases with inflected adjectives
have undergone univerbation, and are now considered as one word, as reflected
in the orthography:
(12a) jonge+mán ‘young man’

rode+kóol ‘red cabbage’
(12b) hóge+priester ‘high priest’
wítte+brood ‘white bread’
The words in (12a) have final stress, like phrases, but the words in (12b) carry ini-
tial stress. The word status of these A+N sequences can be concluded from the
way in which they form diminutives, in contrast to regular phrases:
(13) een jongemannetje ‘a little boy’ versus een jong mannetje ‘a young little
man’
een wittebroodje ‘a small white sandwich’ versus een wit broodje ‘a
white small loaf of bread’
Diminutives are neuter nouns, and hence they require a prenominal adjective
without -e in indefinite singular phrases of which they form the head. The exam-
104 Geert Booij
ples in (13) show that both uses of the same A+N sequence are sometimes poss
ible. In their use as words, they function as names, whereas in their phrasal use
they have a descriptive interpretation.
A+N phrases frequently occur as left constituents of nominal compounds, as
in
(14) [oude+mannen]+huis ‘old men’s home’

[hete+lucht]+ballon ‘hot air balloon’
[zwarte+kousen]+kerk lit. black stockings church, ‘orthodox protestant
church’
These sequences are words, and they are to be written without internal spaces:
oudemannenhuis, heteluchtballon, zwartekousenkerk. The inflectional ending -e
of the adjectives oude, hete and zwarte shows that here A+N phrases have been
made parts of words. In the orthography, these compounds can be distinguished
from phrases like oude mannenhuis ‘old house for men’ and hete luchtballon ‘air
balloon that is hot’. The presence of a linking element s after the phrasal constit-
uent confirms the compound status, as in oude-dag-s-voorziening lit. old-day-s-
provision, ‘pension’.
In conclusion, there are a number of criteria for distinguishing between com-
pounds and phrases. In a few cases two structural interpretations of two-word-
sequences are possible, and in this case there is variation in the way language
users deal with such word sequences.
3 Competition and complementarity in naming

In this section I discuss how compounds and phrases with a naming function
complement each other, or are in competition. In Section 3.1 I discuss the com-
petition between A+N and N+N compounds on the one hand, and A+N phrases
on the other. Section 3.2 deals with N+A compounds and phrases that express a
comparison. In Section 3.3 we have a look at the complementarity of N+V com-
pounding and N+V phrases. Section 3.4 analyses the relation between particle
verbs and compound verbs with a prepositional or adverbial first constituent,
and Section 3.5 deals with the nominalization of particle verbs by means of
compounding.
3.1 Nominal compounds and A+N phrases
As pointed out by Schlücker (2014), the main, though not the only, function of
A+N and N+N compounds is that of classification. These words create names for
subclasses of entities. The same classifying function can be performed by A+N
phrases (Booij 2002b, 2009a, 2010: 183 ff.). Compare first N+N compounds with
A+N phrases:
(15) atoom+fysica atom-aire fysica

‘nuclear physics’ ‘nuclear physics’
structuur+analyse structur-ele analyse
‘structure analysis’ ‘structural analysis’
konings+huis konink-lijk huis
‘king-s house’ ‘royal house’
muziek+scholing muzik-ale scholing
‘music(al) training’ ‘music(al) training’
wetenschaps+beleid wetenschapp-elijk beleid
‘science policy’ ‘science policy’
In (15) we see that an N+N compound may correspond to an A+N phrase. Typi-
cally, in these phrases the adjective is a denominal adjective that belongs to the
class of relational adjectives. This is a productive class of adjectives in Dutch,
mainly, but not exclusively non-native in character. Both options are grammati-
cal, and both types function as names. This may be expected for these A+N
phrases since relational adjectives do not describe properties, but denote the
relation between the head noun of the phrase and the base noun of the adjective.
In principle both options are available, and which one is used is partially a matter
of convention. For me as speaker of Dutch, muzikale scholing is the conventional
name for this type of education, but muziekscholing is also found on the internet.
The compound koning-s-besluit ‘king-s-decision’ is not used as an alternative for
the A+N phrase koninklijk besluit ‘royal decision’, nor koningsfamilie ‘king-family’
besides koninklijke familie ‘royal family’, even though these N+N compounds are
well-formed. The advantage of using the adjective koninklijk ‘royal’ instead of the
compound constituent koning ‘king’ is that it may also be used for denoting
queens.
This kind of competition between words and phrases is similar to the compe-
tition between words that is known as ‘blocking’. Blocking is the phenomenon
that the formation of a complex word is blocked by the existence of another (sim-
plex or complex) word with the same meaning. The formation of the deverbal
noun lieg-er ‘liar’ in Dutch, for instance, is blocked by the existing complex word
106 Geert Booij
leugenaar ‘liar’. This does not mean that lieger is ill formed, but that it does not
belong to the language convention (the norm) of the Dutch-speaking community.
The fact that we find this type of competition between words and phrases as well
confirms that both types of lexical units must be stored in the lexicon, and that
the use of one of the relevant (morphological or syntactic) constructions for the
formation of a new expression can be blocked by a stored instantiation of a com-
peting construction. This implies that there cannot be a strict separation of mor-
phology and syntax in the grammar of Dutch.
The second type of competition is that between A+N compounds and A+N
phrases, a topic discussed in Hüning (2010), Hüning/Schlücker (2010), Schlücker
(2014) and Schuster (2016). Here are some examples:
(16a) A+N compound classifying or descriptive A+N phrase

rood+koraal ‘red coral’ rode koraal ‘red coral’
rood+vos ‘red fox’ rode vos ‘red fox’
*rood+wijn ‘red wine’ rode wijn ‘red wine’
(16b) A+N compound descriptive A+N phrase
hard+glas ‘safety glass’ hard glas ‘hard glass’
hard+hout ‘hardwood’ hard hout ‘hard wood’
rood+huid ‘redskin, Indian’ rode huid ‘red skin’
The compounds have initial stress on the first constituent, the phrases carry
stress on the head noun, that is, final stress. The data in (16a) illustrate that both
A+N compounds and A+N phrases are possible as names, and do not necessarily
block each other. A compound such as roodwijn, however, is odd. In some cases
the compounds differ in semantic interpretation from the phrasal correlates, as
shown in (16b): the compounds are names, but the corresponding phrases are
used as descriptions.
A+N phrases that function as names have a restricted syntax compared to
other A+N phrases (Booij 2010: 178): they cannot be modified, or split by another
word. For instance, we cannot say *heel gele koorts ‘very yellow fever’, and a
phrase like gele and hevige koorts ‘yellow and high fever’ is also odd. When we
coin the phrase heel rode wijn ‘very red wine’, we coerce rode wijn into a descrip-
tion, denoting wine with a very red color. This lack of syntactic flexibility of
phrases with a naming function makes them more similar to compounds than
other kinds of phrases.
Dutch more often opts for A+N phrases as names for entities in comparison to
A+N compounds than German (Booij 2002b; Hüning 2010). There are two struc-
tural factors that play a role in this difference. First, given the rich adjectival
inflection of German, A+N phrases in German have quite a number of different
forms, whereas in Dutch there is only marginal variation in the shape of the adjec-
tive (usually ending in -e, occasionally in ø). Hence, in the case of German the
compound option has the advantage of reducing the form variation of the adjec-
tive, as only its stem is used (Hüning 2010). For instance, the Dutch phrase rode
wijn ‘red wine’ and the German compound Rot-wein both have a constant form for
the adjective (rode/rot). This makes use of the phrasal alternative more feasible
for Dutch. A second factor is that in Dutch A+N compounds the adjective has to be
simplex (Schlücker 2014). This excludes the use of relational adjectives in A+N
compounds. For instance, the compound wetenscháppelijk+domein ‘scientific
domain’ is ill-formed, whereas this combination is fine as a phrase: wetenschap
pelijk doméin. This restriction also excludes the use of the various non-native
relational adjectives in A+N compounds, a common pattern in German A+N
compounds:
(17) Dutch phrase German compound

collectieve schuld Kollektiv+schuld ‘collective guilt’
nationale vlag National+flagge ‘national flag’
primaire literatuur Primär+literatur ‘primary literature’
sociale verzekering Sozial+versicherung ‘social security’
verbale aanval Verbal+attacke ‘verbal attack’
This does not mean that A+N compounds with non-native adjectives are com-
pletely excluded in Dutch, but they are relatively rare, and often considered as
loan translations form German (Schlücker 2014: 234). This applies to compounds
such as nationaal-socialist ‘national-socialist’, normaal+verdeling ‘standard
distribution’, speciaal+zaak ‘specialist shop’, and spectraal+analyse ‘spectral
analysis’.
As to the choice between A+N compounds and A+N phrases, it has been
argued for German that paradigmatic analogy plays an important role (Schlücker/
Plag 2011; Rainer 2013; Schlücker, this volume). Schlücker/Plag (2011: 1546) argue
that “the larger the compound family of an item, the more likely it is that partici-
pants choose the compound, and the larger the phrasal family of an item, the
more likely it is that participants choose the phrase”. This role of paradigmatic
analogy in the choice between compounds and phrases has been confirmed for
Dutch by Schuster (2016) on the basis of an investigation of Dutch dictionaries
and corpora.
The role of paradigmatic analogy can be observed in the use of color adjec-
tives. For example, Dutch color adjectives such as geel ‘yellow’, rood ‘red’, and
zwart ‘black’ are used in A+N compounds that function as names for animals and
for human beings (in some cases with a possessive interpretation):
108 Geert Booij
(18) geel+bek lit. yellow+mouth, ‘fledgling’

geel+gors ‘yellow hammer (type of bird)’
geel+vink ‘serin finch’
rood+forel ‘red trout’

rood+baard lit. red+beard, ‘person with read beard’
rood+staart lit. red+tail, ‘redstart (bird with red tail)’
zwart+hemd lit. black+shirt, ‘fascist’

zwart+kop ‘black-cap (type of bird)’
zwart+rok lit. black+coat, ‘person wearing a blackcoat’
On the other hand, we find these color adjectives in phrasal names such as gele
kaart ‘yellow card’ and rode kaart ‘red card’, names for the cards used for indicat-
ing improper actions in a football match (a kaart-family). Likewise, there is a
family of phrasal names with zwart ‘black’, as in zwarte markt ‘black market,
zwart geld ‘black money’, zwarte doos ‘black box’, and zwarte kunst ‘black magic’,
a zwart-family with zwart being used with the meaning ‘illegal, opaque’. These
observations confirm that analogy to similar compounds or phrases plays an
important role in the choice between compound and phrase.
3.2 N+A compounds and adjectival phrases
Dutch N+A compounds can be used as an alternative to phrases that express a

comparison (Hoeksema 2012: 7):
(19) compound adjective phrase gloss

dons+zacht (zo) zacht als dons ‘soft as down’
honds+trouw (zo) trouw als een hond ‘faithful as a dog’
ijs+koud (zo) koud als ijs ‘cold as ice’
kaars+recht (zo) recht als een kaars ‘straight as a candle’
sneeuw+wit (zo) wit als sneeuw ‘white as snow’
According to Hoeksema (2012) the choice of the compound structure over the
phrasal alternative is determined by two advantages of the compound option:
compactness and expressiveness. There is always a phrasal alternative for the
compound, but not vice versa. For instance, the comparison sterk als een paard
‘strong as a horse’ cannot be expressed by the compound paardesterk. The
phrasal alternative might, however, not carry exactly the same meaning: ijzer
sterk ‘iron-strong’ can be used in contexts where the phrasal expression is odd.
For instance, een ijzersterk verhaal ‘a very strong story’ cannot be properly para-
phrased as een verhaal sterk als ijzer ‘a story strong as iron’ (ibid.). Similar obser-
vations have been made for German (Schlücker, this volume), and Italian (Masini,
this volume). The same applies to compounds with reuze (an allomorph of reus
‘giant’), as in reuze-groot ‘giant-big, very big’ where the phrase zo groot als een
reus ‘as big as a giant’ may not be a proper paraphrase. In these compounds the
nouns ijzer and reuze have acquired a more general meaning of intensification.
These compounds are called elative compounds and express that the property
denoted by the head is present to a high degree. This elative use is the source of
the development of these nouns into intensifier affixoids. For instance, besides
bloed+rood ‘red as blood’ we find compounds like bloed+saai lit. blood-boring,
‘very boring’ and bloed+mooi lit. bloed-beautiful, ‘very beautiful’, which cannot
be paraphrased as saai / mooi als bloed ‘boring / beautiful as blood’.
This difference between compounds and phrases can also be observed for
another class of N+A compounds of the type dood+ziek lit. dead-ill, ‘so ill that it
may cause death’. Again, some of these nominal modifiers have acquired a more
general meaning of intensification, and in such cases a phrasal paraphrase is not
adequate:
(20) dood+gewoon ‘very ordinary’

dood+simpel ‘very simple’
This development of nominal (and other) modifiers into affixoids, that is, words
with a more abstract meaning of intensification when embedded in compounds,
is discussed in detail in Booij/Hüning (2014) and Hüning/Booij (2014).
3.3 N+V compounds and phrases
Unlike nominal and adjectival compounding, the formation of verbal compounds

is not a productive process in Dutch. This does not mean that there are no verbal
compounds whatsoever. The main source of such compounds is backformation
from nominal compounds with the form [[N][V-er]N]N or [[N][V-ing]N]N. Examples
are:
(21) beeld+houwen’ < beeld+houw+er

lit. to image-hew, ‘to sculpture’ ‘sculptor’
honger+staken < honger+stak+ing
lit. to hunger-strike, ‘to go on hungerstrike’ ‘hungerstrike’
110 Geert Booij
vaat+wassen < vaat+wass+er

‘to dish-wash’ ‘dish washer’
tekst+verwerken < tekst+verwerk+ing
‘to text-process’ ‘text processing’
A second type of verbal compounds are verbs like klapper+tanden lit. chat-
ter-tooth.inf, ‘to have chattering teeth’ and kwispel+staarten lit. wag-tail.inf, ‘to
wag one’s tail’. They have the structure [VN]V, and are exceptional in that they are
left-headed. There are also a few V+V compounds like hoeste+proesten lit. to
cough-sneeze, ‘to cough and sneeze’, but again, this is not a productive process of
word formation (Booij 2002a: 164 f.).
The productive alternative for N+V compounds are phrasal word sequences
that consist of a bare noun and a verb. An example is the N+V sequence piano+spe
len ‘to play the piano’. This word sequence can be used as a verb phrase, but the
noun can also be quasi-incorporated into the verb:
(22) … dat Julian {piano kan spelen / kan pianospelen}

… that Julian {piano can play / can play piano}
‘… that Julian can play the piano’
Verb phrases with a bare noun are often used as names for denoting a certain
kind of activity. For instance, piano spelen is a specific type of musical activity.
The word piano does not denote a specific referent here. This may be contrasted
with a verb phrase like de piano bespelen ‘to play on the piano’, where, by using
a definite noun phrase, the identifiability of a specific referent of piano is presup-
posed. When count nouns are used as bare nouns, without the normally expected
determiner, this evokes an interpretation as name instead of description of the
verbal phrase in which that bare noun is used. Note that in a compound like
pianospeler ‘piano player’ the word piano likewise has no referential power.
In the second variant in (22), the noun and the verb form a syntactically closer
unit than in the first variant, and are adjacent. This unit can be qualified as a case
of quasi-noun incorporation. Noun incorporation is the process in which a noun
is incorporated into a verb, and thus creates a verbal compound. However, in
Dutch the incorporation process does not lead to compounds in the morphologi-
cal sense. This is shown by the fact that the N+V sequence cannot appear in the
position for finite verbs (the second position) in main clauses, unlike a real verbal
compound like beeldhouwen ‘to sculpture’:
(23) Julian {*pianospeelt graag / speelt graag piano}

‘Julian likes playing the piano’
Amber beeldhouwt graag

‘Amber likes sculpturing’
This is why Dahl (2004) calls this process quasi-incorporation: there is incorpora-
tion and formation of lexical units, but these lexical units are not words. Qua-
si-noun incorporation in Dutch is discussed in detail in Booij (2010: Chapter 4),
and the account below is mainly based on this chapter.
The strong bond between N and V in the incorporated variant can also be
seen in two syntactic constructions, the verb raising construction and the pro-
gressive construction. In the verb raising construction the verb of the main clause
forms a unit with the verb of the embedded clause. The incorporated noun can
appear in between the two verbs (24a), whereas this is impossible for a full noun
phrase (24b). The first option in (24a) is that with quasi-incorporation, and Dutch
orthography requires the quasi-incorporated word combination to be spelled as
one word, without an internal space:
(24a) … dat Barbara {wil pianospelen / piano wil spelen}

… that Barbara {wants pianoplay / piano wants play}
‘… that Barbara wants to play the piano’
(24b) … dat Barbara {*wil de piano bespelen / de piano wil bespelen}
… that Barbara {wants the piano play / the piano wants play}
‘… that Barbara wants to play on the piano’
The second construction that functions as a litmus test for quasi-noun incorpora-
tion is the progressive construction of the form aan het V-infinitive:
(25) Matthias is aan het lezen

Matthias is at the read.inf
‘Matthias is reading’
Matthias is {aan het pianospelen / piano aan het spelen}

Matthias is {at the piano-play.inf / piano at the play.inf}
‘Matthias is playing the piano’
Matthias is {de piano aan het bespelen / *aan het de piano bespelen}
Matthias is {the piano at the pref.play.inf / at the piano pref.play.inf}
‘Matthias is playing on the piano’
Verbs with an incorporated noun can function as a unit in the progressive con-
struction, and thus appear after aan het. This applies to the N+V sequence
piano+spelen. On the other hand, the prefixed verb bespelen ‘to play on’ is an
112 Geert Booij
obligatorily transitive verb that does not allow for noun incorporation. Like ver-
bal phrases with bare nouns, the quasi-incorporation structure is used to express
that the action referred to is a conventional action. In other words, it creates
names for types of action. Whatever is considered as a conventional action by the
language user can be expressed in this form. For instance, auto+wassen ‘to wash
cars’ is a conventional action, whereas buying a car is not conceived as a conven-
tional action, and therefore there is no verb phrase auto kopen, or quasi-com-
pound autokopen (instead, the proper phrase for naming this action is een auto
kopen, with an indefinite determiner). Hence the difference in syntactic behavior
between auto+wassen en auto+kopen:
(26) … dat Peter gaat {auto+wassen / *auto+kopen}

… that Peter goes {car+wash.nf / car+buy.inf}
‘… that Peter is going to {car+wash / *car+buy}’
Conventional actions can also be expressed with verbs + plural nouns. For
instance, aardappels schillen lit. potatoes-peel, ‘to peel potatoes’ can be con-
ceived as a conventional action, and hence we can say:
(27) Geert is aan het aardappels schillen ‘Geert is peeling the potatoes’
… dat Geert wil aardappels schillen ‘… that Geert wants to peel potatoes’
However, when the noun is plural, the N+V sequence is not spelled as one word.
The use of the term ‘quasi-incorporation’ may suggest that these quasi-com-
pounds always derive from a regular phrase, but this is not the case. There are
many N+V sequences where the bare noun cannot be interpreted as an object-NP.
This applies to, for instance, the following cases (Booij 2010: 112):
(28) buik+spreken lit. to stomach speak, ‘ventriloquizing’

koord+dansen lit. to rope dance, ‘walking a tightrope’
mast+klimmen lit. to pole climb, ‘climbing the greasy pole’
steen+grillen lit. to stone grill, ‘stone-grilling’
stijl+dansen lit. to style dance, ‘ballroom-dancing’
vinger+verven lit. to finger paint, ‘finger-painting’
zak+lopen lit. to bag walk, ‘running a sack-race’
zee+zeilen lit. to see sail, ‘ocean-sailing’
These quasi-compounds are referred to as immobile verbs in the linguistic litera-

ture (cf. Vikner 2005), because they cannot appear in second position, as illus-
trated here for zee-zeilen (29a). At the same time, they cannot be split (29b), but
are fine if they are not split (29c, d):
(29a) *Mijn vader zee+zeilt vaak

My father sea+sails often
‘My father often sails at sea’
(29b) *Mijn vader zeilt vaak zee
My father sails often see
(29c) Mijn vader is vaak aan het zee+zeilen
My father is often at the sea+sail.inf
(29d) … dat mijn vader vaak zee+zeilt
… that my father often sea+sails
‘… that my father often sails at sea’
The conclusion drawn from these facts in Booij (2010: Chapter 4) is that there are
N+V combinations that are neither regular compounds nor regular syntactic
phrases. Instead, they are quasi-compounds without a corresponding verbal
phrase: a word sequence such as zee zeilen cannot be used as a well-formed
phrase.
For a proper account of the distribution of quasi-compounds, their structure
should be different from that of phrases and that of morphological compounds.
They may be considered syntactic compounds. In a syntactic verbal compound a
bare N0 is adjoined to a V0, and together they form a V0:
(30) [[zee]N0 [zeil]V0]V0
Their syntactic compound status prohibits them from being split in main clauses
(29a). At the same time they cannot appear in second position in main clauses as
this position allows only for a single verb (29b). When the bare noun functions as
an object, as in pianospelen, the quasi-compound corresponds with a verbal
phrase with a bare noun that can be split. Hence, the two possible word orders in
sentences like (22). Thus, the grammar of Dutch provides three different struc-
tures for N+V combinations that function as names:
(31) morphological compound [[honger]N[staak]V]V [[vaat]N [was]V]V

syntactic compound [[piano]N0 [speel]V0]V0 [[zee]N0 [zeil]V0]V0
verb phrase [[[piano]N0]NP [speel]V0]VP
114 Geert Booij
Since quasi-compounds cannot be used as finite verbal forms in main clauses,

the usual strategy is to use the progressive aan het V-infinitive-construction as an
alternative, as illustrated by the sentences in (25).
This type of quasi-compound structure is also possible for A+V combina-
tions:
(32) dood+vriezen lit. dead+freeze, ‘freeze to death’

goed+keuren lit. good+judge, ‘to approve’
schoon+maken lit. clean+make, ‘to clean’
vreemd+gaan lit. strange+go, ‘to sleep around’
vrij+geven lit. free+give, ‘to release’
wit+wassen lit. white+wash, ‘money-laundering’
zoek+maken lit. missing+make, ‘to mislay’
These A+V combinations are not words in the morphological sense, and are
therefore split in main clauses, just like the N+V combinations. They exhibit the
same word order variation as that shown in (22):
(33) … dat de directeur het voorstel {wilde goedkeuren / goed wilde keuren}
… that the director the proposal {wanted good-judge / good wanted judge}
‘… that the director wanted to approve the proposal’
… dat Ton het boek {heeft zoekgemaakt / zoek heeft gemaakt}
… that Ton the book {has missing-made / missing has made}
‘… that Ton has mislaid the book’
In other words, what we see here are A+V combinations, often idiosyncratic in
meaning, that are structurally interpreted either as verbal phrases with a bare
adjective as complement, or as quasi-compounds.
Both types of compounds have past participles in which the participial prefix
ge- appears before the verbal stem, which confirms their phrasal status:
(34) Jan heeft piano+gespeeld ‘Jan has played the piano’

Wij hebben dit voorstel goed+gekeurd ‘We have approved this proposal’
The adjectives of the quasi-compounds cannot be modified, that is, they cannot
head an adjectival phrase. When we add a modifier, this leads to an ungrammat-
ical result, or another, more literal interpretation. For instance, the verb phrase
heel vreemd gaan lit. very strange go, ‘to go very strange’, with the degree adverb
heel, cannot be interpreted as ‘sleep around intensively’.
In conclusion, the lack of productivity of verbal compounding in Dutch is

compensated by the availability of (i) verbal phrases with a bare noun or adjective
as complement such as piano spelen and goed keuren, and (ii) by quasi-com-
pounds with a verbal head and a nominal or adjectival adjunct (spelled without
an internal space) such as pianospelen, goedkeuren, and zeezeilen. They function
as names for conventional, nameworthy activities. The class of quasi-compounds
is larger than that of the verbal phrases with bare complements, because in qua-
si-compounds the noun need not be licensed syntactically by the verb. For
instance, in zeezeilen, the noun zee does not function as an object-NP, and hence
its occurrence is not licensed by syntax. Nevertheless, it can combine with a verb
into a syntactic compound.
3.4 Prefixed verbs and particle verbs
Dutch has a number of complex verbs which might be considered compounds

because they consist of a preposition or an adverb followed by a verbal stem:
(35a) aan+bidden lit. at+pray, ‘worship’

achter+halen lit. behind+fetch, ‘recover’
voor+komen lit. for+come, ‘prevent’
(35b) door+zoeken lit. through+search, ‘search through’
om+geven lit. around+give, ‘surround’
onder+schatten under+estimate, ‘underestimate’
over+spoelen lit. over+wash, ‘wash over’
(35c) mis+lukken lit. wrong+succeed, ‘fail’
weer+houden lit. back+hold, ‘restrain’
vol+brengen lit. full+bring, ‘to finish’
The types of verb with aan-, achter- and voor- exemplified in (35a) are unproduc-
tive, just like those with the adverbs mis- and weer- and the adjective vol- shown
in (35c). The types exemplified in (35b) with door-, om-, onder-, and over-, how-
ever, are productive. In reference grammars of Dutch they are usually considered
prefixed words, because unlike what is normally the case for Dutch compounds,
the main stress in these words is located on the second constituent (instead of the
first constituent). Thus, from the point of view of stress location, they pattern
with prefixed verbs such as be-hálen ‘to acquire’ and ver-zóeken ‘to request’.
Moreover, the meaning contribution of these morphemes in complex verbs may
differ from that of the corresponding morphemes when used as words by them-
116 Geert Booij
selves. In other words, these words have grammaticalized into prefix-like mor-
phemes. Prefixes like be- and ver- also originate from words that are parts of com-
pounds, but their phonological form has been reduced as well, with a reduced
vowel /ə/. Hence, in present-day Dutch there are no identical lexical counterparts
for these prefixes.
The number of productive processes of verbalizing prefixation in Dutch is
quite restricted, and therefore, there is a huge range of meanings for the expres-
sion of which phrasal verbal predicates with a corresponding make-up can be
used. This is the class of particle verbs, with the particles corresponding to prep-
ositions like binnen ‘inside’, postpositions like mee ‘with’, and adverbs like neer
‘down’. The number of types is quite big, and I list here only a few for the purpose
of illustration. Complete lists can be found in De Haas/Trommelen (1993), and on
Taalportaal (www.taalportaal.org):
(36) binnen+komen lit. inside come, ‘enter’

mee+vallen lit. with fall, ‘turn out better than expected’
op+bellen lit. up phone, ‘to phone up’
rond+lopen lit. around walk, ‘walk around’
neer+vallen lit. down fall, ‘to fall down’
weg+lopen lit. away walk, ‘walk away’
voorop+lopen lit. in front walk, ‘walk in front’
Particle verbs are lexical units, but phrasal in nature, just like verbal predicates
such as piano+spelen and schoon+maken discussed in Section 3.3. They are split
in main clauses, and can function as verbal phrases. At the same time, they can
also be used as quasi-compounds, that is, behave like a tight syntactic unit in
verb raising constructions. In this latter use, they are spelled as one word. These
two syntactic options are illustrated by the following sentences:
(37) … dat Hans zijn moeder {op wilde bellen / wilde opbellen}
… that Hans his mother {up wanted phone / wanted up-phone}
‘… that Hans wanted to call his mother’
Morphologically, particle verbs also behave as phrases, since the prefix ge- of the
past participle appears in between the particle and the verb: op-ge-beld, not
*ge-op-beld. When we nominalize a particle verb by means of the prefix ge-, it
also appears before the verbal stem, as in op-ge-bel ‘calling’.
The proper grammatical analysis of Dutch particle verbs is discussed in detail
in Booij (2010: Chapter 5), and in Los et al. (2012). The gist of this analysis is that
each class of particle verbs has to be represented in the grammar of Dutch as a
constructional idiom. Constructional schemas are schemas that specify the sys-
tematic correspondence between form and meaning of a construction. A con-
structional idiom is a constructional schema in which one or more slots are lexi-
cally fixed. Each type of particle verb will be represented by a constructional
idiom with that particle specified. The meaning of the particle sometimes corre-
sponds with that word used in isolation, but in other cases it has acquired a spe-
cific meaning. For instance, the particle door ‘through’ has acquired, among oth-
ers, the aspectual meaning of ‘to continue with’, as in door+fietsen ‘to continue
cycling’ and door+eten ‘to continue eating’, unlike the preposition door ‘through’.
Hence, I assume the following constructional idioms for door+V, one without,
and one with quasi-incorporation. In the first case we have a phrasal verbal pred-
icate, labeled as V’, in the second case a syntactic compound:
(38) form [[door]Prt Vi]V’ ≈ [[door]Prt V0i]V0

meaning Continue SEMi Continue SEMi
where SEMi stands for the meaning of the verb Vi, and the symbol ≈ indicates the
paradigmatic relationship between the two constructional schemas.
For a number of morphemes we saw that they are used in Dutch either as
prefix or as particle. This applies in particular to door, om, onder, and over, which
can be used productively as prefixes. In these cases there is no competition
between prefixed verbs and particle verbs, but complementarity, since they differ
in meaning. These morphemes in their prefixal use create transitive verbs that
denote an action that completely affects the object in a specific manner, as illus-
trated in (39) (examples from Los et al. 2012: 184):
(39) het huis door+zoeken

the house through-search
‘to search (through) the house’
het kasteel om+geven

the castle around-give
‘to surround the castle’
het gebouw onder+kelderen

the building under-cellar
‘to make a cellar under the building’
het land over+spoelen

the land over-wash
‘to wash over the land’
118 Geert Booij
There are a few minimal pairs for prefixed verbs / particle verbs with semantic
differences, for example:
(40) door+zóeken door+zoeken

lit. through-search, ‘to search’ lit. through-search, ‘to continue searching’
voor+kómen vóor+komen
lit. for-come, ‘to prevent’ lit. fore-come, ‘to occur’
In sum, prefixed verbs and particle verbs coexist, the number of prefixed verb
types is restricted, and the high number of particle verb types provides an exten-
sive range of names for activities and events.
3.5 Nominalizations of particle verbs
Phrasal and morphological expressions exhibit an interesting type of cooperation

in the nominalization of particle verbs. The crucial observation is that particle
verbs often select an unproductive type of nominalization, and in that case they
select the same unproductive nominalization type as the corresponding base verb
(Booij 2015). In the default case, verbs are nominalized by means of the suffix -ing,
or by using the infinitive form. A number of verbs, however, have an unproductive
type of nominalization. For instance, the nominalization of komen ‘to come’ is
komst, and the particle verb aan+komen ‘to arrive’ has the parallel nominalization
aan+komst ‘arrival’. In order to account for this parallelism, we should analyze
aankomst as the compound [[aan]Part [kom-st]N]N. Because komst is listed as derived
word, it can combine with a particle into a compound. This implies that we are
confronted with an asymmetry between meaning and form, since the nominaliz-
ing suffix -st has semantic scope over the particle verb aankom (the stem of
aankomen ‘to arrive’) as a whole. This systematic choice of an unproductive type of
nominalization by particle verbs is shown in (41) (data from Booij 2015):
(41) verbal stem nominalization

(41a) no formal change (conversion)
val ‘fall’ val ‘fall’
aan+val ‘attack’ aanval ‘attack’
in+val ‘raid’ inval ‘raid’
(41b) with vowel change
grijp ‘seize’ greep ‘grip’
in+grijp ‘interfere’ ingreep ‘interference’
mis+grijp ‘miss one’s hold’ misgreep ‘blunder’
(41c) stem change and/or suffixation

gaan ‘go’ gang ‘going’
af+gaan ‘fail’ afgang ‘failure’
door+gaan ‘continue’ doorgang ‘taking place’
neer+gaan ‘go down’ neergang ‘going down’
op+gaan ‘rise’ opgang ‘rise’
in+gaan ‘enter’ ingang ‘entrance’
geef ‘give’ gave / gifte ‘gift’

aan+geef ‘report’ aangifte ‘report’
op+geef ‘state’ opgave ‘statement’
uit+geef ‘spend’ uitgave ‘expense’
kom ‘come’ kom-st ‘arrival’

aan+kom ‘arrive’ aankom-st ‘arrival’
op+kom ‘rise’ opkom-st ‘rise’
This observation concerning the selection of a particular unproductive type of

nominalization for the particle verb is accounted for straightforwardly by an
analysis in which nominalizations of particle verbs are compounds that consist of
a particle plus the nominalized form of the simplex verb. Hence, the form part of
the general construction schema for these particle verb nominalizations is:
(42) [Particle [[x]V z]N]N
where [[x]V z]N stands for the nominalized form of the simplex verb. The variable
x stands for (an allomorph of) the verbal stem, and the variable z stands for a
suffix or zero. All instantiations of unproductive types of nominalization have of
course to be listed. Hence, listed nouns like gang and komst will be available for
combining with a particle into a compound. Thus, it is predicted that the nomi-
nalized form of a particle verb corresponds to that of the nominalized form of the
corresponding simplex verb.
The structure for compounds of the form (42) has to be available anyway in
the grammar of Dutch, as there are a number of compounds of this form with-
out a corresponding particle verb. This applies to, for instance, the following
nouns:
(43) compound word lacking particle verb

af+dronk ‘after-taste’ afdrinken
bij+slag ‘bonus’ bijslaan
toe+gang ‘access’ toegaan
120 Geert Booij
The meaning of particle compounds has to be specified as being the nominaliza-

tion of the corresponding particle verb, if available, which often has an idiosyn-
cratic meaning. This is expressed by the following set of paradigmatically related
constructional schemas:
(44) form [Particlei [[x]Vj z]N]N ≈ [Particlei Vj]V’k

meaning Event of SEMk SEMk
Recall that the symbol ≈ denotes a paradigmatic relationship. The formal and
semantic correspondences between the two schemas are specified by means of
co-indexation. Such a schema of schemas is called a second order schema. For
instance, given the particle verb aankomen with the meaning ‘to arrive’, second
order schema (44) states that the compound noun aankomst is interpreted as the
event of arriving.
This case shows that there might be an asymmetry between form and mean-
ing in morphological constructions. The meaning of the particle compound is a
compositional function of the meaning of the particle verb, even though the par-
ticle verb is not a formal subconstituent of the corresponding compound. Instead,
there is a paradigmatic relationship between the particle compound schema and
the schema for particle verbs. This kind of asymmetry can be accounted for by
relating schemas paradigmatically in second order schemas (Booij/Masini 2015).
Schema (44) is a second order schema, as it relates the constructional schema for
particle compounds to the constructional schema for particle verbs.
This implies that the grammar of Dutch requires access to the meaning of
phrasal lexical expressions in order to account for the meaning of particle com-
pounds. This is another type of complementarity between compounds and
phrasal lexical items, and shows again that we need a grammar in which mor-
phological and phrasal lexical units can interact.
4 The construction of numeral expressions

Compounding and phrasal expressions are used in tandem in the construction of
complex numeral expressions in Dutch (Booij 2010: Chapter 8). The use of com-
pound structure can be observed in cardinal numbers like the following:
(45) drie+honderd ‘three-hundred’

vijf+duizend ‘five-thousand’
In the compounds driehonderd and vijfduizend there is a relation of multiplica-

tion between the first and the second constituent, the first constituent is the mul-
tiplier.4 These numerals are spelled as one word.
Phrasal structure is used in the form of coordination by means of the con-
junction en ‘and’, as in:
(46) drie+en+zestig ‘three and sixty, 63’ spelling: drieënzestig

honderd+(en)+drie ‘hundred and three, 103’ spelling: honderd(en)drie
In (46) we see the use of syntactic coordination by means of en. This corresponds
with the semantic effect of addition. This phrasal pattern is subject to a specific
restriction, however, that does not apply to syntactic coordination in general:
there is a fixed order in which the two numbers have to appear, the lower digit
before the higher digit in numbers < 100, the higher digit before the lower one in
numbers > 100. You cannot say zestig-en drie ‘63’ or drie-en-honderd ‘103’. More
over, the conjunction en is optional in numbers > 100, an optionality that does not
apply to regular coordination. In other words, phrasal coordination is used here
for the expression of addition, but is subject to specific restrictions. Additional
construction-specific properties for this use of coordination are that the conjunc-
tion en /ɛn/ can be pronounced either as [ɛn] or as [ən] in numbers < 100, and can
be optionally omitted in numbers > 100.
Compounding and phrasal coordination are used together in the formation of
complex numerals: the numeral compounds are building blocks of the coordina-
tion construction, as in:
(47) acht+honderd(en)drie+en+twintig ‘eight hundred three and twenty, 823’
with the structure:
(48) [[[acht]Num [honderd]Num]Num ([en]Conj) [[drie]Num [en]Conj [twintig]Num]NumP]NumP
where Num = Numeral, and NumP = Numeral Phrase.
4 The word sequence zes miljoen ‘six million’ looks similar to these compounds, but is conside-
red a phrase, as reflected by its spelling with an internal space. This means that miljoen is inter-
preted as a measure noun, similar to nouns like gulden ‘guilder’ and uur ‘hour’ which also appear
in their singular form after a cardinal > 1: drie gulden, drie uur. However, this interpretation is not
chosen for words with honderd and duizend. Honderd, duizend, en miljoen can all function as
nouns, and may appear in plural form: honderden, duizenden, miljoenen.
122 Geert Booij
The orthography of numerals reflects their hybrid nature. The compounds and
the coordinated numerals are spelled as one word, except that there is a space
after duizend. Moreover, the words miljoen and miljard are always spelled as
separate words. Thus we get spellings like achthonderd (800), drieëntwintig (23),
achthonderdendrieëntwintig (823), tweeduizend drieënveertig (2,043), and vijf
miljoen achthonderdduizend driehonderdentwintig (5,800,320).
These numeral phrases seem to feed word formation in the construction of
ordinals, as in:
(49) acht+honderd(en)drie+en+twintig-ste ‘823th’
The spelling of this ordinal is achthonderd(en)drieëntwintigste. The ordinal suf-

fix -ste is attached to the last word of this complex expression, but its semantic
scope includes the part achthonderd as well. Hence, we see another asymmetry
here between the formal structure and the semantic interpretation of complex
expressions.
5 C
onstruction Grammar and Construction
Morphology
The data discussed in Sections 3 and 4 provide strong evidence for a view of the
organization of the grammar in which there is no strict separation between mor-
phology and syntax. This is one of the core hypotheses of constructionist
approaches to morphology and syntax. Here are the main points:
(i) Morphological and syntactic constructions may compete; both can be
used for creating names, and hence, there are blocking effects between
morphological and phrasal constructs.
(ii) Phrasal constructions may be subject to specific restrictions when used as
names. For instance, in A+N phrasal names, the adjective cannot be sepa-
rated from the head noun, nor be modified. In a constructionist approach
we can account for the properties of such phrasal names by phrasal const-
ructional schemas which derive from general syntactic schemas, but with
specific formal and semantic properties specified. The same applies to the
description of specific forms of coordination in the construction of com-
plex numeral expressions.
(iii) Morphological processes may be unproductive, or unavailable for the
expression of certain types of names. In Dutch, phrasal structures fill
those gaps, hence we may speak of periphrastic word formation. This is

the case for separable complex verbs of various types: N+V, A+V and par-
ticle verbs. There is a clear complementarity between morphological and
syntactic ways of creating names.
(iv) The interpretation of complex words may depend on the meaning of para-
digmatically related phrasal lexical constructions. This is the case for
nominalizations of particle verbs. Paradigmatic relationships between
constructional schemas, morphological or phrasal, can be expressed by
second order schemas.
These kinds of finding form underpinnings of the model of Construction Mor-

phology proposed in Booij (2010), and further articulated in a number of publica-
tions on Dutch referred to in this article. In Construction Grammar (Hoffmann/
Trousdale (eds.) 2013) and Construction Morphology, the grammar is seen as a
multidimensional web of syntactic and morphological constructions of various
degrees of abstractness. Constructional schemas form a hierarchy: more abstract
schemas dominate more concrete ones, and constructions are instantiated by
fully lexically specified constructions, which may be listed in the lexicon. For
example, there are, in increasing order of concreteness, a general schema for
Dutch right-headed compounds, a subschema for N+A compounds, a construc-
tional idiom [[dood]N A]A ‘very A’, and listed instantiations of this constructional
idiom such as doodziek ‘very ill’ and doodnormaal ‘very normal’. Syntactic con-
structions are also specified in terms of schemas. Phrasal names of the type A+N
are specified by a subschema of the general schema for Noun Phrases, with cer-
tain restrictions imposed, such as linear adjacency of A and N and bareness of the
adjective. Similarly, the grammar of Dutch contains a general syntactic schema
for syntactic coordination, which dominates specific subschemas for numeral
expressions in which the properties mentioned in Section 5 are specified. Thus,
the idea of periphrastic word formation finds its natural expression in Construc-
tion Grammar.
Since in Construction Grammar both morphological schemas and syntactic
schemas, and their lexicalized instantiations are listed, there is potentially a com-
petition between morphological and syntactic expression of the same meaning.
This predicts the observed blocking effects.
Paradigmatic relations between schemas and between concrete construc-
tions are expressed by means of co-indexation. They give expression to the exist-
ence of word families and phrase families. The presence of a network of paradig-
matic relations in the grammar provides a natural interpretation for the
observation that paradigmatic analogy co-determines the choice between com-
pound and phrase when coining a name.
124 Geert Booij
The claim that morphology and syntax cannot be separated in grammar does
not mean that there is no formal distinction between morphological and phrasal
constructions. This formal distinction is necessary for a proper account of the
syntactic behavior of the various types of names. At the same time, since com-
pound schemas and phrasal schemas are not split in different components of the
grammar, they can interact: phrasal constituents may form parts of compounds
and vice versa, and compounds may function as nominalizations of particle verbs
which themselves are phrasal expressions. These observations led to the conclu-
sion that second order schemas (paradigmatic relations between constructional
schemas) form part of the grammar.
Since morphology often derives historically from syntax, it should not come
as a surprise that there are transitional cases such as quasi-compounds, verbs
with incorporated particles, and cardinal numerals of the type drieëntwintig ‘23’
where the conjunction en can also be interpreted as a linking element. These phe-
nomena underscore Hermann Paul’s remarks on the blurred boundary between
syntax and word formation quoted in the introduction of this article. As we saw
above, a Construction Grammar approach can do justice to these transitional
cases.
References
Booij, Geert (1985): Coordination reduction in complex words: a case for prosodic phonology.
In: Van der Hulst, Harry/Smith, Norval (eds.): Advances in non-linear phonology.
Dordrecht: Foris. 143–160.
Booij, Geert (2002a): The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert (2002b): Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. In: Journal of
Germanic Linguistics 14. 301–329.
Booij, Geert (2002c): Separable complex verbs in Dutch: a case of periphrastic word formation.
In: Dehé, Nicole et al. (eds.): Verb-particle explorations. Berlin: De Gruyter. 21–42.
Booij, Geert (2009a): Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. In: Word Structure 2.
219–240.
Booij, Geert (2009b): Lexical integrity as a morphological universal, a constructionist view. In:
Scalise, Sergio/Magni, Elisabetha/Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.): Universals of Language
Today. Dordrecht: Springer. 83–100.
Booij, Geert (2010): Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert (2015): The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: schema unification and second
order schemas. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde 20. 285–314.
Booij, Geert/Hüning, Matthias (2014): Affixoids and constructional idioms. In: Boogaart,
Ronny/Colleman, Timothy/Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.): Extending the scope of Construction
Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter. 77–105.
Booij, Geert/Masini, Francesca (2015): The role of second order schemas in word formation. In:
Bauer, Laurie/Körtvélyessy, Lívia/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.): Semantics of complex words.
Cham i. a.: Springer. 47–66.
Dahl, Östen (2004): The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
De Haas, Wim/Trommelen, Mieke (1993): Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Den
Haag: SDU Uitgeverij.
Hoeksema, Jack (2012): Elative compounds in Dutch: properties and developments. In: Oebel,
Guido (ed.): Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich/
Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs. Hamburg: Verlag Dr.
Kovač. 97–142.
Hoffman, Thomas/Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) (2013): The Oxford Handbook of Construction
Hüning, Matthias (2010): Adjective + noun constructions between syntax and word formation in
Dutch and German. In: Onysko, Alexander/Michel, Sascha (eds.): Cognitive perspectives
on word formation. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 195–215.
derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. In: Folia Linguistica 48. 579–604.
Hüning, Matthias/Schlücker, Barbara (2010): Konvergenz und Divergenz in der Wortbildung.
Komposition im Niederländischen und im Deutschen. In: Dammel, Antje/Kürschner,
Sebastian/Nübling, Damaris (eds.): Konvergenz und Divergenz in der Wortbildung.
(= Germanistische Linguistik 206–209). Hildesheim i. a.: De Gruyter. 783–825.
(eds.): Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 1.
(= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter. 450–467.
Koefoed, Geert (1993): Benoemen. Een beschouwing over de faculté de langage. Amsterdam:
Meertens-Instituut.
Levelt, Willem J. M./Meyer, Antje (2000): Word for word: Multiple lexical access in speech
production. In: European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 12, 4. 433–452.
Los, Bettelou/Blom, Corrien/Booij, Geert/Elenbaas, Marion/van Kemenade, Ans (2012):
Morphosyntactic change. A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Nooteboom, Sieb (2011): Self-monitoring for speech errors in novel phrases and phrasal lexical
items. In: Yearbook of Phraseology 2. 1–16.
Paul, Hermann (1898): Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer [11880].
Rainer, Franz (2013): Can relational adjectives really express any relation? An onomasiological
perspective. In: Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10. 12–40.
Schlücker, Barbara (2014): Grammatik im Lexikon. Adjektiv-Nomen-Verbindungen im Deutschen
und Niederländischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schlücker, Barbara/Plag, Ingo (2011): Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. In: Lingua 121.
1539–1551.
Schuster, Saskia (2016): Variation und Wandel. Zur Konkurrenz morphologischer und
syntaktischer A+N-Verbindungen im Deutschen und Niederländischen seit 1700.
Berlin: De Gruyter. Internet: www.degruyter.com/view/product/456743 (last access:
4.5.2018).
126 Geert Booij
Schutz, Rik/Permentier, Ludo (2016): Met zoveel woorden. Gids voor trefzeker taalgebruik.
Amsterdam/Leuven: Amsterdam University Press/Davidsfonds Uitgeverij.
Sprenger, Simone A. (2003): Fixed expressions and the production of idioms. Ph. D.
dissertation. University of Nijmegen.
Sprenger, Simone A./Levelt, Willem J. M./Kempen, Gerard (2006): Lexical access during the
production of idiomatic phrases. In: Journal of Memory and Language 54. 161–184.
Tummers, José (2005): Het naakt(e) adjectief. Kwantitatief-empirisch onderzoek naar de
adjectivische buigingsalternantie bij neutra. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
[Ph. D. dissertation].
Vikner, Sten (2005): Immobile complex verbs in Germanic. In: Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 8. 83–105.
Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
in French
1 I ntroduction
French compounds differ from Germanic compounds in two important aspects.
First, while Germanic compounding complies with the Right-hand Head Rule
(e. g. English postage stamp, German Briefmarke, Dutch postzegel), French, like
other Romance languages (see the chapters by Masini (Italian) and Fernán-
dez-Domínguez (Spanish) in this volume), has a general tendency towards left-
hand headed compounding (e. g. timbre-poste lit. stamp-post). Second, whereas
languages such as Dutch and German establish a clear demarcation between
compounds and lexicalized phrases on the basis of formal criteria (spelling, pros-
ody, linking elements, loss of adjectival inflection in [A N] compounds), French
compounds are not easily distinguishable from syntactic expressions, and true
compounds in Germanic languages often correspond to syntactic multi-word
units in French (e. g. English admission ticket vs. French billet d’entrée (lit. ticket
of entrance)) (Zwanenburg 1992: 222; see also the chapters by Booij (Dutch),
Schlücker (German) and Bauer (English) in this volume).
Contrary to Germanic languages, French has no distinctive word stress, only
phrase stress. Moreover, whereas Germanic compounds may present linking ele-
ments (e. g. Dutch zonnebril, German Sonnenbrille ‘sunglasses’), these do not
occur in French. Furthermore, the spelling of French multi-word units is charac-
terized by many inconsistencies and irregularities: many combinations can be
spelled with or without a hyphen (e. g. bébé(-)éprouvette ‘test-tube baby’ (lit.
baby(-)test tube), porte(-)monnaie ‘coin purse’ (lit. carry(-)money)) or even as one
word (e. g. portefeuille ‘wallet, billfold’ (lit. carrysheet) (Lehmann/Martin-Berthet
2008). Spelling of complex lexical units as one word occurs (e. g. vinaigre ‘vine-
gar’ (lit. wineacid)), but it is far from being the rule (cf. French vin rouge vs. Ger-
man Rotwein), and the French spelling rules are systematically updated by
orthographic reforms.1 Finally, many French compound-like expressions have
1 The orthographic reform of 1990 proposed, for instance, to hyphenate complex numerals
greater or lower than one hundred (e. g. vingt-trois ‘twenty-three’, cent-cinquante-huit ‘one
hundred and fifty-eight’), whereas this was only the case for numerals lower than one hundred
before. The French Academy also suggested writing as one word a list of complex lexical units
Open Access. © 2019 Goethem/Amiot, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-005
128 Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot
internal inflection markers (e. g. beaux-arts ‘fine arts’), while these are generally
attributed to syntactic formations.
As a result, none of the formal criteria typically applicable in Germanic lan-
guages2 allow for a straightforward differentiation between compounds and (lex-
icalized) multi-word phrases in French, and, accordingly, the term ‘compound’ is
not always used in a consistent way in the literature on French morphology. As a
matter of fact, ‘compounding’ is often used to refer to various types of complex
lexical units regardless of the formation process (morphological or syntactic) (for
an overview, see, for example, Van Goethem 2009 and Villoing 2012).
Van Goethem (2009) illustrates this in the domain of [A N] units. The Dutch
compound zuurkool ‘sauerkraut’ (lit. sour-cabbage) can be distinguished from the
lexicalized phrase zure regen ‘acid rain’ and the non-lexicalized syntactic phrase
zure kers ‘sour cherry’ on the basis of its spelling (written as one word), its stress
pattern (prominent stress on zuur in zúurkool while zúre kérs has double stress
and zure régen has prominent stress on the noun regen, cf. De Caluwe 1990: 17)
and the lack of inflection of the adjectival component zuur in the compound (cf.
Booij 2002: 314). In French, however, these criteria do not apply and Van Goethem
(2009) concludes that, leaving aside some exceptions that do not conform to reg-
ular modern French syntax (e. g. rouge-gorge ‘robin’ (lit. red-throat) and grand-
mère ‘grandmother’, cf. Van Goethem 2009: 246 f.), French [N A] and [A N] units
are phrases and not compounds, whatever their spelling may be: whether written
as two separate words (e. g. premier ministre ‘prime minister’), hyphenated (e. g.
cordon-bleu ‘master chef’ (lit. cord-blue)) or even as one single word (e. g. vinaigre
‘vinegar’ (lit. wineacid)).
In this paper, we will turn the focus to [N1 N2] units, but before doing so we
will present the different approaches to complex lexical units in French and show
previously written as separate words (with or without a hyphen), for example chauvesouris
‘bat’ (lit. bald-mouse), millepattes ‘centipede’ (lit. thousand-legs), passepartout ‘pass key’ (lit.
pass-everywhere), portemonnaie ‘coin purse’ (lit. carry-money) and véloski ‘skibob’ (lit. bike-
ski). (Internet: www.lalanguefrancaise.com/guide-complet-nouvelle-orthographe, last access:
18.4.2017).
2 In this respect, English may be considered to occupy an intermediary position: the traditional
distinctive criterion applicable to English is the stress pattern, compounds being typically char-
acterized by fore-stress (e. g. black bírd vs. bláckbird, cf. Bauer 2004 and this volume), but even
this criterion is not always straightforward and many mismatches can be observed: as shown by
Bauer (2004), a lexicalized phrase such as prímary school has first-element stress (or compound
stress), whereas first-áid, with the two components hyphenated and unified, has second element
stress (or phrase stress). These inconsistencies also apply to [N N] formations: péanut oil, for in-
stance, has fore-stress, whereas olive oil may have end stress (cf. Bauer 1998, this volume; Gieg-
erich 2009a, 2009b).
Compounds and multi-word expressions in French 129
how true morphological formations (i. e. compounds) can be distinguished from

multi-word phrases (Section 2). At the end of this section, the possible benefits of
a constructionist approach to the issue will be highlighted. Section 3 will concen-
trate on [N1 N2] lexical units, which turn out to be the most problematic case in
French since it is not easy to determine whether this formation belongs to syntax
or morphology. In Section 4, a specific subtype, that of subordinative [N1 N2] units,
will be examined because the latter most severely challenge this morphology-syn-
tax divide. Whereas Fradin (2009) considers these formations to be true com-
pounds, we will show that this only holds for the classifying subtype, and not for
the qualifying one. Section 5, finally, will be devoted to a constructionist account
of qualifying subordinative [N1 N2] formations, followed by the conclusion in
Section 6.
2 Complex lexical units in French: four approaches

The notion of compounding generally has a more extensive scope in French mor-
phology than in the literature on Germanic languages. Van Goethem (2009) identi-
fies three different approaches. The common view is ‘non-restrictive’ in the sense
that it includes all kinds of complex lexical units, regardless of whether they are
formed in morphology or syntax (2.1). According to the ‘scalar’ approach (2.2), com-
pounds are considered the endpoint of a scale of ‘lexicalization’ (used here to refer
to the process of becoming a lexical item). The ‘restrictive’ or ‘lexicalist’ approach
(2.3) aims to establish a clear demarcation between compounds and multi-word
phrases. In what follows, we will outline these three different approaches. In 2.4,
finally, we will add a fourth perspective and briefly show how complex lexical units
can be accounted for from a Construction Grammar perspective.
2.1 The non-restrictive approach
In their overview article of multi-word expressions, Hüning/Schlücker (2015:

454 ff.) convincingly show that (syntactic) multi-word expressions and word-
formation units (i. e. compounds) share a set of properties. Both are complex
expressions with (potential) status as a lexical unit, and both expressions typi-
cally serve as linguistic signs for specific concepts (i. e. they have a ‘naming
function’, cf. also Schlücker/Hüning 2009). Lastly, lexicalized phrases and com-
pounds may have compositional or non-compositional semantics and may con-
tain constituents with metaphorical semantics.
In French, formations such as [N de N] (e. g. fil de fer ‘iron wire’ (lit. wire of
iron)), [N à N] (e. g. verre à vin ‘wine glass’ (lit. glass to wine)), [N à Det N] (e. g.
sauce à l’ail ‘garlic sauce’ (lit. sauce to the garlic)), [A N] (e. g. Moyen Âge ‘Middle
Ages’) and [N A] (e. g. poids lourd ‘heavyweight’ (lit. weight heavy)) (Fradin 2003:
199; Booij 2010: 172) are constructed by means of syntactic rules, as manifested
through the presence of prepositions, determiners and adjectival inflection. Nev-
ertheless, like compounds, they are productively used in name formation and it is
therefore not surprising that the notion of compounding is often extended to all
kinds of complex lexical units with a naming function, regardless of the forma-
tion rules. This approach can be illustrated by Mathieu-Colas’s (1996) classifica-
tion of French compounds, which includes, for instance, lexicalized [A N] and
[N A] units such as premier ministre ‘prime minister’ and table ronde ‘round table
meeting’ (lit. table round), even though these comply with the syntactic forma-
tion rules, including adjectival inflection.
2.2 The scalar approach
A second approach is to establish a scale of lexicalization ranging from free syn-

tactic phrases over (semi-)lexicalized phrases to true compounding. Such a scale
contains, by definition, a large transition zone in which it is not easy to decide
whether we are dealing with syntactic phrases or with compounds.
This idea of a scale of lexicalization of complex units can be found in studies
by Gross (1988, 1996), who argues that lexicalized phrases and compounds can
be distinguished from free syntactic phrases by means of semantic and syntactic
parameters of lexicalization (‘figement’). Semantically, lexicalized phrases and
compounds such as fait divers ‘novelty, piece of news, news item’ (lit. fact
diverse) are typically characterized by ‘non-compositionality’, in contrast to free
syntactic phrases such as fait évident ‘obvious fact’, which have compositional
semantics. Syntactically, in lexicalized [A N] or [N A] expressions the adjective
loses the possibility of ‘actualization’ (1) and of ‘predication’ (2) (cf. Gross 1996:
31–34).
(1) un fait maintenant évident vs. *un fait maintenant divers

‘a now obvious fact’ ‘a now diverse fact’
(2) Nous avons constaté un fait vs. *Nous avons constaté un fait
qui est évident qui est divers
‘we have observed a fact ‘we have observed a
that is evident’ fact that is diverse’
On the basis of these parameters3, Gross (ibid.) distinguishes between different

degrees of lexicalization. Cordon solide ‘solid rope’, cordon électrique ‘power
cord’ (lit. cord electric) and cordon(-)bleu ‘master chef’ (lit. cord(-)blue) illustrate
three different degrees of lexicalization: cordon solide is a free syntactic noun
phrase (‘groupe nominal libre’), cordon électrique is considered a semi-lexical-
ized noun phrase or compound (‘un groupe nominal ou nom composé semi-figé’)
and cordon(-)bleu is called a lexicalized compound (‘un nom composé figé’).
However, as rightly observed by Corbin (1992: 36), Gross still uses the term
‘compounds’ (‘mots composés’) to refer to all lexicalized and semi-lexicalized
combinations: both cordon électrique and cordon-bleu are called ‘noms com-
posés’, whatever the differences may be in structure or degree of lexicalization.
In other words, similar to the non-restrictive approach, the notion of compound
is still applied to all structures with a naming function, including syntactic
expressions.
2.3 The restrictive or lexicalist approach
In a modular approach to grammar, it has to be accepted that phrasal multi-word

expressions and compounds, notwithstanding significant similarities, are differ-
ent, the most crucial distinction being the fact that they are constructed accord-
ing to the rules of different components of the language system (syntax vs.
morphology).
A third theoretical tradition in French morphology, whether or not inspired
by the ‘lexicalist’ approach in Generative Grammar (Di Sciullo/Williams 1987)
and represented by Benveniste (1974), Corbin (1992, 1997), Zwanenburg (1992),
Fradin (2003, 2009) and Villoing (2012), among others, follows this view and
argues that a clear distinction should be made between compounds and lexical-
ized phrases. Although both strategies may have the same naming function, they
obviously fit into different parts of grammar, compounds belonging to morphol-
ogy and phrases to syntax.
These authors argue, for instance, that [N Prep N] combinations such as
pomme de terre ‘potato’ (lit. apple of ground) and sac à main ‘handbag’ (lit. bag
to hand), commonly considered compounds in French, should be analyzed as
lexicalized syntactic phrases since they respect the general principles of word
order and syntax in French.
3 Cf. also ten Hacken’s (1994) tests (such as insertion, substitution, anaphora from one constit-
uent of the sequence).
The most extreme position can be found in Di Sciullo/Williams (1987), who

claim that French does not have any compounds at all:
It now appears that French (and no doubt Spanish) lacks compounding altogether. Once we
have subtracted fixed syntactic phrases (idioms) such as timbres-poste and phrases reanal-
yzed as words (syntactic words) such as essui-glace <sic>, there are no candidates left.
(ibid.: 83)
Corbin (1992, 1997) is less restrictive and preserves the term ‘compound’ to refer to
lexical units of the type [N1 N2] (e. g. timbre-poste ‘postage stamp’) and [V N] (e. g.
essuie-glace ‘windscreen wiper’) because they are formed according to lexical
composition rules, specific to the lexicon and different from syntactic rules.
Corbin (1997) uses the notion of ‘polylexematic units’ (‘unités polylexématiques’)
as a general term for covering both compounds and lexicalized phrases. However,
both naming strategies are distinguished on the basis of the ‘division of labor
principle’ between morphology and syntax. According to this principle, also labe-
led the ‘Lexical Integrity Hypothesis’ (LIH hereafter), syntax has no access to mor-
phological operators or infralexical units and, conversely, morphology has no
access to syntactic operators:4
Les règles syntaxiques n’ont accès ni aux opérateurs morphologiques ni à des unités
infralexicales. Les règles morphologiques n’ont pas accès aux opérateurs syntaxiques.
(ibid.: 83)
On the one hand, this implies that affixed polylexematic units such as fil-de-
fériste ‘high wire walker’ (lit. wire-of-iron-ist) belong to morphology, since syntax
cannot attach affixes. On the other hand, polylexematic units containing a syn-
tactic operator, a preposition as in verre à vin ‘wine glass’ (lit. glass to wine) or a
determiner as in hors-la-loi ‘outlaw’ (lit. outside-the-law), necessarily belong to
syntax.5 In other words, polylexematic units are exclusively formed either by syn-
tax or by morphology, and the idea of a scale is thus rejected:
4 Corbin’s analysis is in line with the strong lexicalist hypothesis: ‘The syntax neither manipu-
lates nor has access to the internal structure of words’ (Anderson 1992: 84). On this topic, see,
among many others, Lieber (1992), Plag (2003) and, for an overview, Lieber/Scalise (2007).
5 There seems to be a contradiction in Corbin’s analysis, which considers fil-de-fériste as a mor-
phological unit despite the presence of the preposition de ‘of’. However, Corbin (1997: 83) argues
that the morphological insertion of the suffix -iste is subsequent to the insertion of the preposi-
tion de and that only the final step of the formation should be taken into account: the word is a
morphological construct (application of the suffix -iste) on the basis of a syntactically construct-
ed stem, fil de fer, which can be considered a lexical unit.
En vertu du partage des tâches entre les modules d’une grammaire, les séquences engen-
drables syntaxiquement ne le sont pas morphologiquement et réciproquement. (ibid.: 84)6
On the same grounds, Fradin (2009: 418) excludes expressions such as sans-
papiers ‘person without identity papers, illegal immigrant’ (lit. without papers)
and pied-à-terre ‘pied-à-terre, holiday cottage’ (lit. foot-on-ground) from true
compounding because they correspond to phrases that can be generated by syn-
tax (cf. Il s’est retrouvé sans papiers ‘he ended up without (identity) papers’ and
Le cavalier mit pied à terre ‘the horseman dismounted’ (lit. put foot on ground)).
He relabels Corbin’s proposal as ‘Principle A’:
Principle A: Compounds may not be built by syntax (they are morphological constructs)
(ibid.: 417)
Whereas in Corbin’s (1997) view, only [N N] and [V N] configurations can be con-

sidered true compounds, Fradin (2009) concludes that not two but four produc-
tive compounding patterns can be retained in French: [V N] (e. g. brise-glace ‘ice-
breaker’ (lit. break-ice)), [A A] (e. g. sino-coréen ‘Sino-Korean’), [N N] coordinates
(e. g. auteur-compositeur ‘author-composer’) and [N N] subordinates (e. g. pois
son-chat ‘catfish’ (lit. fish-cat)). Villoing (2012: 36) adds to this a particular sub-
class of [A N] compounds with a color adjective as head (e. g. bleu-ciel ‘sky blue’
(lit. blue-sky)). She argues that all these formations should be considered true
compounds because they all display syntactic anomalies:
–– VN compounds: the absence of a determiner between the verb and the noun,
and a diverse range of semantic relations between the verb and the noun
(ouvre-boîte ‘can opener’ (lit. open-can)),
–– coordinated NN (horloger-bijoutier ‘jeweler-watchmaker’ (lit. watchmak-
er-jeweler)) and AA (aigre-doux ‘sweet and sour’ (lit. sour-sweet)) com-
pounds: the absence of a coordinating conjunction between the
constituents,
–– all other NN compounds (poisson-chat ‘catfish’ (lit. fish-cat), pause-café ‘cof-
fee break’ (lit. break-coffee)): hyponymic interpretation,
–– AN compounds (bleu-ciel ‘sky blue’ (lit. blue-sky)): the presence of an adjec-
tival rather than a nominal head.
(paraphrased from Villoing 2012: 36)
6 Our translation: ‘By virtue of the division of tasks between the modules of a grammar, sequenc-
es that are possibly generated by syntax are not generated by morphology and vice versa’.
Villoing (2012: 30) specifies that French native compounding7 ‘is prototypically
formed of two lexemes of the current lexicon of French, without any linking ele-
ment; the internal order of constituents is XY, where X is the governing element’.
Furthermore, the composing lexemes belong, by definition, to the major word
classes (noun, verb, adjective), and are uninflected. This implies that ‘no constit-
uent is marked by inflection: no modality, tense, person or aspect marking on the
verb in VN compounds, no number on the N, and no gender or number on adjec-
tives, disregarding cases of agreement’ (ibid.: 31 f.).8 Examples are poisson-chat
‘catfish’ (lit. fish-cat), wagon-fumeur ‘smoking car’ (lit. car-smoker), ouvre-boîte
‘can opener’ (lit. open-can) and vert-pomme ‘apple green’ (lit. green-apple).9
This view implies that many other multi-word units that are often considered
compounds do in fact belong to syntax and, therefore, need to be analyzed as
lexicalized phrases. According to Villoing (ibid.: 35 f.), the following French mul-
ti-word units should not be analyzed as compounds:
–– Complex units composed of non-lexemes, such as complex prepositions
and complex conjunctions: e. g. par-dessus ‘from above’, de sorte que ‘such
that’10
–– Lexicalized syntactic constructions, namely NPs (3), PPs (4) and VPs (5) that
behave like lexical units:
7 Villoing (2012) distinguishes native compounds from neoclassical compounds, which have
different properties: the latter are ‘prototypically composed of two bases of Greek or Latin origin
that are not syntactically autonomous in French, connected by a linking element; the internal
order of constituents is YX, where X is the governing element’ (Villoing 2012: 30) (e. g. ludo-thèque
‘game library’, homi-cide ‘manslaughter’, cyno-céphale ‘dog head’).
8 However, Villoing (2012: 34) rightly observes that some compounds actually display inflected
forms of the lexeme: for instance, many [V N] compounds include a plural N, orthographically
and/or phonologically marked (e. g. presse-fruits ‘fruit press’ (lit. press-fruits), protège-yeux ‘eye
protector’ (lit. protect-eyes)). Villoing argues that this plural inflection is not the result of syntac-
tic marking, but of inherent and semantically motivated inflection.
9 This approach, in line with Corbin (1992), Villoing (2009), Bonami/Boyé (2003, 2014) and Fra-
din (2009), among others, implies that the V in French [V N]N compounds (e. g. ouvre-boîte ‘can
opener’) is not an inflected form of the verb (imperative or present indicative), but a stem of the
lexeme.
10 Although Zwanenburg (1992) starts from the same syntax-morphology divide principle, his
analysis leads to completely different results: he concludes that real compounding in French is
precisely restricted to nouns, adjectives and verbs with a modifying preposition or adverb (e. g.
sous-chef ‘deputy’ (lit. under-boss), arrière-pays ‘hinterland’ (lit. behind-land), maltraiter ‘mal-
treat’). Paradoxically, this implies that French compounding would be right-headed, similar to
Germanic compounding.
(3) brosse à dents ‘toothbrush’ (lit. brush at teeth)

coffre-fort ‘safe’ (lit. box strong)
case départ ‘start, square one’ (lit. box departure)
(4) sans-papiers ‘illegal immigrant’ (lit. without-papers)
(5) boit-sans-soif ‘drunk’ (lit. drinks-without-thirst)
–– Lexicalized phrasal expressions that behave like lexical units: for instance,
rendez-vous ‘appointment, date’ (lit. go-you), qu’en-dira-t-on ‘gossip’ (lit.
what about it-will say-one).
Villoing (ibid.: 36) admits, nevertheless, that the boundary between compounds
and syntactic units is most problematic in the case of [N1 N2] sequences. This can
also be derived from her examples: horloger-bijoutier ‘jeweler-watchmaker’ is
considered a compound, whereas case départ ‘square one’ is analyzed as a lexi-
calized syntactic construction. It does indeed appear that French [N1 N2] sequences
can be constructed by both morphology and syntax and that a subcategorization
of [N1 N2] formations is needed. We will therefore focus on this particular forma-
tion type in Sections 3 and 4.
2.4 A constructionist perspective to complex lexical units
It can be concluded from the preceding overview that the term ‘compounding’ is
not used consistently in the French linguistic tradition and often covers much
more than, strictly speaking, morphological complex lexical units. Hüning/
Schlücker (2015) point out the commonalities and differences found between
compounds as word-formation units and syntactically formed multi-word expres-
sions. In spite of the differences, both patterns may serve the same purpose and
even enter into competition to do so. As for French, many examples of competi-
tion can be found between [N N] and [N Prep N] formations: village(-)vacances
coexists with village de vacances ‘holiday village, holiday resort’ (lit. village (of)
holidays) and the same holds for point(-)rencontre and point de rencontre ‘meet-
ing point’ (lit. point (of) meeting) and impression (par) laser ‘laser printing’ (lit.
printing (by) laser) (cf. also Section 3.1). These facts indicate that in French, too,
the boundary between compounds and syntactic multi-word expressions is fuzzy
and the data are suggestive of a lexicon-syntax continuum.
This non-modular view of language is precisely a basic assumption of Con-
struction Grammar (cf. Goldberg 1995, 2006; Croft 2001; Booij 2010; Hoffmann/
Trousdale (eds.) 2013, a. o.). Crucial to this model is the concept of ‘constructions’:
these are conventional pairings of form (referring to syntactic, morphological and
phonological properties) and meaning (including semantic, pragmatic and dis-
course-functional properties) and are considered the fundamental units of the
linguistic system. All levels of grammatical description involve such form-mean-
ing pairings – not only words as in the Saussurean tradition – and constructions
vary in size, degree of schematicity and complexity (cf. Goldberg 2009), the min-
imal linguistic construction being the word in Booij’s (2010) model of Construc-
tion Morphology. Furthermore, constructions, both syntactic and morphological,
are linked to each other by (vertical) inheritance relations and also by (horizon-
tal) connectivity links (Norde 2014; Norde/Morris 2018). As a consequence, lan-
guage can be considered a complex network of constructions. Substantive con-
structions (e. g. petit mais vaillant ‘small but tough’, position clé ‘key position’) are
instances of semi-schematic constructions (e. g. [Adj1 mais Adj2], [N1 clé]), which
– in turn – inherit properties from more general schematic constructions (e. g.
[Adj1 CONJ Adj2], [N1 N2]). Moreover, constructions may also inherit properties
from multiple-parent constructions via so-called ‘multiple inheritance’ (cf. Trous-
dale 2013; Trousdale/Norde 2013).11
It is not surprising that many recent studies in the field of multi-word expres-
sions are in the constructionist vein. In this approach, it can be assumed that
both compounds and phrasal structures with a naming function can act as con-
ventionalized form-meaning pairings or ‘constructions’, and we should accept
the existence of what Booij (2010: 190) calls ‘lexical phrasal constructions’: these
are syntactic formations that should be stored as lexical units in the mental lexi-
con, such as fil de fer ‘iron wire’ (lit. wire of iron) and moulin à vent ‘windmill’ (lit.
mill at wind). These formations demonstrate that there is no strict boundary
between the lexicon and syntax, or, as Booij (ibid.: 191) puts it, ‘syntax permeates
the lexicon because syntactic units can be lexical’.
Compounds and phrasal structures are not only closely linked in the con-
structional network; they may also compete or interact with each other. The pro-
cess of ‘multiple inheritance’ may even produce hybrid constructions that inherit
properties from parent constructions belonging to different domains, such as
morphology and syntax. We believe that these insights from Construction Gram-
11 The idea of ‘multiple inheritance’ could be seen as the synchronic representation of the com-
plexity of language change. Diachronic developments do not always follow linear pathways from
one source construction to another target construction; a complex interplay between different
sources and processes is often at stake (cf. De Smet/Ghesquière/Van de Velde’s (eds.) 2013 vol-
ume On multiple source constructions in language change).
mar are useful to account for problematic cases that cannot be univocally classi-
fied as morphological or syntactic constructs, such as French [N1 N2] subordina-
tives. In Sections 3 and 4 we will therefore focus on these particular cases and in
Section 5 we will propose an analysis in line with the constructionist insights.
3 F rench [N1 N2] sequences: compounds or phrases?

In Section 2.3, we observed that both Fradin (2009: 428 f.) and Villoing (2012: 36)
admit that the boundary between morphological and syntactic units in French is
most difficult to apply in the case of [N1 N2] formations. We will therefore now
concentrate on Fradin’s arguments to retain only [N1 N2] coordinates and subordi-
nates as true French compounds, at the expense of other types of [N1 N2] sequences,
namely so-called ‘two-slot nominal constructs’ and identificational [N1 N2] con-
structs (3.1). In Section 3.2, we will focus on subordinate [N1 N2] formations and
show that their status is more problematic than acknowledged by Fradin (2009).
3.1 Fradin’s (2009) typology of [N1 N2] sequences
Fradin (2009) distinguishes between four types of [N1 N2] sequences: coordinates,
subordinates, two-slot nominal constructs and identificational constructs; the
first two are assigned to morphology and the others to syntax.
First, two types of [N1 N2] coordinates can be distinguished: in (6) each N has
a distinct referent and the compound’s denotatum is the sum of these referents;
the compounds in (7), however, denote a unique referent combining properties of
both N1 and N2 (ibid.: 429 f.):
(6) Bosnie-Herzégovine ‘Bosnia-Herzegovina’

physique-chimie ‘physics-chemistry (as a teaching discipline)’
(7) chanteur-compositeur ‘singer-composer’

hôtel-restaurant ‘hotel-restaurant’
As also argued by Villoing (2012: 36), the absence of a coordinating conjunction

between the constituents excludes these sequences being generated by syntax,
and they should therefore be considered true compounds.
Unlike coordinate compounds, subordinate compounds only denote the ref-
erent expressed by N1 (i. e. the head noun), while N2 (i. e. the modifier) refers to
one of its salient properties. According to Fradin (2009: 430 f.), this property may
concern a physical dimension (shape, length, weight) (8), an intrinsic capacity
(slowness, quickness, strength, duration) (9) or a function (10), and is metaphor-
based.
(8) requin-marteau ‘hammerhead shark’ (lit. shark-hammer)

homme-grenouille ‘frogman’ (lit. man-frog)
(9) justice escargot ‘slow justice’ (lit. justice snail)

guerre éclair ‘blitzkrieg’ (lit. war lightning)
attaquant-bulldozer ‘offensive forward’ (lit. attacker-bulldozer)
discours fleuve ‘lengthy discourse’ (lit. discourse river)
(10) camion-citerne ‘tanker truck’ (lit. truck-tanker)

voiture-balai ‘broom wagon’ (lit. car-broom)
livre-phare ‘leading book’ (lit. book-lighthouse)
Even though Fradin recognizes that the morphological status of these compounds
is open to debate (cf. Section 4), he claims that the regular interpretative patterns
found in these subordinate compounds are similar to those of some derived lex-
emes, such as French adjectives derived with the suffix -able (Fradin 2003). In the
same way as productive suffixes, the N2 of subordinate [N1 N2] formations can be
combined with a broad range of stems and forms a productive constructional pat-
tern with a regular interpretation. This similarity with derivation is taken as an
argument in favor of their morphological status.
Whereas coordinate and subordinate [N1 N2] sequences follow a constrained
pattern and have a regular semantic relationship between the constituents, this is
not the case with two-slot nominal constructs (Fradin 2009: 432 f.) and identifi-
cational [N1 N2] sequences. The examples in (11) all denote the referent expressed
by N1, but they completely differ from subordinate compounds because N2 does
not refer to an intrinsic and salient property of N1. Moreover, the sequence usually
corresponds to a syntactic phrase in which N2 forms part of a prepositional phrase
(12), which suggests a syntactic origin.
(11) impression laser ‘laser printing’ (lit. printing laser)

espace fumeurs ‘smoking area’ (lit. space smokers)
accès pompiers ‘firemen entrance’ (lit. entrance firemen)
(12) impression par laser (lit. printing by laser)

espace pour (les) fumeurs (lit. space for (the) smokers)
accès pour (les) pompiers (lit. entrance for (the) firemen)
Fradin (2009: 433 f.) likewise argues for identificational [N1 N2] sequences (cf.
also Noailly 1990):
(13) la catégorie adjectif ‘the adjective category’

l’institution Opéra ‘the Opera institution’
N2 identifies N1 (‘N2 is an N1’) and from this point of view, these sequences are
equivalent to syntactic (appositional) [N1 N2] constructs in which N2 is a proper
noun and N1 expresses a socially recognized category (e. g. le président Mandela
‘President Mandela’, la région Bourgogne ‘the region of Burgundy’).
3.2 D
iscussion: morphological and syntactic approaches to
[N1 N2] subordinatives
We agree with Fradin that [N1 N2] coordinates are true compounds and cannot be
the result of syntactic formation. We also subscribe to his view on two-slot nomi-
nal and identificational [N1 N2] constructs: both sequences can be shown to corre-
spond to syntactic phrases. However, subordinate [N1 N2] formations are more
problematic than acknowledged by Fradin (2009) and it can be demonstrated
that the examples mentioned for this class are not all of the same kind. At first
glance, it can, for instance, be observed that some of them permit degree modifi-
cation of N2 while others do not (discours vraiment fleuve ‘really lengthy discourse’
(lit. discourse really river) vs. *requin vraiment marteau ‘really hammerhead
shark’ (lit. shark really hammer)), and some but not all N2s form productive series
(e. g. discours-fleuve ‘lengthy discourse’ (lit. discourse-river), roman-fleuve ‘novel
cycle’, film-fleuve ‘lengthy movie’, débat-fleuve ‘lengthy debate’, etc.), while no
series formation is possible for [N-marteau], for instance. We will discuss these
differences more extensively in Section 4.
As already mentioned, these formations have been the subject of some
debate. Amiot/Van Goethem (2012: 350 ff.) and Van Goethem (2012: 77–81) pro-
vide an overview of the different accounts, which range from purely syntactic
analyses (cf. Noailly 1990 and Goes 1999) to strictly morphological accounts, like
the one by Fradin (2009).
With regard to the syntactic approaches, a distinction can be made between
analyses where the second component of the phrase is still considered a noun in
spite of some adjectival properties (cf. Noailly 1990, who labels N2 as ‘substantif
épithète’ and Arnaud/Renner 2014, who detect adjective-like syntactic behavior
to some extent), and others like Lehmann/Martin-Berthet (2008: 206), who claim
that N2 is converted into an adjective if it complies with a set of criteria typical of

adjectives (such as degree modification and predicative use).
With regard to the morphological approaches, we can contrast Fradin’s clas-
sification of French compounding with the general typology of compounds
by Scalise/Bisetto (2009) (applied to French by Villoing 2012), according to
whom these ‘problematic’ compounds are not subordinatives but belong to the
ATAP (attributives-appositives) class, and more particularly to the subclass of
appositives:
Attributive compounds can actually be defined as formations whose head is modified by a

non-head expressing a ‘property’ of the head, be it an adjective or a verb: actually, the role
of the non-head categorial element should be that of expressing a ‘quality’ of the head con-
stituent. Appositives, to the contrary, are compounds in which the non-head element
expresses a property of the head constituent by means of a noun, an apposition, acting as
an attribute. (Scalise/Bisetto 2009: 51)
As these definitions show, attributives (e. g. high school) and appositives (e. g.
snailmail, swordfish) belong to the same ATAP class because they have similar
functions. The metaphorical value of the modifier is argued to be an important
distinctive criterion between [N1 N2] subordinatives (e. g. mushroom soup), on the
one hand, and [N1 N2] appositives (e. g. mushroom cloud), on the other:
In appositives that, together with attributives, make up the ATAP class, the noun plays an
attributive role and is often to be interpreted metaphorically. Metaphoricity is the factor that
enables us to make a distinction between, e. g. mushroom soup (a subordinate ground com-
pound) and mushroom cloud, where mushroom is not interpreted in its literal sense but is
rather construed as a ‘representation of the mushroom entity’ (...) whose relevant feature in
the compound under observation is shape. (ibid.: 52)
In the next section, we will take a closer look at this specific type of formation and
will argue that we need to distinguish between two different subclasses: classify-
ing and qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives, of which only the former undoubtedly
belong to morphology.
4 Classifying vs. qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives

In this section we will argue that two types of [N1 N2] subordinatives should
be distinguished: classifying (e. g. requin-marteau ‘hammerhead shark’ (lit.
shark-hammer)) and qualifying (e. g. guerre éclair ‘blitzkrieg’ (lit. war lightning)).
The difference can essentially be found in the different role of N2 with respect to
N1.12 Despite their similarities (in all these subordinate compounds, N2 denotes a
salient, metaphor-based property of N1), N2 has a classifying role in some [N1 N2]
formations (e. g. requin-marteau) but a qualifying role in others (e. g. guerre-
éclair). We will present the distinguishing properties of both types of [N1 N2] sub-
ordinatives in 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
4.1 C
lassifying [N1 N2] subordinatives
Classifying [N1 N2] subordinatives are characterized by a number of particular

semantic and syntactic properties:
(i) Semantically, they behave like designations (‘names’): they refer to stable
concepts (Kleiber 1984), but their reference is established in a motivated way: N1,
the semantic head, is the hyperonym and N2, which does not have a referential
meaning, refers to a salient property of N1 that allows the [N1 N2] sequence to be
distinguished from other N1s. Hence, N2 expresses a classifying property of N1.13
This is why, at least when they denote biological species, classifying [N1 N2]
sequences are often the vernacular denominations corresponding to scientific
taxonomies: for instance, serpent-tigre corresponds to Notechis Scutatus, pin-par
asol to Pina Pinea and oiseau-lyre to Menura Superba, etc. (cf. Ureña/Faber 2010
for English compounding). When [N1 N2] is not a vernacular denomination corre-
sponding to a scientific taxonomy, it can at least integrate a hierarchical folk cat-
egorization (Wierzbicka 1996): for example, a fauteuil-crapaud ‘squat armchair’
(lit. armchair-toad) is a kind of armchair (fauteuil), in the same way as a club chair
or a rocking chair. And, in turn, an armchair is a piece of furniture, etc. This sig-
nals the relationship of inclusion [X is a Y], typical of the hierarchy between a
hyponym and its hyperonym.
(ii) N1 often denotes a biological species, especially animals (14a), vegetables
(14b) or sometimes human beings (14c). More exceptionally, compounds denot-
ing artefacts can also be found (14d):
12 This category merges what Arnaud (2003: 13) calls the ‘composés équatifs-analogiques’ (‘equa-
tive analogical compounds’) and the ‘composés méronymiques-analogiques’ (‘meronymic ana-
logical compounds’), i. e. poisson-chat ‘catfish’ vs. poisson-scie ‘sawfish’, respectively.
13 To a certain extent, such sequences correspond to the ‘generic-specific compounds’ in Ar-
naud (2003), but the author classifies them as ‘equative/analogical compounds’, because of the
metaphorical use of N2.
(14a) poisson-scie ‘sawfish’ (lit. fish-saw)

oiseau-lyre ‘lyrebird’ (lit. bird-lyre)
serpent-tigre ‘tiger snake’ (lit. snake tigre)
(14b) saule têtard ‘silver willow’ (lit. willow tadpole)
pin-parasol ‘umbrella pine’ (lit. pine-umbrella)
tomate-cerise ‘cherry tomato’ (lit. tomato-cherry)
(14c) homme-grenouille ‘frogman’ (lit. man-frog)
femme-objet ‘woman as object’ (lit. woman-object)
enfant-roi ‘spoilt child’ (lit. child-king)
(14d) voiture-bélier ‘ram-raid’ (lit. car-ram)
fauteuil-crapaud ‘squat armchair’ (lit. armchair-toad)
noeud-papillon ‘bow tie’ (lit. bow-butterfly)
(iii) In these cases, and as opposed to coordinate compounds, the two nouns
denote concrete entities that do not belong to the same semantic class and the
metaphor that underpins the relation between N1 and N2 is often based on physi-
cal resemblance: the nose of a poisson-scie is shaped like a saw (scie) and a saule
têtard has roughly the shape of a tadpole (têtard): a big head like the upper part
(the foliage) of the willow, and a short tiny bottom part (like the trunk). In our
examples, the only sequences that do not instantiate this relation are enfant-roi,
femme-objet and voiture-bélier, in which the metaphor is based on behavioral
resemblance. For example, an enfant-roi is a child (enfant) who is treated like a
king (roi) and who often becomes a ‘domestic tyrant’.
(iv) Syntactically, all the linguistic tests usually used to measure the lexical
integrity of a sequence (cf. Sections 2.2 and 2.3) show that these classifying [N1 N2]
formations are words, insofar as they do not accept any of these manipulations,
unlike the qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives that we will study in Section 4.2.
(v) The last property to be mentioned is the fact that, unlike the qualifying
[N1 N2] formations, these classifying subordinatives do not give rise to productive
series.
We can conclude from this survey that the subordinate [N1 N2] formations like
those exemplified under (14) are binominal words and true compounds in which
N2 metaphorically denotes a classifying property of N1.
4.2 Q
ualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives
Qualifying [N1 N2] subordinatives can be distinguished from the classifying sub-
type on the following grounds:
(i) All kinds of nouns may instantiate N1: nouns denoting artefacts (15a),
social roles (15b), time or slots of time (15c), events (15d), and even abstract nouns
(15e):
(15a) livre-phare ‘landmark book’ (lit. book-lighthouse)

établissement-pilote ‘pilot institution’ (lit. institution-pilot)
film-culte ‘cult movie’ (lit. movie-cult)
(15b) acteur-clé ‘key actor’ (lit. actor-key)
attaquant-bulldozer ‘offensive forward’ (lit. attacker-bulldozer)
(15c) moment-charnière ‘pivotal moment’ (lit. moment-hinge)
date-limite ‘deadline’ (lit. date-limit)
(15d) discours-fleuve ‘lengthy discourse’ (lit. discourse-river)
guerre-éclair ‘blitzkrieg’ (lit. war-lightning)
(15e) justice-escargot ‘slow justice’ (lit. justice-snail)
(ii) According to Fradin (2009), N2s often refer to a metaphoric intrinsic property
of N1 (cf. Section 3.1): slowness (e. g. justice-escargot), quickness (e. g. guerre-
éclair), strength (e. g. attaquant-bulldozer) or duration (e. g. discours-fleuve). To
a certain extent, they often express intensity, as in livre-phare, acteur-clé,
moment-charnière: a livre-phare, for example, is a very famous book that attracts
a lot of attention. However N2 does not have a categorization function (a livre-
phare is not a kind of book, an acteur-clé is not a kind of actor, etc.): the [N1 N2]
sequences exemplified under (15) are not designations that could be included in
a hyperonymy/hyponymy hierarchy. Instead, N2 has a qualifying role and, more
over, it can often be substituted with a qualifying adjective: an acteur-clé is a very
important actor (in a given context), a justice-escargot is very slow justice, and so
on.
(iii) It is precisely the qualifying role of N2 that could, in our view, explain the
specific behavior of these [N1 N2] formations, and particularly their lack of lexical
integrity (cf. 2.3):
(a) Both N1 and N2 can be instantiated by a complex (i. e. multi-word) sequence.

The examples under (16) represent formations with a ‘complex N1’:
(16a) Wilo Salmson France représente un acteur économique clé de la région.

(www)14
‘Wilo Salmon France represents a key economic actor in the region’
14 All examples followed by (www) were taken from the web via Google searches in May 2017.
(16b) Wall Street 2 adopte la forme d’une saga familiale fleuve (www)
‘Wall Street 2 takes the form of a very long (lit. river) family saga’
(16c) L’affiche du film d’animation culte Akira a eu droit à de nombreuses paro
dies (www)
‘The poster of the cult animated movie Akira spawned many parodies’
(16d) d’un coup de poing éclair, elle dévie le ballon (www)
‘with a lightning punch (lit. punch-of-fist), she deflects the ball’
In these examples, the N1s resemble phrases: they result from the association of a
noun and an adjective (16a–b) or of a noun and a prepositional phrase (16c–d).
The N2 slot can also be filled by a complex item, but this is more excep-
tional:
(17) La compagnie de gendarmerie […] a mobilisé des effectifs lors de l’opération

coup de poing menée vendredi (www)
‘The police […] mobilized officers on Friday for the lightning [lit. punch-of-
fist] raid’
Interestingly, a lexicalized multi-word expression such as coup de poing can fill,

in its literal meaning (‘punch’), the N1 slot or, in its metaphorical meaning (‘light-
ning’), the N2 slot.
It should be noticed that, since the complex sequences that may fill the N1 or
N2 slots are lexicalized phrases, this is less problematic for the LIH than if they
were free, compositional phrases (cf. Booij’s (2010) use of ‘lexical phrasal con-
structions’ in 2.4).
(b) Most N2s can be modified by an adverb of degree, as shown in (18):
(18a) on avait le sentiment d’assister à un moment vraiment charnière

(www)
‘we had the feeling of witnessing a truly pivotal (lit. hinge) moment’
(18b) un conseil vraiment éclair (www)
‘a really whirlwind (lit. lightning) council meeting’
(18c) la multiplicité des voix de ce roman vraiment fleuve (www)
‘the multiplicity of voices in this really lengthy (lit. river) novel’
This second property is more challenging for the LIH: the lexical integrity of the
[N1 N2] sequences is undoubtedly called into question by the insertion of an adverb
of degree between the two Ns. This is why some authors put forward a weakened
version of the hypothesis, including Ackema/Neeleman (2004), Booij (2005) and

Lieber/Scalise (2007).15
Our previously conducted corpus research (Amiot/Van Goethem 2012; Van
Goethem 2012, 2015) indicate that the most frequently inserted adverb is vraiment
‘really, truly’, as in (18), but other degree adverbs can be found too: absolument
‘absolutely’ (19), réellement ‘really’ (20), extrêmement ‘extremely’ (21) and even,
but more rarely, très ‘very’ (22):
(19) Les années 1970 constituent en effet une période absolument charnière
dans la vie des communautés […] (www)
‘The 1970s constituted an absolutely pivotal (lit. hinge) period in the life of
communities [...]’
(20) Nous reviendrons sur ce point réellement clé pour la suite de la réflexion
(www)
‘We will return to this point, which is really key (lit. this really key point)
for the continuation of the discussion’
(21) […] une version raccourcie d’un texte extrêmement fleuve qu’il a publié
quelques années plus tôt (www)
‘[…] an abridged version of an extremely lengthy (lit. river) text that he
published a couple of years before’
(22) le match a été une orgie offensive avec un score très fleuve (42–24 en
faveur des Parisiens) (www)
‘the match was an offensive orgy with a very crushing (lit. river) score (42–
24 in favor of the Parisians)’
The presence of such adverbs conflicts not only with the lexical integrity of the [N1
N2] sequence, but also with the nominal status of N2: usually an adverb of degree
modifies a gradable adjective, not a noun. However, in the context of the qualify-
ing [N1 N2] sequences, N2 seems to switch to adjectival status.
Syntactically, evidence for this adjectival status is not only provided by the
possibility of modification by an adverb, but, like a qualifying adjective, N2 can
also be inserted into a comparative construction:
15 Cf. also the ‘Italian trasporto latte-type constructions’ (Lieber/Scalise 2007), in which both
components can be modified by an adjective, e. g. produzione scarpe ‘shoe production’ → produz
ione (accurata) scarpe (estive) ‘(accurate) production of (summer) shoes’.
(23a) pour moi c’est [la préadolescence] une période bien plus charnière
que l’adolescence (www)
‘For me it [pre-adolescence] is a much more pivotal (lit. hinge) period than
adolescence’
(23b) La proximité de commerces est moins clé que pour une résidence senior
(www)
‘The proximity of shops is less key than for a senior housing complex’
Semantically, in all the examples under (19–23), N2 could be paraphrased by an

evaluative adjective, for example:
(24) […] une période absolument charnière / cruciale

‘an absolutely pivotal (lit. hinge)/crucial period’
[…] ce point réellement clé / important
‘this really key/important point’
[…] un texte extrêmement fleuve / long
‘an extremely lengthy (lit. river)/long text’
This demonstrates the qualifying value of N2 vis-à-vis N1. We will return to this in
Section 5, but it is worth noting for the time being that this behavior distin-
guishes the qualifying subordinative [N1 N2] from the classifying subordinative
(Section 4.1).
(c) Some N2s can be used predicatively. Predicative use is the most prototypical
use of qualifying adjectives. In some cases, ‘N2’ can fill the slot of an adjective in
a predicative construction (25) with or without degree marking:
(25a) La période est charnière également sur le plan économique (www)

‘The period is also pivotal in economic terms’
(25b) Leur rôle est ainsi plus clé que jamais (www)
‘Their role is thus more key than ever’
(25c) c’est déjà arrivé quand l’interview est vraiment fleuve (www)
‘It has already happened when the interview is really lengthy’
In this use, the [N1 N2] construction (période charnière in (25a), rôle clé in (25b)
and interview fleuve in (25c)) is broken up, and N2 acquires autonomous adjectival
behavior. This separation of compound-like sequences has been labeled ‘debond-
ing’ by Norde (2009) (cf. also Amiot/Van Goethem 2012; Van Goethem 2012;
Norde/Van Goethem 2014; Van Goethem/De Smet 2014; and Van Goethem 2015).
5 A
constructionist analysis of qualifying [N1 N2]
subordinatives
As can be concluded from the preceding section, besides coordinate [N1 N2]
sequences, only classifying [N1 N2] subordinatives should be regarded as true
compounds in French, whereas the qualifying [N1 N2] formations display hybrid
behavior in the sense that they may, to a greater or lesser extent, undergo syntac-
tic operations. We will now demonstrate how the idea of ‘multiple inheritance’
(cf. Section 2.4) can be fruitfully applied to account for these hybrid qualifying
[N1 N2] subordinative constructions.
Two phases can be distinguished in the emergence of qualifying subordi
natives (cf. Amiot/Van Goethem 2012 and Van Goethem 2015 on [N1 clé]
subordinatives).
The first step is the emergence of a productive constructional idiom – via
so-called ‘constructionalization’ (Traugott/Trousdale 2013; Hüning/Booij 2014) –
in which N2 develops a specific (metaphoric) qualifying meaning when combined
with an N1 in a compound(-like) sequence (e. g. question-clé ‘key question’,
moment charnière ‘pivotal moment’, réunion marathon ‘marathon meeting’, cas
limite ‘borderline case’, etc.). This qualifying meaning may be seen as the result
of ‘coercion’ (cf. Audring/Booij 2016) in which the metaphoric meaning some-
times already available for the noun outside the compound-like pattern (e. g. la
clé du succès ‘the key of success’) is selected (‘coercion by selection’) and/or in
which N2 develops adjective-like (semantic and formal) properties within the [N1
N2] pattern (‘coercion by override’). This semi-schematic construction, applied to
the example of [N charnière] formations, can be represented as follows:
(26) [[X]Ni [charnière]N]Nj ↔ [pivotal, crucial SEMi]j
However, the constructionalization of N2 goes beyond this morphological stage,

since it may occur in innovative syntactic constructions with the same semantics
(cf. Section 4.2). As already suggested by Amiot/Van Goethem (2012) and Van
Goethem (2015), the adjective-like uses of N2 can be seen as the result of an inter-
action between the closely related morphological [N1 N2]N and syntactic [N A]NP
constructions.16 The fact that N2s such as charnière, clé, fleuve, limite and so on
16 The schematic representations are a bit simplified since, as we have seen in 4.2, N1 and N2 can
include a multi-word sequence, and the A can be instantiated by a phrase in the case of degree
modification (e. g. une période vraiment charnière).
developed a qualifying meaning in the former construction, typical of adjectives,

may have favored this constructional ambiguity. In constructional terms, this
interaction can be translated as an instance of ‘multiple inheritance’. Schemati-
cally, this multiple inheritance can be represented as in (27):
(27) [N1 N2]N [N [(Adv) A]]NP
[N1 [(Adv) charnière]]N/NP
The [N1 [(Adv) charnière]]N/NP sequence inherits its properties from two distinct
parent constructions, the morphological qualifying compound [N1 N2]N pattern
(e. g. moment-charnière ‘pivotal moment’) and the syntactic [N [(Adv) A]]NP pattern
(e. g. un moment (vraiment) crucial ‘a (really) crucial moment’). As a consequence,
and as shown in Section 4.2, it is a hybrid between a morphological and a syntac-
tic construction and N2 can, in some cases, gradually develop more adjective-like
syntactic uses, such as the predicative use.
This approach indicates that French [N1 N2] subordinatives, and especially
the subclass of formations with a qualifying N2, are in reality closely related to
[N A] or [A N] formations. As we have seen in Section 3.2, Scalise/Bisetto (2009)
merge [N1 N2] appositives and [N A]/[A N] attributives within the class of ATAP
compounds because the modifier in both cases expresses a qualifying property of
the head noun. We can therefore conclude that their classification for these types
of formations is highly insightful. However, what is still missing in this approach
is the fact that this ATAP class contains not only pure (morphological) com-
pounds, but also hybrid constructs with both morphological and syntactic
properties.
6 C
onclusion
Compared with Germanic languages, it turns out to be very difficult to delineate
French compounds from syntactic multi-word units. In the first part of this contri-
bution, we outlined three different approaches dealing with compounding in the
French tradition: non-restrictive, scalar and restrictive (lexicalist). Although we
believe morphological formations should be distinguished from syntactic forma-
tions, it is insightful to highlight their shared potential for expressing the same
denominative functions. We therefore added a fourth approach: we believe a
constructionist, non-modular approach to the language system provides a more
appropriate account. From this perspective, both compounds and phrasal struc-
tures with a naming function can act as conventionalized form-meaning pairings
or ‘constructions’ and we should accept the existence of what Booij (2010: 190)
calls ‘lexical phrasal constructions’, namely phrasal constructions that are stored
in the (mental) lexicon.
Another advantage of this constructionist approach is that it can deal with
structurally ambiguous formations, such as [N1 N2] structures with a qualifying
N2. As shown throughout this paper, these sequences are particularly difficult to
deal with in a modular approach because, on the one hand, they formally and
semantically resemble [N1 N2] (subordinative) compounds, but, on the other
hand, they allow syntactic operations to a greater or lesser extent. In a concep-
tion of language as a constructionist network, these hybrid formations can be
fruitfully accounted for by the mechanism of ‘multiple inheritance’. Following
this process, we have argued that the hybrid properties of French qualifying [N1
N2] sequences result from the inheritance of properties from both a morphological
and a syntactic parent construction.
References
Ackema, Peter/Neeleman, Ad (2004): Beyond Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amiot, Dany/Van Goethem, Kristel (2012): A constructional account of French -clé ‘key’ and
Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé/sleutelwoord ‘key word’. In: Morphology 22. 347–364.
Anderson, Steven (1992): A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Arnaud, Pierre J. (2003): Les Composés timbre-poste. Lyon: Presses Universitaires Lyon.
Arnaud, Pierre/Renner, Vincent (2014): English and French [NN]N lexical units: A categorial,
morphological and semantic comparison. In: Word Structure 7. 1–28.
Audring, Jenny/Booij, Geert (2016): Cooperation and coercion. In: Linguistics 54. 617–637.
Language and Linguistics 2. 65–86.
Bauer, Laurie (2004): Adjectives, compounds and words. In: Nordic Journal of English Studies 3.
7–22.
Bonami, Olivier/Boyé, Gilles (2003): Supplétion et classes flexionnelles. In: Langages 152.
102–126.
Bonami, Olivier/Boyé, Gilles (2014): De formes en thèmes. In: Villoing, Florence/David, Sophie/
Leroy, Sarah (eds.): Foisonnements morphologiques. Études en hommage à Françoise
Kerleroux. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. 17–45.
Benveniste, Emile (1974): Problèmes de linguistique générale. Vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard.
Booij, Geert (2002): Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. In: Journal of
Germanic Linguistics 14. 301–329.
Booij, Geert (2005): Compounding and derivation. Evidence for construction morphology. In:
Dressler, Wolfgang U. et al. (eds.): Morphology and its Demarcations. Selected Papers
from the 11th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
109–132.
Corbin, Danielle (1992): Hypothèses sur les frontières de la composition nominale. In: Cahiers
de Grammaire 17. 27–55.
Corbin, Danielle (1997): Locutions, composés, unités polylexématiques: lexicalisation et mode
de construction. In: Martins-Baltar, Michel (ed.): La locution entre langue et usages. Paris:
ENS. Editions Fontenay/Saint-Cloud. 53–101.
Croft, William (2001): Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Caluwe, Johan (1990): Complementariteit tussen morfologische en syntactische
benoemingsprocédés. In: De Caluwe, Johan (ed.): Betekenis en productiviteit. Gentse
bijdragen tot de studie van de Nederlandse woordvorming. (= Studia Germanica
Gandensia 19). Gent: Seminarie voor Duitse taalkunde, Rijksuniversiteit Gent. 9–25.
De Smet, Hendrik/Ghesquière, Lobke/Van de Velde, Freek (eds.) (2013): On multiple source
constructions in language change. Special issue of Studies in Language 37, 3. Amsterdam
i. a.: Benjamins.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria/Williams, Edwin (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Fradin, Bernard (2003): Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Fradin, Bernard (2009): IE, Romance: French. In: Lieber/Štekauer (eds.). 417–435.
Giegerich, Heinz (2009a): Compounding and lexicalism. In: Lieber/Štekauer (eds.).
178–200.
Giegerich, Heinz (2009b): The English compound stress myth. In: Word Structure 2. 1–17.
Goes, Jan (1999): L’adjectif. Entre nom et verbe. Paris/Bruxelles: Duculot.
Goldberg, Adele (1995): Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument
structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele (2006): Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language.
Goldberg, Adele (2009): The nature of generalization in language. In: Cognitive Linguistics 20.
93–127.
Gross, Gaston (1988): Degré de figement des noms composés. In: Langages 90. 57–72.
Gross, Gaston (1996): Les expressions figées en français: noms composés et autres locutions.
Paris: Ophrys.
Hacken, Pius ten (1994): Defining Morphology. Hildesheim i. a.: Olms.
derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. In: Folia linguistica 48, 2.
579–604.
(eds.): Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 1.
(= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter. 450–467.
Kleiber, Georges (1984): Dénomination et relations dénominatives. In: Langages 76.
77–94.
Lehmann, Alise/Martin-Berthet, Françoise (2008): Introduction à la lexicologie. Sémantique et

morphologie. 3rd ed. Paris: Armand Colin.
Lieber, Rochelle (1992): Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory.
University of Chicago Press.
Lieber, Rochelle/Scalise, Sergio (2007): The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a New Theoretical
Universe. In: Booij, Geert et al. (eds.): On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean
Morphology Meeting (MMM5), Fréjus 15–18 September 2005. University of Bologna. 1–24.
Internet: www.lingue.unibo.it (last access: 11.9.2018).
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) (2009): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford:
Mathieu-Colas, Michel (1996): Essai de typologie des noms composés français. In: Cahiers de
lexicologie 69. 71–125.
Noailly, Michèle (1990): Le substantif épithète. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Norde, Muriel (2009): Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norde, Muriel (2014): On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at
Coglingdays 2014, Ghent: Ghent University.
Norde, Muriel/Morris, Caroline (2018): Derivation without category change: A network-based
analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In: Van Goethem, Kristel et al. (eds.): Category
change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 47–90.
Norde, Muriel/Van Goethem, Kristel (2014): Bleaching, productivity and debonding of
prefixoids. A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. In: Lingvisticae
Investigationes 37, 2. 256–274.
Plag, Ingo (2003): Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scalise, Sergio/Bisetto, Antonietta (2009): The classification of compounds. In: Lieber/
Štekauer (eds.). 34–53.
Schlücker, Barbara/Hüning, Matthias (eds). (2009): Words and Phrases – Nominal expressions
of naming and description. Special Issue of Word Structure 2, 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs/Trousdale, Graeme (2013): Constructionalization and Constructional
Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trousdale, Graeme (2013): Multiple inheritance and constructional change. In: Studies in
Language 37, 3. 491–514.
Trousdale Graeme/Norde, Muriel (2013): Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two
case studies. In: Language Sciences 36. 32–46.
Ureña, José Manuel/Faber, Pamela (2010): Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-re-
semblance metaphors. In: Cognitive Linguistics 21, 1. 123–149.
Villoing, Florence (2009): Les mots composés VN. In: Fradin, Bernard/Kerleroux, Françoise/
Plénat, Marc (eds.): Aperçus de morphologie du français. Saint-Denis: Presses Univer-
sitaires de Vincennes. 75–197.
Villoing, Florence (2012): French compounds. In: Probus 24. 29–60.
241–253.
Van Goethem, Kristel (2012): Le statut des séquences ‘N+N à N2 productif’: le cas de N-clé. In:
Lingvisticae Investigationes 35, 1. 76–93.
Van Goethem, Kristel (2015): Cette mesure est-elle vraiment clé? A constructional approach to
categorial gradience. In: Journal of French Language Studies 25, 1. 115–142.
Van Goethem, Kristel/De Smet, Hendrik (2014): How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence
of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. In:
Languages in Contrast 14, 2. 251–277.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996): Semantics. Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zwanenburg, Wiecher (1992): Compounding in French. In: Rivista di linguistica 4. 221–240.
Francesca Masini
in Italian
1 When two (or more) words come together
It is often observed that compounds, being complex words formed by two (or
more) words, are the morphological constructions closest to syntactic construc-
tions, and that this is the reason why drawing a line between compounds and
phrases is often difficult. Other complex lexical units challenge – possibly even
more – the distinction between syntax, morphology and the lexicon: these are
generally known as multi-word expressions (henceforth MWEs). MWEs are larger
than morphological words and are nonetheless stored into our lexicon. The very
existence of such MWEs poses a number of theoretical questions regarding (i)
the organization of the lexicon, and (ii) the relationship between MWEs and
compounds.
The first question has been addressed, among others, by Jackendoff (1995,
1997), who proposes to extend the lexicon to “multiword constructions” (1997:
153), including so-called “constructional idioms” (Jackendoff 1990: 221; cf. also
Booij 2002a), since these phenomena are too pervasive to be regarded as a periph-
eral part of the grammar. This enlarged view of the lexicon is viable under such
approaches as the Parallel Architecture (Jackendoff 2010), Construction Mor-
phology (Booij 2010) and Construction Grammar in general (Hoffmann/Trous-
dale (eds.) 2013).
If we accept MWEs as part of our lexicon, we may want to address the second
question, which is exactly what the present volume does. More specifically, we
may ask:
a) Is there a way to distinguish between MWEs and compounds? On the basis of
which criteria? Are there criteria that would hold crosslinguistically?
b) What kind of role do MWEs and compounds play in the construction of the
lexicon? Is there competition between them?
These questions emerge quite naturally, given that both MWEs and compounds
are, in a way, complex (multiword) lexical units. Yet, relatively little attention has
been devoted to these specific issues, mainly because compounds and MWEs are
topics that traditionally belong to different linguistic fields: morphology on the
one hand, lexicology and phraseology on the other. In this paper I will address
Open Access. © 2019 Masini, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-006
154 Francesca Masini
the matter by discussing data from Italian, with a view to contributing some
answers to questions in a) and b) above.
First, I briefly describe the state of the art as far as Italian compounds and
MWEs are concerned (Section 2). In Section 3 I address demarcation issues con-
cerning compounding and MWEs. Section 4, instead, explores possible areas of
competition between compounds and MWEs.
2 Italian: a brief overview

In this section I offer a (necessarily brief and sketchy) overview of Italian com-
pounds and MWEs, which will serve as background knowledge for subsequent
sections.
2.1 I talian compounds
Research on Italian compounding has by now a long-stading tradition (cf., among

many others, Scalise 1992; Bisetto/Scalise 1999; Bisetto 2004; Ricca 2010; Masini/
Scalise 2012; Radimský 2015). Whereas, as widely known, compounding in Ital-
ian and Romance languages is not as productive as in Germanic languages, com-
pounds are well-documented in these varieties. In what follows, I illustrate some
basic facts about Italian compounds, taking into account the morphological type
of the input elements, the lexical categories involved, and the relation among the
constituents.
Typically, Italian compounds are made of full (sometimes inflected) words
(1a), although we may also find stems (like verbal stems in VN compounds, cf.
cava- in (1b)), as well as neoclassical formatives or semiwords (cf. (1c), where lv
stands for ‘linking vowel’).
(1a) pesce-cane
fish-dog
‘shark’
(1b) cava-tappi
extract-corks
‘corkscrew’
(1c) crimin-o-logo
crime-lv-logist
‘criminologist’
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Italian 155
Compounding in Italian productively feeds mostly the word classes of nouns (2)
and adjectives (3), not verbs. As for input elements, productive patterns creating
nouns and adjectives involve mostly nouns, adjectives and verbs, secondarily
prepositions, as showed in (2)–(3) (where the head is underlined, when
present).1
(2) Productive compound nouns

(2a) NA carro armato
cart armed
‘tank’
(2b) NN agenzia viaggi
agency travels
‘travel agency’
(2c) VN asciuga-mani
dry-hands
‘towel’
(2d) PN dopo-guerra
after-war
‘post war period’
(3) Productive compound adjectives

(3a) AN giallo oro
yellow gold
‘golden yellow’
(3b) AA marxista-leninista
Marxist-Leninist
‘Marxist-Leninist’
(3c) VN salva-spazio
save-space
‘space-saving’
As far as the classification of compounds is concerned, Italian displays all six

classes identified by Scalise/Bisetto (2009), as summarized in Table 1 (taken from
Masini/Scalise 2012: 77).
1 These observations are taken from Masini/Scalise (2012). Patterns with semiwords are not
included.
Table 1: Classes of Italian compounds
Subordinate Attributive Coordinate
Endocentric capo-stazione cassa-forte poeta pittore

(chief-station) (case/box-strong) (poet painter)
‘stationmaster’ ‘safe’ ‘poet painter’
transporto latte viaggio lampo divano-letto
(transportation milk) (journey lightening) (sofa bed)
‘milk transportation’ ‘very fast journey’ ‘sofa bed’
Exocentric porta-lettere viso pallido Emilia Romagna

(carry-letters) (face pale) (Emilia Romagna)
‘mailman’ ‘facepale’ ‘Emilia Romagna’
sotto-scala piedi piatti dormi-veglia
(under-stairway) (feet flat) (sleep-wake)
‘closet under the stairway’ ‘cop’ ‘drowsiness’
It is worth noting that NN compounds encode the highest number of relations

among the constituents, since they may be attributive (ATT), coordinate (CRD)
and subordinate (SUB):
(4) Classes of NN compounds

(4a) ATT pesce spada
fish sword
‘sword fish’
(4b) CRD divano letto
sofa bed
‘sofa bed’
(4c) CRD nord-est
North-East
‘North-East’
(4d) SUB vendita latte
sale milk
‘milk shop’
(4e) SUB agenzia viaggi
agency travels
‘travel agency’
In attributive NN compounds (4a), the non-head expresses a property of the head

noun (often via some metaphorical mechanism), despite not being an adjective.
Coordinate (CRD) NN compounds may have two semantic heads (see (4b), where
divano letto is both a sofa and a bed, hence a hyponym of both its input elements),
or no internal head at all, like in nord-est (4c). Subordinate (SUB) NN compounds
also comprise two subtypes, depending on the nature of the head noun, that may
be deverbal (like vendita in (4d)) or not (like agenzia in (4e)).
Finally, one should note that Italian displays at least three productive pat-
terns of exocentric compounds: coordinate NN compounds (cf. (4c)), PN com-
pounds (cf. (2d)) and VN compounds, giving rise both to nouns (2c) and adjec-
tives (3c). The latter is one of the most productive types of compounds in
contemporary Italian (cf. Ricca 2010). Hence, exocentricity is well-attested in Ital-
ian compounding.
2.2 Italian MWEs and phrasal lexemes
Multi-word expression is widely used as an umbrella term to refer to a large set of

linguistic objects (cf. Baldwin/Kim 2010 and Hüning/Schlücker 2015 for an over-
view), including verbal idioms (5a) and other kinds of idiomatic expressions (e. g.
(5b)), sayings (5c), lexicalized sentences (5d), formulae (5e), complex nominals
(5f), irreversible binomials (5g), verb-particle constructions (5h) and other com-
plex predicates such as light verb constructions (5i).
(5a) alzare il gomito

raise the elbow
‘to drink too much’
(5b) fuori di testa
out of head
‘out of one’s mind’
(5c) mai dire mai
never say never
‘never say never’
(5d) fai-da-te
do-from-you
‘do-it-yourself’
(5e) stai scherzando?
stay.2.sg joking
‘Are you kidding me?’
(5f) armi di distruzione di massa
weapons of destruction of mass
‘weapons of mass destruction’
(5g) vivo e vegeto

alive and thriving
‘alive and well’
(5h) mettere sotto
put down
‘to run over (with a vehicle)’
(5i) dare luogo (a)
give place (to)
‘to give rise (to)’
Most of these expressions have been investigated separately from word forma-
tion, and within other scholarly traditions. Idioms and collocations, for instance,
are typically the realm of phraseology (cf., e. g., Cowie (ed.) 1998) and corpus
linguistics (cf., e. g., Moon 1998), but also psycholinguistics (cf., e. g., Cacciari/
Tabossi (eds.) 1993) and syntax (cf., among others, Everaert et al. (eds.) 1995).
Morphologists, on the other hand, have always devoted little attention to
these multiword phenomena. A notable exception regards complex predicates
(cf., e. g., Butt 1995, Ackerman/Webelhuth 1997) – in particular verb-particle con-
structions in Germanic (cf., e. g., Dehé et al. (eds.) 2002) but also Romance (cf.
Iacobini/Masini 2007; cf. also below) languages.
Recently, morphologists have started devoting more attention to this area,
especially within the framework of Construction Morphology (Booij 2010; hence-
forth CxM). This is little surprising – as also observed by Hüning/Schlücker (2015)
– given that CxM is linked to Construction Grammar (Hoffmann/Trousdale (eds.)
2013; henceforth CxG), a model whose foundations lie on studies on idiomatic
structures, from Fillmore/Kay/O’Connor (1988) onwards.
In CxM, both words and word formation patterns are seen as ‘constructions’,
i. e. conventionalized form-meaning pairings: morphological constructions may
differ in size, complexity and schematicity, and are organized into a hierarchical
lexicon. Besides, units that are larger than a morphological word but nonetheless
conventionalized and stored into our lexicon are also regarded as constructions,
as complex signs. Indeed, CxM has originated from work on phenomena in-
between morphology and syntax, in particular separable complex verbs in Dutch,
which have been treated as a case of ‘periphrastic word formation’ by Booij
(2002b).
In other words, within CxG and CxM, MWEs are seen as part of our lexicon, as
anticipated in Section 1. Some MWEs have the same distribution of sentences
(sayings) or full VPs (idiomatic expressions); formulaic expressions may also
serve as full utterances (but note that formulae may be constituted also by one
single word). Some other MWEs, in particular those that have been called phrasal
lexemes or lexical phrases (Booij 2009a, 2010; Masini 2009, 2012) are closer than
other MWEs to morphological words (especially compounds), hence I will mainly
focus on these.
Phrasal lexemes are those MWEs that are closest to words in terms of both
distribution and function, i. e., they have a word-like distribution (so sen-
tence-level MWEs would not be phrasal lexemes) and they have the same con-
cept-naming function of words, thus contributing to lexical enrichment (cf. Mas-
ini 2012). They correspond to various patterns and can in principle belong to all
lexical categories, at least in Italian, e. g.: nouns (6a), adjectives (6b), verbs (6c),
adverbs (6d), prepositions (6e), conjunctions (6f), interjections (6g), pronouns
(6h).
(6a) parte del discorso

part of.the speech
‘part of speech’
(6b) felice e contento
happy and glad
‘happily ever after’
(6c) stare su
stay up
‘to get up’
(6d) volente o nolente
willing or not-willing
‘willing or not’
(6e) di fronte a
of front at
‘in front of’
(6f) fino a che
until at that
‘as long as’
(6g) porca miseria!
bloody misery
‘for God’s sake!’
(6h) se stesso
oneself same
‘oneself’
These items are not words in the proper sense, since they have a phrase-like struc-
ture; some of them may even be separable under certain conditions.2 At the same
time, however, they present a unitary, often conventionalized semantics, and dis-
play a higher degree of internal cohesion than free phrases.
As an example, let us take phrasal lexemes that belong to the noun category,
i. e., phrasal nouns.3 Italian presents a variety of patterns that fill this class (cf.
Masini 2012), including:
(7a) NPN casa di riposo

home of rest
‘nursing home, hospice’
(7b) NPArtN parte del discorso
part of.the speech
‘part of speech’
(7c) NA anno accademico
year academic
‘academic year’
(7d) AN prima serata
first evening
‘prime time’
(7e) NConjN coltello e forchetta4
knife and fork
‘cutlery’
Phrasal nouns of the NP(Art)N type, for instance, look like normal noun phrases
(formed by a noun plus a prepositional phrase), but are more cohesive than free
phrases: indeed, they generally resist various operations (with some variation)
2 This is especially true of verbal expressions: stare su (6c), for instance, may be interrupted by
a light adverb, e. g. stai subito su! (lit. stay immediately up) ‘get up immediately!’. On this topic cf.
Voghera (2004), who claims that the (different) degree of cohesiveness displayed by these ex-
pressions partially depends on the lexical category they belong to, with prepositional and con-
juctional phrasal lexemes being more cohesive than adverbial and adjectival ones, the latter be-
ing more cohesive than nominal ones, whereas verbal expressions are the least cohesive of all.
3 These items have been named in many different ways in the literature, including, e. g., “phras-
al compounds” / “prepositional compounds” (Delfitto/Melloni 2009; Rio-Torto/Ribeiro 2009),
and “improper compounds” (Rainer/Varela 1992). The distinction between phrasal nouns and
compound nouns is not always trivial, as we will see in Section 3.
4 Coordinate phrasal nouns can also be formed by two verbs, e. g. va e vieni (lit. go and come)
‘coming and going / toing and froing’ (cf. Masini/Thornton 2008).
including interruption (8a), insertion of determiners (8b) or paradigmatic substi-

tution (8c) (cf. Masini 2009 for more details).
(8) casa di riposo (lit. home of rest) ‘retirement home, hospice’

(8a) *casa rinomata di riposo
home renown of rest
Intended reading: ‘renown retirement home’
(8b) *casa del riposo
home of.the rest
Intended reading: ‘retirement home’
(8c) *abitazione di riposo
dwelling of rest
Intended reading: ‘retirement home’
What is crucial about these items is that they are not just univerbations or lexical-
ized phrases that emerge diachronically. Some certainly are, but a number of
them are actually neologisms productively created by speakers to name new con-
cepts. Sometimes, they are calques from other languages. Take for instance the
three following examples, from the ONLI database:5
(9a) cibo di strada

food of street
‘street food’
(9b) popolo della rete
people of.the Internet
‘people who use the Internet’
(9c) città digitale
town digital
‘a town endowed with digital technology that inhabitants can use to access
public information and services’
Cibo di strada (9a) is a calque from English street food which is however rendered
in Italian with a NPN phrasal noun rather than a NN compound, which possibly
points to the higher availability of the former type. Popolo della rete and città digi
tale are new coinages that have been introduced into the Italian language by
exploiting the NPArtN and NA patterns, respectively. All examples in (9) are there-
5 Osservatorio Neologico della Lingua Italiana: www.iliesi.cnr.it/ONLI (last access: 11.6.2018).

fore conventionalized phrasal nouns with a naming function. Although wide-rang-

ing quantitative data are still unavailable, it is reasonable to think that phrasal
nouns constitute a significant part of neologisms in contemporary Italian. In this
respect, it is useful to remind that Émile Benveniste claimed, already in 1966, that
NPN is the true, productive compounding pattern in French (called by the author
“synapsie”, e. g. clair de lune lit. light of moon ‘moonlight’, moulin à vent lit. mill at
wind ‘windmill’).
In addition to nouns, Italian has a variety of phrasal means to form complex
predicates. This is important in view of the fact that Italian lacks verbal com-
pounding altogether; therefore, multiword verb formation may be seen as a way
to compensate this part of the Italian lexicon. There are two patterns that are
especially prominent in this domain: verb-particle constructions and light verb
constructions. As is well-known by now, Italian, despite being a Romance lan-
guage, also has particle verbs (e. g., Masini 2005, Iacobini/Masini 2007, Iacobini
2015), although the phenomenon is not as pervasive as in English (see (10)). Also
light verb constructions are quite widespread (11): they are formed by a light,
generic verb plus a predicative noun (cf., e. g., Jezek 2004).
(10a) andare su
go up
‘to go up(wards) / to ascend’
(10b) mettere sotto
put down
‘to run over (with a vehicle)’
(10c) guardare avanti
look forward
‘to look forward / to look to the future’
(10d) buttare via
throw away
‘to throw away / to waste’
(11a) mettere fretta

put hurry
‘to hurry (causative)’
(11b) prendere freddo
take cold
‘to get cold’
(11c) avere paura

have fear
‘to be afraid’
(11d) dare vita (a)
give life (to)
‘to create’
Since phrasal lexemes (and other MWEs) can be seen as constructions within
CxM – exactly like simple and complex words, as well as word formation schemas
and subschemas – we expect them to interact in various ways with word-forma-
tion processes. Hüning/Schlücker (2015) claim that “MWEs and compounds are
largely a complementary means for creating lexical units”. In Section 4, I offer
some data and reflections about the relationship between these two strategies in
terms of competition. Before that, however, it is necessary to discuss some demar-
cation issues.
3 D
emarcation issues
Starting from the idea that we have two sets of complex lexical constructions that
are used to form stable (stored), complex denotations in the world’s languages,
namely compounds and MWEs, we may ask if they can actually be distinguished,
and on which ground. In addition, we may want to ask whether their demarcation
is clear-cut or not in every language, and if the criteria to be used are valid cross-
linguistically. The expectation is that crosslinguistic validity is hardly achievable,
since the demarcation between compounds and MWEs ultimately has to do with
the demarcation between morphology and syntax, between words and phrases,
which is a well-known, unsolved question, especially in a typological perspective
(cf., e. g., Haspelmath 2011).
Compounds as purely morphological objects have been defined by Guevara/
Scalise (2009: 108) as complex words formed by two (or more) words whose gen-
eral structure is captured by the formula in (12). Let us take this operational defi-
nition as a starting point for our discussion.
(12) [X ℜ Y]Z
where X, Y and Z represent major lexical categories, and ℜ represents an
implicit relationship between the constituents (a relationship not spelled
out by any lexical item)
First, it is interesting to note that, according to (12), compound words should

belong to major lexical categories only, i. e. to open classes that can be synchron-
ically enriched with new members. As we have seen in Section 2, phrasal lexemes
in Italian can also belong to minor lexical categories. Hence, this is one possible
difference between compounds and MWEs in Italian (not necessarily valid in
every language). However, MWEs belonging to minor lexical categories (preposi-
tions, conjunctions, etc.) are basically the result of a diachronic process of lexi-
calization or univerbation, whereas at least some of the MWEs belonging to major
lexical categories seem to result from a synchronic process of lexical creation.
Therefore, synchronically speaking, both compounds and MWEs feed the same
(open) classes (as is natural to expect).
Second, not all major lexical categories are equally fed by compounding and
MWEs: languages differ in this respect. In Italian, compounds are mostly nouns
(which is also the primary input category) and secondarily adjectives, whereas
compound verbs and adverbs are basically absent. MWEs, on the other hand,
feed also verbs and adverbs.
Third, the restriction to lexical categories implies that higher level structures
(e. g. sentences) are excluded from compounding (obviously so), whereas we
know that some MWEs may coincide with full sentences and utterances (e. g. say-
ings and formulaic expressions) or full VPs (cf. especially verbal idioms, e. g. like
mettere le mani avanti lit. put the hands forward ‘to prevent an unpleasant
situation’).
So, overall, we can conclude that in Italian (and possibly other languages)
compounds and MWEs have a partially different distribution: whereas com-
pounds function as word-level elements, MWEs may also correspond to full
phrases and even sentences. Of course, there is a subset of MWEs – named here
phrasal lexemes – that are closer to compounds in that, as anticipated in Sec-
tion 2.2, they: i) have the same concept-naming function of compounds and words
in general; ii) have the same distribution of a word (e. g. carta di credito ‘credit
card’, which functions syntactically like a noun, with which it may be substi-
tuted: pagare con la carta di credito ‘to pay with credit card’ vs. pagare con i cont
anti ‘to pay with cash’).
Then, how can we distinguish compounds and phrasal lexemes in Italian?
Let us concentrate on phrasal nouns, since noun is the preferred output cat-
egory for Italian compounding (but also crosslinguistically: cf. Guevara/Scalise
2009). Before focusing on Italian, I briefly discuss some examples from various
languages that are meant to illustrate some of the criteria proposed in the litera-
ture to distinguish between compound nouns and phrasal nouns.
In Dutch, AN compounds and AN phrasal lexemes can be formally distin-

guished since the latter display agreement inflection on the adjective (see the suf-
fix -e in (13a–b)),6 whereas the former do not (13c–d) (cf. Booij 2009a).
(13a) donker-e kamer (Dutch)

‘dark room’
(13b) mager-e yoghurt
‘fat-free yoghurt’
(13c) fijn-stof
‘fine-grained dust’
(13d) vroeg-geboorte
‘premature birth’
German works very similarly (cf. Schlücker/Hüning 2009): like in Dutch, in Ger-
man AN compounds, the adjective is not inflected, bears the main stress and is
generally monomorphemic (14a), whereas in AN phrasal lexemes the adjective is
inflected, does not bear the main stress, and can be complex (cf. (14b–c)).
(14a) Rot-wein (German)

‘red wine’
(14b) werdende Mutter
‘mother-to-be’
(14c) werdender Vater
‘father-to-be’
In Russian, phrasal nouns display regular agreement (15a) or government (15b)

among the constituents (which are independent words), whereas compounds do
not, since the first member is typically a root (hence a bounded element) con-
nected to the second constituent by a linking vowel (16) (cf. Masini/Benigni 2012).
(15a) suchoe moloko (Russian)

dry.nom.sg.neut milk.nom.sg.neut
‘powdered milk’
(15b) točka zrenija
point.nom.sg.f view.gen.sg.neut
‘point of view’
6 As Booij (2009a: 224) states, “[t]he pre-nominal adjective ends in the suffix -e, unless the NP is
indefinite and the head noun is singular and neuter (in the latter case the ending is zero)”.
(16) sux-o-frukty (Russian)

dry-lv-fruit.m.pl.nom
‘dry fruit’
Quite expectedly, the criteria vary from language to language, depending on lan-
guage-specific properties. Some criteria may be shared by more than one lan-
guage (e. g. Dutch and Russian share the loss of agreement inflection, although
the phenomenon is more consistent in Russian), whereas others may not (e. g.
Russian linking vowels can be used to distinguish compounds from phrases, but
not all languages feature these items). Furthermore, some criteria are themselves
questionable: it is not clear, for instance, whether “semantic transparency”
would be a reliable criterion, as we will discuss below.
What about Italian? How can we say, for instance, that the expressions in (17)
are phrasal nouns and not compounds?
(17a) cart-a telefonic-a [NA]N

card-f.sg of_the_phone-f.sg
‘phone card’
(17b) terz-o mond-o [AN]N
third-m.sg world-m.sg
‘Third World’
(17c) casa di cura [NPN]N
house of treatment
‘nursing home’
(17d) botta e risposta [NConjN]N
blow and answer
‘cut and thrust, verbal crossfire’
It seems to me that the following criteria might be used for Italian, taking the
definition in (12) and lexical integrity as reference points:
(18a) i nternal agreement (absent in compounds, present in phrasal lexemes);

explicit relational markers, such as conjunctions and prepositions
(18b)
(absent in compounds, present in phrasal lexemes);
minor lexical categories, such as articles (absent in compounds, present
(18c)
in phrasal lexemes);
bounded elements, such as roots/stems or linking vowels (present in
(18d)
compounds, absent in phrasal lexemes).
Agreement in number and gender is present in (17a) and (17b), as shown by the
glosses. The presence of explicit relational markers is displayed by both (17c)
(preposition di ‘of’) and (17d) (conjunction e ‘and’). The presence of minor lexical
categories is shown by the examples in (19): in (19a) the two nouns are linked by
a preposition with article (della ‘of the’ = di ‘of’ + la ‘the.f.sg’), whereas in (19b)
we have a lexicalized expression containing an article. Finally, bounded elements
show up in compounds only (cf. Section 2.1).7
(19a) macchina della verità

machine of.the truth
‘lie detector’
(19b) cessate il fuoco
cease.imp.pl the fire
‘ceasefire’
It is worth noting that the proposed criteria are formal, not semantic. Bisetto
(2004) proposes a semantic criterion to distinguish between compounds and
so-called polirematiche (an Italian standard term for phrasal lexemes): com-
pounds would be the result of a productive process, thus tending to be hyponyms
of their heads, whereas polirematiche would arise from lexicalization and thus
typically display a non-compositional meaning. In our view, this semantic crite-
rion is not really deciding: on the one hand, we may have compounds that are
formed productively and can be readily interpreted by the hearer (cf. (20a), where
capostazione is actually a type of capo) and compounds that are more lexicalized
and whose semantics is not as transparent (20b); on the other hand, phrasal
nouns may either be created on the basis of a productive and interpretable pat-
tern (21a) or arise from lexicalization or idiomatization of a phrase (21b).
(20a) capo-stazione
head-station
‘stationmaster’
7 A possible counterexample would be the phrasal lexemes with two coordinated verbs men-
tioned in footnote 4 (e. g. va e vieni lit. go and come ‘coming and going’). As argued by Masini/
Thornton (2008), the verbal forms used in these expressions are homophonous to the 2nd person
singular imperative, exactly like the verbal forms occurring within VN compounds. If we analyze
this verbal form as some sort of morphomic stem used in Italian morphology, we end up with a
clash: use of a bounded form on the one hand, and presence of an explicit relational marker (e
‘and’) on the other.
(20b) capo-cielo
head-sky
‘canopy erected over a high altar’
(21a) mulino a vento

mill at wind
‘windmill’
(21b) luna di miele
moon of honey
‘honeymoon’
The application of the criteria proposed above is not always straightforward and
may produce unexpected results. Take for instance the agreement criterion. This
is pretty efficient in Dutch and Russian, but less so in Italian, since agreement
takes place in virtually all combinations of a noun and an adjective. This means
that even an expression like croce-rossa (cross.f.sg-red.f.sg) ‘Red Cross’, which is
traditionally regarded as a compound in the literature (like many others, e. g.,
cassaforte ‘safe’ in Table 1), should instead be considered as a phrasal lexeme by
this criterion, exactly like carta telefonica and terzo mondo in (17a–b).
Along these lines, one may argue that also “internal inherent inflection” (i. e.
inflectional marking occuring inside the word, not triggered by agreement, such
as number for nouns) should be considered as a criterion to be added to the list in
(18). Also in this case, we would end up regarding many Italian items (tradition-
ally analyzed as compounds) as phrasal lexemes, such as left-headed NN com-
pounds of the capostazione type (20a), in which the plural marker applies to the
left (head) constituent: capo-stazione (lit. head-station) ‘stationmaster’ turns
into capi-stazione (lit. heads-station) ‘stationmasters’, and not *capo-stazioni
(head-stations), with plural marker on the right (as we would expect from a “true
word”). However, we can also observe that, despite internal inflection, capostazi
one is still (at least partly) compound-like due to the absence of any relational
element (see criterion (18b)) between capo and stazione (cf. the corresponding
phrasal expression capo della stazione lit. head of.the station). Therefore, the
compound-phrasal noun demarcation may be a matter of degree rather than
clear-cut (cf. also footnote 7): for instance, compounds that display no internal
agreement and no internal (inherent) inflection (e. g. dopoguerra ‘post war period’
or asciugamani ‘towel’, cf. (2), Section 2.1) are more compound-like than capo
stazione (which is split by inflection in the plural). In other words, the concepts of
compound and phrasal lexeme may be seen as prototypes, or radial categories,
that can be defined on the basis of a complex interaction of properties, rather
than on a set of necessary and sufficient features.
All in all, based on the observations above, one may note that the demarca-
tion between noun compounds and phrasal nouns in Italian largely relies on cri-
teria that typically distinguish words from phrases, with the complication that
phrasal nouns are not free, full-fledged phrases.8 As is well-known, word(hood) is
far from being a simple concept with crosslinguistic validity (Haspelmath 2011).
However, CxM assumes that “cohesiveness is the defining criterion for canonical
wordhood” (Booij 2009b: 97). And cohesiveness obviously manifests itself in dif-
ferent ways in different languages, depending on the morphological and syntac-
tic properties of the language in question. So, the exact criteria to be used should
be identified on a language-specific basis, but the same general principle applies.
Given these premises, we might expect to have languages in which the formal
differences between compounds and phrasal lexemes are evident and easily
detectable (e. g. Russian, i. e. a language where compounds are mostly root-com-
pounds), languages in which these are vague or even non-existent (e. g. English,
where it is very difficult to state whether conventionalized AN combinations such
as black board are compounds or phrases, cf. Giegerich 2005, 2009), and lan-
guages, such as Italian, that are in-between, since they offer at least some evi-
dence in favor of maintaining such a division.
In conclusion, we may regard the demarcation between compounds and
phrasal lexemes as an element of variation among the languages of the world that
possibly correlates with their morphological type: with the limited data gathered
so far, we may hypothesize that this demarcation is clearer in highly inflectional
languages displaying root compounding, whereas in isolating languages the
boundary is definitely more blurred, if not absent.
4 C
ompetition issues
Competition in morphology and the lexicon is generally viewed as a relation
holding between different word-level strategies that compete to realize the same
grammatical or lexico-conceptual meaning. However, recent work has claimed
that morphological words also compete with MWEs (Booij 2010; Hüning/Schlü
cker 2015; Masini 2016, to appear). The relationship between morphological
words and MWEs, however, is still underinvestigated and calls for further research.
8 The following general properties keep phrasal lexemes apart from true, free phrases: greater
internal cohesion, paradigmatic fixedness (i. e., they resist lexical substitution) and convention-
alized (though not necessarily idiomatic) meaning (cf. Section 2.2, example (8)).
In this section I show that competition between compounds and MWEs may
result in the blocking of specific lexical items, and that these blocking effects may
operate in both directions.9 More specifically, I briefly illustrate three case-studies
regarding the competition between compounds and phrasal lexemes in the nom-
inal domain, namely: i) NP(Art)N phrasal nouns (e. g. macchina della verità ‘lie
detector’) in comparison with NN compounds (e. g. capostazione ‘stationmaster’)
(Section 4.1); ii) the simile construction with color adjectives (e. g. rosso come il
fuoco lit. red as the fire ‘red as fire’) in comparison with the corresponding com-
pound pattern (e. g. rosso fuoco lit. red fire ‘fire-like red’) (Section 4.2); iii) irrever
sible binomials (e. g. sano e salvo ‘safe and sound’) as compared with coordinate
compounds of the sordomuto ‘deaf-mute’ type (Section 4.3).
4.1 C
omplex nominals: NP(Art)N phrasal nouns vs. NN
compounds
NN compounding is attested in Romance languages, including Italian (cf., e. g.,

Masini/Scalise 2012, Radimský 2015). At the same time, we have NP(Art)N phrasal
nouns (cf. Section 2), which are another productive way to form complex nomi-
nals in Romance languages (especially – but not exclusively – in special lan-
guages), as already noted by Benveniste (1966) for French (cf. also Voghera 2004
and Masini 2009 for Italian; Bernal 2012 for Catalan; Rio-Torto/Ribeiro 2012 for
Portuguese). See some examples below.
(22a) giacca a vento (Italian)

jacket at wind
‘windbreaker’
(22b) moulin à vent (French)
mill at wind
‘windmill’
(22c) mal de cap (Catalan)
pain of head
‘headache’
(22d) cadeira de rodas (Portuguese)
chair of wheels
‘wheelchair’
9 For a broader picture of the competition between MWEs and all kinds of morphological words,
including simple words and derived words, cf. Masini (2016, to appear).
Given that NN compounds and NP(Art)N phrasal nouns coexist in Italian, and
that both are used to coin new complex nominals, competition between these two
patterns is likely to emerge. As a case-study, let us consider Italian NN compounds
where capo ‘head, boss’ is the head (leftmost) constituent. This pattern of com-
pounding is pretty productive in Italian and is associated with the meaning
‘head/boss of N’.10
(23a) capo-stazione
head-station
‘stationmaster’
(23b) capo-classe
head-class
‘class president’
(23c) capo-gruppo
head-group
‘group leader’
(23d) capo-famiglia
head-family
‘head of the family’
Other possible capo+N compounds could be:
(24a) °capo-stato
head-state
(24b) °capo-governo
head-government
(24c) °capo-polizia
head-police
However, these perfectly well-formed items are not actually produced (the ° sign
marks well-formed but non-existent expressions). The reason for this is that they
are blocked by already existing NPN phrasal nouns featuring the same constitu-
ent words, namely:
10 Note that not all capo+N compounds have this semantics: some mean ‘chief N’, such as capo-
redattore (lit. head-editor) ‘editor in chief’.
(25a) capo dello stato

head of.the state
‘head of state’
(25b) capo del governo
head of.the government
‘Prime Minister’
(25c) capo della polizia
head of.the police
‘chief of police’
The reverse may also occur: for instance, the expression capo della classe (26) is
perfectly grammatical and interpretable as ‘class president’; however, it is not
used with this specific intended reading, because the same meaning is already
conveyed by the established compound capoclasse (cf. (23b)).
(26) °capo della classe

head of.the class
‘class president’
This type of competition in Italian can be compared to a similar case in Dutch

and German. In these languages, AN combinations could be realized either as
phrasal nouns (cf. (27a), (28a)) or as compounds (cf. (27b), (28b)) (cf. Booij
2009a, 2010 for Dutch; Hüning/Schlücker 2015 for German; cf. also Section 3).
If we try to create the corresponding combination (cf. (27a’–b’), (28a’–b’)), we
get a possible but non-existent or non-conventionalized expression (in the
intended reading).
(27a) grüne Welle (lit. green wave) ‘progressive signal system’ (German)
(27a’) °Grünwelle
(27b) Dunkelkammer ‘darkroom’
(27b’) °dunkle Kammer
(28a) wilde gans (lit. wild goose) ‘brant’ (Dutch)

(28a’) °wildgans
(28b) sneltrein (lit. fast-train) ‘express train’
(28b’) °snelle trein
These data may be interpreted either as cases of lexical blocking (Rainer 2016)
(token blocking in Rainer 1988) or rather as an effect of a more general tension
between two competing patterns, namely, in the Italian case, between NN com-
pounding on the one hand and NP(Art)N phrasal lexemes on the other. Both
views are viable in a constructionist view of morphology and the lexicon, where
constructions are arranged into an inheritance hierarchy where abstract schemas
generalize over more specific constructions. Hence, which type of blocking is
actually at work is an empirical question.
4.2 C
omplex color expressions: simile constructions vs.
compounds
In many languages we find simile constructions with an intensifying meaning

headed by an adjective of the type exemplified in (29) for English (cf. Kay 2013)
and (30) for German (cf. Hüning/Schlücker 2015, Schlücker this volume). Most are
conventionalized and qualify as MWEs.
(29) [A as NP] (English)

(29a) dead as a doornail ‘quite dead’
(29b) light as a feather ‘extremely light’
(29c) flat as a pancake ‘completely flat’
(30) [(so) A wie NP] (German)

(30a) (so) weiß wie Schnee ‘(as) white as snow’
(30b) (so) flink wie ein Wiesel ‘(as) quick as a flash’
(30c) (so) schlank wie eine Gerte ‘(as) slender as a whip’
A very similar pattern is found in Italian, where come corresponds to as and

wie:
(31) [A come NP]

(31a) vecchio come il mondo
old as the world
‘very old’
(31b) bello come il sole
beautiful as the sun
‘very beautiful’
(31c) liscio come l’ olio
smooth as the oil
‘very smooth’
If we search the [A come NP] pattern in a large corpus11 and rank the results for
frequency, what we find is that many of the top ranked occurrences contain a
color term (32), most notably nero ‘black’, bianco ‘white’ and rosso ‘red’ (but also
other colors, e. g. azzurro ‘light-blue’, giallo ‘yellow’, blu ‘blue’, verde ‘green’). The
simile construction with color terms apparently retains the intensification mean-
ing associated with the general [A come NP] construction.
(32) [ACOLOR come NP]

(32a) nero come la pece
black as the pitch
‘pitch black’
(32b) bianco come la neve
white as the snow
‘snow-white’
(32c) rosso come il sangue
red as the blood
‘blood red’
Interestingly, some of the AN pairs occurring within the simile construction are
also found as compounds in German, as noted by Hüning/Schlücker (2015):
(33a) weiß wie Schnee ~ schneeweiß (German)

white as snow ‘snow-white’
(33b) flink wie ein Wiesel ~ wieselflink
nimble as a weasel ‘quick as a flash’
(33c) schlank wie eine Gerte ~ gertenschlank
slender as a whip ‘(as) slender as a whip’
The same holds for Italian, but only for a subset of expressions, namely those
containing a color adjective (34). Similar doublets are not found in Italian with
other kinds of adjectives (cf. (35), corresponding to (31)).
11 The data for this analysis are taken from the Italian Web 2010 (or itTenTen10) corpus, a web
corpus of approx. 2,5 billion words searched through the SketchEngine (www.sketchengine.
co.uk, last access: March 2017).
(34) [ACOLOR come NP] MWE ~ [ACOLOR N] compound

(34a) bianco come il latte ~ bianco latte
white as the milk
‘milk-white’
(34b) nero come il carbone ~ nero carbone
black as the coal
‘coal-black’
(34c) azzurro come il cielo ~ azzurro cielo
light_blue as the sky
‘sky-blue’
(35a) vecchio come il mondo ~ *vecchio mondo

old as the world
‘very old’
(35b) bello come il sole ~ *bello sole
beautiful as the sun
‘very beautiful’
(35c) liscio come l’ olio ~ *liscio olio
smooth as the oil
‘very smooth’
Compounds of the [ACOLOR N] type are relatively common in Italian (cf. D’Achille/
Grossmann 2010, 2013). The color A is the head of the compound (and is generally
invariable), whereas the N serves as a modifier: more precisely, it denotes a refer-
ent that typically exemplifies the shade of the color in question. The expression
giallo canarino (lit. yellow canary), for instance, denotes a kind of yellow that is
typically exemplified by canary birds.
Therefore, we have a domain, that of complex color adjectives, where there
seem to be two competing strategies that form expressions with similar content:
[ACOLOR come NP] multiword simile constructions and [ACOLOR N] compounds. How
much do they actually overlap?
In order to answer this question, I generated frequency lists of both the [ACOLOR
N] and the [A come NP] pattern for five color terms (nero ‘black’, bianco ‘white’,
rosso ‘red’, azzurro ‘light-blue’, verde ‘green’), using the itTenTen10 corpus (cf.
footnote 11), and then I compared the top results of the (manually revised) lists,
in order to see if the two constructions occur with the same nouns. It turned out
that the two constructions share quite a lot of nouns, thus producing a consider-
able number of doublets. As an exemplification, see the 15 top ranked hits for
rosso ‘red’ in Table 2, where the grey cells highlight the nouns that both construc-
tions occur with.
Table 2: Comparing [rosso N] and [rosso come NP]: top ranked results from the itTenTen10
corpus
[rosso N] ‘N-red’ Ns [rosso come NP] ‘red as NP’ Ns
rosso fuoco (fire) rosso come il sangue (blood)
rosso rubino (ruby) rosso come il fuoco (fire)
rosso sangue (blood) rosso come un peperone (pepper)
rosso porpora (purple) rosso come un pomodoro (tomato)
rosso ciliegia (cherry) rosso come un gambero (shrimp)
rosso mattone (brick) rosso come la passione (passion)
rosso corallo (coral) rosso come un papavero (poppy)
rosso tramonto (sunset) rosso come un tacchino (turkey)
rosso fiamma (flame) rosso come il cuore (heart)
rosso fragola (strawberry) rosso come una ciliegia (cherry)
rosso pomodoro (tomato) rosso come un peperoncino (hot pepper)
rosso ruggine (rust) rosso come la terra (earth)
rosso vino (wine) rosso come la brace (embers)
rosso passione (passion) rosso come il tramonto (sunset)
rosso papavero (poppy) rosso come il corallo (coral)
A similar picture emerged for other colors. For instance: nero ‘black’ frequently
occurs with pece ‘pitch’, notte ‘night’, carbone ‘coal’, inchiostro ‘ink’ and petrolio
‘oil’ in both constructions (vs. e. g. morte ‘death’, which selects only the simile
construction: nero come la morte lit. black like the death ‘intense black’); bianco
‘white’ frequently occurs with latte ‘milk’, avorio ‘ivory’, marmo ‘marble’, neve
‘snow’, carta ‘paper’ and cadavere ‘corpse’ in both constructions (vs. cencio ‘rag’
and crema ‘cream’, which occur only in one construction: bianco come un cencio
lit. white as a rag ‘very pale’, bianco crema lit. white cream ‘cream-like white’).
Therefore, these two constructions share quite a lot of environment and actually
seem to compete with each other.
At this point, one may inquire whether they are really equivalent. Take for
instance the pairs in (36)–(39), where the (a) examples are taken from the
itTenTen10 corpus and the (b) examples contain the corresponding (either MWE
or compound) expression.
(36a) Una villa bianco neve si stagliava su un pendio scosceso

‘A snow-white villa stood out on a steep slope’
(36b) Una villa bianca come la neve si stagliava su un pendio scosceso
Per arrivarci bisogna guadare a piedi un fiume [...] rosso come la ruggine
(37a)
‘To get there you have to cross on foot a rust-like red river’
(37b) Per arrivarci bisogna guadare a piedi un fiume [...] rosso ruggine
(38a) Le occhiaie nero pece mi ricordano della nottata appena trascorsa

‘The pitch-black bags under my eyes remind me of the night that has just
passed’
Le occhiaie nere come la pece mi ricordano della nottata appena trascorsa
(38b)
(39a) I suoi occhi, azzurri come il ghiaccio, mandavano lampi gelidi

‘His eyes, blue as the ice, were sending icy flashes’
(39b) I suoi occhi, azzurro ghiaccio, mandavano lampi gelidi
In these pairs, the two expressions seem quite interchangeable. However, a closer
analysis of a number of examples showed that interchangeability is possible in
specific contexts that meet certain semantic properties, to which I now turn.
I mentioned above that compounds of the [ACOLOR N] type denote, quite neu-
trally, a kind of color that is typically exemplified by N, whereas the simile con-
struction with color terms, besides denoting a type of color, shares the intensifi-
cation meaning with the general [A come NP] construction. This intensifying
effect is especially prominent when N refers to an object that is associated with an
intense shade, or with the focal shade of the color in question (40a). The intensi-
fication effect diminishes when N identifies a referent that is not associated with
such an intense or “prototypical” shade (40b). At the same time, when the com-
pound features an N that identifies a referent that is associated with such an
intense or “prototypical” shade of the color at hand (41a), some slight intensifica-
tion emerges, otherwise absent in this construction (41b).12
(40a) rosso come il sangue (lit. red as the blood) ‘blood-red’

⇒ true/intense red
12 Incidentally, the association with an entity (N) that is regarded as a prototypical example of
the property conveyed by A might actually be at the basis of the intensification meaning con-
veyed by the more general [A come NP] construction.
(40b) rosso come la ruggine (lit. red as the rust) ‘rust-like red’
≠ true/intense red
(41a) bianco neve (lit. white snow) ‘snow-like white / snow-white’

⇒ true/pure white
(41b) bianco avorio (lit. white ivory) ‘creamy-white’
≠ true/pure white
The two patterns are more likely to be interchangeable when they tend to “con-
verge”, i. e. when the intensification value is low in the [ACOLOR come NP] pattern
(cf. (37), (39)) and when some intensification emerges in the [ACOLOR N] pattern (cf.
(36), (38)), depending on the kind of N used. This said, it must be added that even
in these specific situations, the two constructions are not totally equal semanti-
cally, because the simile construction always has a higher degree of expressive-
ness, probably inherited by the more general simile construction of which it is an
instance. Compounds, on the other hand, are more objective and neutral. In those
contexts where they are interchangeable, the two expressions may thus be seen
as propositional synonyms (Cruse 2004), i. e. as denotationally equivalent but dif-
ferent in expressive meaning.
Besides semantics, there are a number of formal properties, partially derived
from their phrasal vs. morphological status, that differentiate the two construc-
tions. First of all, in the [ACOLOR come NP] pattern the color adjective is variable (see
e. g. (39a), where azzurri agrees in number and gender with occhi: plural, mascu-
line), whereas in the compound pattern it is primarily invariable:13
(42a) una maglia verde prato

a sweater.sg green.sg lawn
‘a lawn-like green sweater’
(42b) due maglie verde prato
two sweater.pl green.sg lawn
‘two lawn-like green sweaters’
(42c) ?*due maglie verdi prato
two sweater.pl green.pl lawn
Second, in the [ACOLOR come NP] pattern, the color adjective can only be an adjec-
tive, whereas the compound may also be used as a noun:
13 Although D’Achille/Grossmann (2013) observed some variation in corpora.

(43a) Il rosso fuoco non ti si addice

‘Fire-like red doesn’t befit you’
(43b) *Il rosso come il fuoco non ti si addice
‘Red as fire doesn’t befit you’
Third, although the two constructions share a lot of nouns, not all nouns are
equally likely to occur in both constructions. For instance, the combination of
azzurro ‘light blue’ and polvere ‘dust’ seems to occur within the compound pat-
tern only (44a), whereas the combination of nero ‘black’ and buio ‘dark’ seems to
work only within the simile construction (44b).
(44a) azzurro polvere

light_blue dust
‘dust-like light blue’
°azzurro come la polvere
light_blue as the dust
(44b) nero come il buio
black as the dark
‘intense black’
°nero buio
black dark
In some cases, the attempt to apply a given A-N combination occurring in one
construction to the other construction results in an unacceptable string. This typ-
ically happens when N is an abstract noun (45a–a’), when a metonymy is at work
(cf. (45b–b’), where the entity referred to is not a cardinal, but the cardinal’s cas-
sock), and when the association with N has a purely intensifying effect, like in
(45c–c’), where there is no obvious relationship between rags and whiteness.
(45a) giallo tradimento

yellow betrayal
‘typical yellow (color associated with betrayal)’
(45a’) *giallo come il/un tradimento
yellow as a/the betrayal
(45b) rosso cardinale
red cardinal
‘cardinal red’
(45b’) *rosso come un cardinale
red as a cardinal
(45c) bianco come un cencio

white as a rag
‘very pale’
(45c’) *bianco cencio
white rag
In conclusion, what emerges from this overall picture is that the two construc-
tions are not really equivalent in terms of both meaning and form. In some spe-
cific instances the two versions – compound and multiword – are pretty close and
possibly competing with one another (although the multiword version is gener-
ally more expressive), but even in these cases they have partially different struc-
tural properties. Besides, they do not share the whole array of possible A-N pairs.
In other words, the two constructions seem to do their best not to overlap too
much, and to differentiate from each other.
4.3 C
oordination in the lexicon: irreversible binomials vs.
compounds
The last case-study I am going to briefly discuss concerns morphological and

multiword coordinating constructions. As exemplified below, Italian displays
both coordinate compounds (46) and so-called “irreversible binomials” (cf.,
among many others, Malkiel 1959; Lambrecht 1984; Masini 2006 for Italian) (47):
(46a) sordo-muto
deaf-mute
‘deaf-mute’
(46b) studente-lavoratore
student-worker
‘student-worker’
(46c) agro-dolce
sour-sweet
‘sweet and sour, bittersweet’
(46d) ceco-slovacco
Czech-Slovak
‘Czechoslovak’
(47a) sano e salvo

healthy and safe
‘safe and sound’
(47b) vivo e vegeto

alive and thriving
‘alive and well’
(47c) anima e corpo
soul and body
‘body and soul’
Along the lines of the pattern for coordinate compounds, we might theoretically
form compounds like those in (48): however, these expressions are not actually
created by speakers because the corresponding binomials already exist (47a–b).
(48a) °sanosalvo
healthy-safe
(48b) °vivo-vegeto
alive-thriving
The reverse situation may also occur: for instance, the existence of an established
coordinate compound like sordomuto (46a) blocks the formation, or lexicaliza-
tion, of the corresponding irreversible binomial (49), which would be technically
well-formed.
(49) °sordo e muto

deaf and mute
To which extent are these two patterns – coordinate compounds and irreversible
binomials – actually equivalent? Let us take a step back.
Arcodia/Grandi/Wälchli (2010: 178) propose a macro-distinction between:
i) “hyperonymic coordinate compounds” (what Wälchli 2005 calls “co-com-
pounds”), which express superordinate-level concepts, i. e. their referent is in a
superordinate relationship to the meaning of the parts (cf. (50a)); ii) “hyponymic
coordinate compounds”, which express subordinate-level concepts, i. e. their ref-
erent is in a subordinate relationship to the meaning of the parts (cf. (50b)). They
also claim that, whereas the latter are common in Standard Average European
(SAE) languages, including of course Italian (cf. also Grandi 2011), the former are
more typically found in East and South East Asia.
(50a) dāo-qiāng (Mandarin)

sword-spear
‘weapons’
(50b) lanza-espada (Spanish)

spear+sword
‘a spear with a blade, i. e. a spear which is a sword at the same time’
In addition, Wälchli (2005) shows that co-compounds in the world’s languages

may be classified into different semantic types according to the relationship
between the whole and the constituents. Most of the (non-compositional) mean-
ings identified by Wälchli (2005: 138) for co-compounds crosslinguistically are
not found in Italian coordinate compounds (which are typically of the “hypo-
nymic” type), like for instance the generalizing meaning (51), the collective mean-
ing (52), or the approximate meaning (53).
(51) Generalizing (= the output universally quantifies over the input)

t’ese-toso (Mordvin)
here-there
‘everywhere’
(52) Collective (= the output is a hypernym of the input items)

sĕt-śu (Chuvash)
milk-butter
‘dairy products’
(53) Approximate (= the output is an approximation w.r.t. the input)

ob peb (White Hmong)
two three
‘some’
However, Masini (2006, 2012) shows that most of these functions are actually
found in Italian, but they are conveyed by irreversible binomials (cf. (54a), (55a),
(56a)). Most likely the same holds for other SAE languages: see for instance the
English examples in (54b), (55b) and (56b).
(54) Generalizing
(54a) giorno e notte (Italian)
day and night
‘day and night, always’
(54b) high and low (meaning ‘everywhere’) (English)
(55) Collective
(55a) coltello e forchetta (Italian)
knife and fork
‘cutlery’
(55b) bra and panties (meaning ‘lingerie’) (English)
(56) Approximate
(56a) poco o niente (Italian)
little or nothing
‘very little, almost nothing’
(56b) two or three (meaning ‘some’) (English)
Therefore, despite their structural resemblance, the actual competition between

the two coordinating strategies under examination is quite limited, since the two
patterns are similar but not equivalent: although they might compete in some
specific cases (cf. the semantic similarity between sordomuto ‘deaf-mute’, being
the sum of deaf and mute, and vivo e vegeto ‘alive and well’, being the sum of alive
and thriving), overall the two patterns are specialized for different functions,
compensating, so to speak, for one another.
5 T
owards a unified treatment of complex lexical
items
In this paper I dealt with complex lexical items in Italian, namely proper com-
pounds and MWEs. Specifically, I focused on so-called phrasal lexemes, which
are closer to compounds in distribution and function than other (e. g. sen-
tence-level) MWEs. Whereas compounds mostly feed nouns and adjectives in Ital-
ian, phrasal lexemes – beside creating expressions belonging to nouns/adjectives
– may also feed other major word classes, most notably verbs and adverbs, thus
apparently compensating the limits of compounding in these specific areas. What
should be stressed, once again, is that phrasal lexemes are not just the product of
diachronic lexicalization: some instances certainly are, but some others are the
result of synchronic lexical creation that relies on stored naming patterns (i. e.,
constructions).
The demarcation between compounds and phrasal lexemes turned out to be
a non-trivial issue. I proposed four tentative criteria for the Italian language, i. e.
presence/absence of: internal agreement, explicit relational markers, minor lexi-
cal categories, bounded elements. However, this set of criteria has no pretense of
crosslinguistic validity: in fact, each language will display a specific set of prop-
erties that help distinguishing between these two kinds of constructions (when
this is actually possible). Ultimately, these criteria trace back to the traditional
distinction between morphology and syntax, which is however not clear-cut
within a constructionist view of the grammar.
I also contributed some data and observations on the competition that –
quite expectedly – emerges between compounds and phrasal lexemes, given
their shared function. I showed that this competition may lead to bidirectional
blocking: compounds may block the establishment of a phrasal lexeme in the
lexicon, and an established phrasal lexeme may block the creation of a new com-
pound. From the data examined so far, it seems that these two competing pat-
terns tend to differentiate, by specializing for different functions (cf. especially
Sections 4.2 and 4.3). This goes into the direction advocated for by Aronoff (2016,
to appear) in recent work, where competition leads to either extinction of one of
the competitors, or to differentiation in terms of form, meaning or distribution, as
a result of a “struggle for existence” between linguistic expressions.
In conclusion, the discussion of demarcation and competition issues carried
out in this chapter suggests a view of the mental lexicon where both compounds
and phrasal lexemes are stored, on a par with each other: they share the same
function and distribution, they may compensate for each other at the most
abstract level, and they definitely compete with each other for the expression of
lexico-conceptual meanings.
References
Ackerman, Farrell/Webelhuth, Gert (1997): The composition of (dis)continuous predicates:
Lexical or syntactic? In: Acta Linguistic Hungarica 44, 3/4. 317–340.
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco/Grandi, Nicola/Wälchli, Bernhard (2010): Coordination in
compounding. In: Scalise, Sergio/Vogel, Irene (eds.). 177–197.
Aronoff, Mark (2016): Competition and the lexicon. In: Elia, Annibale/Iacobini, Claudio/
Voghera, Miriam (eds.): Livelli di analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Roma: Bulzoni. 39–52.
Aronoff, Mark (to appear): Competitors and alternants in linguistic morphology. In: Rainer,
Franz/Gardani, Francesco/Dressler, Wolfgang U./Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.).
Baldwin, Timothy/Kim, Su Nam (2010): Multiword expressions. In: Indurkhya, Nitin/Damerau,
Fred J. (eds.): Handbook of Natural Language Processing. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
267–292.
Benveniste, Émile (1966): Différentes formes de la composition nominale en français. In:
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 61, 1. 82–95.
Bernal, Elisenda (2012): Catalan compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 5–27.
Bisetto, Antonietta (2004): Composizione con elementi italiani. In: Grossmann, Maria/Rainer,
Franz (eds.). 33–51.
Bisetto, Antonietta/Scalise, Sergio (1999): Compounding. Morphology and/or syntax? In:
Mereu, Lunella (ed.): Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins. 31–48.
Booij, Geert (2002a): Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon. In: Journal of
Germanic Linguistics 14, 4. 301–329.
Booij, Geert (2002b): Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation.
In: Dehé, Nicole et al. (eds.): Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
21–42.
Booij, Geert (2009a): Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. In: Word Structure 2, 2.
219–240.
Booij, Geert (2009b): Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. In: Scalise,
Sergio/Magni, Elisabetta/Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.). 83–100.
Butt, Miriam (1995): The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI.
Cacciari, Cristina/Tabossi, Patrizia (eds.) (1993): Idioms: Processing, structure, and
interpretation. Hillsdale: Psychology Press.
Cowie, Anthony (ed.) (1998): Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cruse, Alan (2004): Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
D’Achille, Paolo/Grossmann, Maria (2010): I composti aggettivo + aggettivo in italiano. In:
Iliescu, Maria/Siller-Runggaldier, Heidi M./Danler, Paul (eds.): Actes du XXVe Congrès
International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (3–8 sept. 2007, Innsbruck), VII.
Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 405–414.
D’Achille, Paolo/Grossmann, Maria (2013): I composti <colorati> in italiano tra passato e
presente. In: Casanova Herrero, Emili/Calvo Rigual, Cesáreo (eds.): Actas del XXVI
Congreso Internacional de Lingüística i Filología Románicas (Valencia, 6–11 de septiembre
2010). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 523–537.
Dehé, Nicole et al. (eds.) (2002): Verb-particle explorations. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Delfitto, Denis/Melloni, Chiara (2009): Compounds don’t come easy. In: Lingue e Linguaggio
VIII(1). 75–104.
Everaert, Martin et al. (eds.) (1995): Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives.
Hillsdale.
Fillmore, Charles/Kay, Paul/O’Connor, Mary Catherine (1988): Regularity and idiomaticity in
grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 3. 501–538.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2005): Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon-syntax interface. In:
Journal of Linguistics 41, 3. 571–591.
Giegerich, Heinz J. (2009): The English compound stress myth. In: Word Structure 2, 1. 1–17.
Grandi, Nicola (2011): La coordinazione tra morfologia e sintassi. Tendenze tipologiche ed
areali. In: Massariello Merzagora, Giovanna/Dal Maso, Serena (eds.): I luoghi della
traduzione/Le interfacce. Roma: Bulzoni. 881–895.
Grossmann, Maria/Rainer, Franz (eds.) (2004): La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Guevara, Emiliano/Scalise, Sergio (2009): Searching for universals in compounding. In:
Scalise, Sergio/Magni, Elisabetta/Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.). 101–128.
Haspelmath, Martin (2011): The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of
morphology and syntax. In: Folia Linguistica 45, 1. 31–80.
Grammar. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks.
(eds.). 450–467.
Iacobini, Claudio (2015): Particle-verbs in Romance. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 627–659.
Iacobini, Claudio/Masini, Francesca (2007): The emergence of verb-particle constructions in
Italian. In: Morphology 16, 2: 155–188.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990): Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1995): The boundaries of the lexicon. In: Everaert, Martin et al. (eds.). 133–165.
Jackendoff, Ray (1997): The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (2010): Meaning and the lexicon: the Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford:
Jezek, Elisabetta (2004): Types et degrés de verbes supports en italien. In: Linguisticae
investigationes 27, 2: 185–201.
Kay, Paul (2013): The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas/Trousdale,
Graeme (eds.). 32–48.
Lambrecht, Knud (1984): Formulaicity, frame semantics, and pragmatics in German binomial
expressions. In: Language 60, 4. 753–796.
Malkiel, Yakov (1959): Studies in irreversible binomials. In: Lingua 8. 113–160.
Masini, Francesca (2005): Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: the case of
Italian verb-particle constructions. In: SKY Journal of Linguistics 18. 145–173.
Masini, Francesca (2006): Binomial constructions: Inheritance, specification and subregu-
larities. In: Lingue e Linguaggio 5, 2. 207–232.
perspective. In: Word Structure 2, 2. 254–271.
Masini, Francesca (2012): Parole sintagmatiche in italiano. Roma: Caissa Italia.
Masini, Francesca (2016): Morphological words and multiword expressions: Competition or
cooperation? Paper given at the 17th International Morphology Meeting (IMM17), Vienna,
18–21 February 2016.
Masini, Francesca (to appear): Competition between morphological words and multiword
expressions. In: Rainer, Franz/Gardani, Francesco/Dressler, Wolfgang U./Luschützky,
Hans Christian (eds.).
Russian: The case for constructions. In: Morphology 22, 3. 417–451.
Masini, Francesca/Scalise, Sergio (2012): Italian compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 61–91.
Masini, Francesca/Thornton, Anna M. (2008): Italian VeV lexical constructions. In: On-line
Proceedings of the 6th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM6). University of Patras.
146–186.
Moon, Rosamund (1998): Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach.
New York: Clarendon Press.
languages of Europe. Vol. 1. (= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science
(HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Radimský, Jan (2015): Noun+Noun compounds in Italian: A corpus-based study. České
Budějovice: University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice.
Rainer, Franz (1988): Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality
nouns. In: Booij, Geert/van Marle, Jaap (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht:
Springer. 155–185.
Rainer, Franz (2016): Blocking. In: Aronoff, Mark (ed.): The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Linguistics. Internet: DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.33.
117–142.
Rainer, Franz/Gardani, Francesco/Dressler, Wolfgang U./Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.) (to
appear): Competition in inflection and word formation. Cham: Springer.
Ricca, Davide (2010): Corpus data and theoretical implications with special reference to Italian
V-N compounds. In: Scalise, Sergio/Vogel, Irene (eds.). 237–254.
Rio-Torto, Graça/Ribeiro, Sílvia (2009): Compounds in Portuguese. In: Lingue e Linguaggio
VIII(2). 271–291.
Rio-Torto, Graça/Ribeiro, Sílvia (2012): Portuguese compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 119–145.
Scalise, Sergio (1992): Compounding in Italian. In: Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di
Linguistica 4, 1. 175–199
Scalise, Sergio/Bisetto, Antonietta (2009): The classification of compounds. In: Lieber,
Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford
Scalise, Sergio/Magni, Elisabetta/Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.) (2009): Universals of language
today. Berlin: Springer.
Scalise, Sergio/Vogel, Irene (eds.) (2010): Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
comparison between German A+N compounds and corresponding phrases. In: Italian
Journal of Linguistics 21, 1. 209–234.
Voghera, Miriam (2004): Polirematiche. In: Grossmann, Maria/Rainer, Franz (eds.). 56–69.
Wälchli, Bernhard (2005): Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jesús Fernández-Domínguez
in Spanish
1 I ntroduction
Compounds have been customarily defined as lexical units that consist of two
lexemes. They are morphological entities.1 Phrases, for their part, may be made
up by one unit, but often comprise two elements when they carry internal modi-
fication. They are syntactic entities. Provisionally satisfactory though these
descriptions are, linguists are often in trouble when having to decide on which
basis a two-word structure is morphological or syntactic, as a formation may be
argued to be a compound on some grounds but at the same time display phrasal
features. Certainly, in any category, it is quite common for some members not to
meet all the prototypical features of the group; this is in fact statistically likely.
Compounding is no exception as can be seen regarding the many exceptions to
initial stress placement (e. g. ‘snowball vs. rubber ‘ball), or to spelling (market
place vs. market-place vs. marketplace). A dilemma arises, however, if peripheral
membership is not an exception but the norm (Bauer 1998: 65).
The Spanish word-formation system offers an array of means for the creation
of neologisms, typically classified within the categories of derivation, compound-
ing and minor processes. Derivation is by far the most fruitful resource and
includes prefixation (pintar lit. paint ‘to paint’ > repintar lit. re.paint ‘to repaint’),
suffixation (admirar lit. admire ‘to admire’ > admirable lit. admir.able ‘admira-
ble’) and infixation (cantar lit. sing ‘to sing’ > cant.urre.ar lit. sing.SUF ‘to hum’).
A number of other processes may be distinguished, for example, parasynthesis
(largo lit. long ‘long’ > alargar lit. a.long.ar ‘to lengthen’), back-formation (com
prar lit. purchase ‘to purchase’ > compra lit. purchase ‘purchase’), blending (doc
umental ‘documentary’ + drama ‘drama’ = docudrama ‘docudrama’), acronymy
(Pequeña Y Mediana Empresa ‘small and medium-sized business’ > PYME), and
clipping (colegio ‘school’ > cole). The affinities between compounds and phrases
have also been noted for Spanish, with the fundamental difference that com-
pounds have a morphological origin, serve a naming function and are often spe-
1 I would like to thank Francesca Masini, Barry Pennock, Vincent Renner, Barbara Schlücker
and an anonymous reviewer for sensible advice on the form and content of this article.
Open Access. © 2019 Fernández-Domínguez, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed

under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-007
190 Jesús Fernández-Domínguez
cialized in meaning, while phrases are syntactic, tend to be semantically compo-

sitional and have a more descriptive nature. This view, heavily influenced by the
Lexicalist Hypothesis, oversimplifies the picture and is not completely faithful to
reality (Bustos Gisbert 1986: 69–72; Booij 2009: 220; Pafel 2017). The fact is that
Spanish compounding constitutes a rather fuzzy category comprising a range of
different formations, from genuine compounds to phrasal units. This categorial
heterogeneity is probably caused by the rigid rules of Spanish compounding and
by the fact that both compounds and multi-word expressions (MWEs) may qualify
as lexical units, a fact which has eventually blurred the limits of both types.
MWEs are constructions which comprise various constituents but nevertheless
display meaning non-compositionality and referential stability. Because of their
multifaceted nature, MWEs have attracted the attention of different fields of lin-
guistics, although they are most frequently dealt with by phraseology, a disci-
pline whose limits with other language areas have not been established hitherto
(Gries 2008; Colson 2016). To date, phraseology has been more oriented towards
practical (often corpus-based) applications than towards a theoretical delimita-
tion of its boundaries. The label MWE, borrowed from computational linguistics,
is an alternative to traditional terms like idiom or phraseological unit (cf. Hüning/
Schlücker 2015: 450).
This article describes Spanish compounds and MWEs and aims to provide an
up-to-date view of their nature and limits. It is arranged as follows: after this
introduction, Section 2 offers a theoretical overview of compounding and neigh-
bouring formations. Section 3 examines the demarcation between compounds
and MWEs for Spanish nouns, verbs and adjectives, and the consequences of this
relationship for the language system are discussed in Section 4. Section 5 con-
tains the conclusions of the study.
2 The characterization of compounds and MWEs

One definition states that a compound is a complex lexeme made up by two or
more lexemes in a relationship of dependency (subordinate compounds) or
non-dependency (coordinate compounds). In subordinate compounds there is a
relationship of dependency where the non-head modifies the head, e. g. sun mod-
ifying light in (1a) ‘light that is produced by the sun’, while in coordinate com-
pounds both constituents stand at the same level, e. g. girl and friend in (1b) ‘a girl
that is also a friend’ (Rainer/Varela 1992: 125–130; Bisetto/Scalise 2005: 326 f.).
(1a) sunlight
(1b) girlfriend
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Spanish 191
Two broad comparable constructions have been distinguished in Spanish. The

first is lexical compounds, where the relationship between constituents has spe-
cial phonological, combinatorial and semantic properties, as in coliflor lit. cab-
bage.i.flower ‘cauliflower’, where -i- is a linking vowel. Compounds like coliflor
are the product of native (now unproductive) word-formation rules and are gener-
ally scarce in Romance languages. If, however, the constituents are more loosely
conjoined, we are faced with a second type of units whose internal structure is
identical to that of syntactic objects, as in fin de semana lit. end of week ‘week-
end’. Because these formations emerge from syntax, their morpho-phonological
integrity is looser than that of lexical compounds, and this has resulted in a vari-
ety of often unclear labels, e. g. syntagmatic, phrasal or phraseological compound.
Some authors have plainly rejected an analysis of multi-word constructions as
compounds due precisely to their phrasal nature (Rainer/Varela 1992). We hence-
forth employ the term MWE for such formations due to its “pre-theoretical” (Mas-
ini 2005: 145) nature.
The most widely debated argument is the exact position of MWEs in the lan-
guage system, as compounds are morphological in nature, while idioms, colloca-
tions or proverbs in principle belong to phraseology. Admittedly, Spanish gram-
mars have in general paid little attention to phraseological units, although
attempts have been made at systematizing their description (Montoro del Arco
2008). In the case of nominal MWEs, one problem is that they are often examined
together with syntactic objects, like verbal expressions or idioms. This makes it
difficult to isolate and depict nominal MWEs because the levels of morphology,
syntax and phraseology are mixed up. The limits between Spanish noun phrases
and noun compounds lie close due to a number of coincidental aspects:
a) Both types resort to previously existing elements for their creation.

b) Both types are in general semantically left-headed.
c) Both types can perform a naming function.
d) Some compounds, and many MWEs, display idiomaticity.
e) Some compounds, due to the previous fact, may display varying levels of
semantic and linear fixity.
In the face of these similarities, one unavoidable step when studying compounds
and MWEs is the description of the morphology-syntax interface (Gaeta/Ricca
2009; Masini 2009; Buenafuentes 2010, 2014; Pafel 2017). The most frequently
adduced factors concern several language areas:
(i) Referential uniqueness. While the conceptual unity of compounds is gen-

erally agreed upon, MWEs may also represent a semantic entity coherent
with extralinguistic reality (Gaeta/Ricca 2009: 36 f.). The constituents of

phrases like those in (2) have retained their basic semantics but at the
same time their referent is a particular reality that differs from that of the
lexical base, here huelga ‘strike’ and vale ‘coupon’.
(2a) huelga patronal lit. strike employer ‘lockout’

(2b) vale descuento lit. coupon discount ‘discount coupon’
(ii) Idiomaticity. Often, the combination of lexemes adds a semantic dimen-

sion to the new construction which may not be deducible from its constit-
uents. This semantic alteration is acute in exocentric compounds, i. e.
those whose semantic head is not contained in one of the compound con-
stituents. Thus, a unit like (3a) refers to an agent, but nothing in its struc-
ture prevents a possible instrumental meaning (e. g. a machine which
picks up spare balls). Renner (2006: 23) speaks of retrospective transpar
ency: the global sense of a compound X.Y stems from X and Y but it is not
entirely predictable from their co-occurrence. Idiomaticity is especially
relevant in metonymic/metaphorical extensions of meaning, both with
human (3b) and non-human (3c) referents.
(3a) recoge.pelotas lit. pick up.balls ‘ball boy’

(3b) agua.fiestas lit. spoil.parties ‘spoilsport’
(3c) ojo de buey lit. eye of ox ‘porthole’
(iii) Atomicity. Once created, compound constituents show an invariable

arrangement that renders them unreadable by syntax. Atomicity is an
indication of the lexical status of a construction because no element can
be inserted between the compound constituents (4). For the same reason,
the non-head cannot be anaphorically designated, the case of esmalte
‘polish’ and quitaesmalte ‘polish remover’ in (5):
(4a) hora punta lit. hour peak ‘peak hour’

(4b) *hora muy punta lit. hour very peak
*Usó
(5) el quita1esmalte2, pero no lo2
pudo borrar
Use-3sg-past the remove1polish2, but neg d.obj-m-sg2
could erase
‘She used the polish remover, but couldn’t erase the polish’
(iv) Semantic fixity. The head of a compound cannot be replaced by a seman-

tically close lexeme. This has been described as an indispensable feature
of MWEs, but it occurs in compounds too. The non-existence of (6b) reveals
the lexical and semantic cohesion of guerra fría. This is no impediment, as
pointed out by one of the reviewers, for the existence of (6c) as proof of
occasional rule-breaking lexical creativity.
(6a) guerra fría lit. war cold ‘cold war’

(6b) *pelea fría lit. fight cold
(6c) contienda fría islámica lit. dispute cold Islamic ‘cold Islamic dispute’
(v) Linear fixity. Inflection is a common test for compoundhood because it is

assumed that it should not occur within a lexeme, be it a derivative or a
compound. This is the case with orthographic compounds, where plurality
is applied peripherally (7), but it is different with MWEs, which typically
display internal inflection (8). In such cases we find no external inflectional
mark, except for the right-hand member in formations like cajas de
ahorros, where ahorros ‘savings’ is pluralized also when the MWE is
singular. This implies that inflection is only valid as a criterion for
orthographic compounds (which are nevertheless unproblematic because
they are clearly morphological in nature). In my view, inflection is precisely
the differentiating factor between compounds and MWE, since an inflected
first constituent is sufficient proof of an element’s syntactic character
(compounds forbid internal inflection; cf., however, Bauer 2017: 19 ff.).
(7a) punta.pié lit. tiptoe.foot ‘kick’

(7b) punta.piés lit. tiptoe.feet ‘kicks’
(8a) caja de ahorros lit. bank of savings ‘savings bank’

(8b) cajas de ahorros lit. banks of savings ‘savings banks’
(vi) Frequency. The constituents of a multi-word formation should regularly

co-occur to acquire lexical status. The syntax-derived example in (9a),
because of its semantic coherence and repeated usage, is a lexical unit,
while (9b) is not because, despite its semantic coherence, its constituents
do not habitually co-occur.
(9a) libro de cocina lit. book of cuisine ‘cookbook’

(9b) gorra de metal lit. cap of metal ‘metal cap’
Most of the above criteria are either syntactic (atomicity, fixity, locus of inflection)
or semantic (naming unity, idiomaticity), although productivity is a characteristic
of morphology. Besides these, stress has proved crucial for the differentiation
between phrases and compounds in other languages (e. g. German and Dutch),
but it is not decisive in Spanish, as compounds may display single but also dou-
ble stress (Rao 2015: 90 f.). Bustos Gisbert (1986) reviews the phonetics of Spanish
compounds and concludes that stress assignment is caused by the interaction of
factors like the number of syllables, the semantic relationship between the con-
stituents or the compound’s headedness. Rao (2015) provides interesting experi-
mental findings on the influence of orthography over prosodic interpretation, or
the apparently minimal effect of the semantic relation between constituents on
stress assignment.
The above generalizations represent general tendencies regarding proto-
typical compounds and prototypical syntactic entities but, crucially, most of
these features may be displayed by both compounds and phrases and cannot
individually provide conclusive evidence with respect to the compound-phrase
divide.
3 S
panish compounds and MWEs: between
morphology, syntax and phraseology
Formations of a nominal, verbal and adjectival type are taken into consideration
in this section, particularly those made up of nouns, adjectives and verbs. There
is a consensus in the literature that Spanish compounding is largely endocentric
and that, while adjective and verb compounds are right-headed, noun com-
pounds are left-headed, with the exception of specific right-headed types. The
following subsections explore, in turn, nominal (Section 3.1), adjectival (Sec-
tion 3.2), and verbal (Section 3.3) compounds and MWEs.
3.1 N
ouns
Spanish noun compounds most often consist of two members whose grammati-
cal categories may be the same, e. g. noun+noun (N+N), or different, e. g. noun+
adjective (N+A) or verb+noun (V+N). A preposition may also be involved as a link
between the two main constituents in the productive MWE type noun+preposi-
tion+noun (N+p+N), cf. (9a). A three-lexeme structure is less common but possi-
ble, as in limpiaparabrisas or portacuentakilómetros, which does not alter the
binary structure of the compound: limpia (‘clean’) + parabrisas (‘windshield’),

porta (‘carry’) + cuentakilómetros (‘odometer’).
(10a) limpia.parabrisas ‘windshieldwiper’

lit. clean.windshield
(10b) porta.cuentakilómetros ‘odometer-holder’
lit. carry.odometer
Spanish nominal compounding is characterized by left-headedness (11), although

right-headed constructions are possible as well, cf. (12). In both cases the head
transfers its syntactic and semantic features to the compound.
(11a) hoja.lata ‘tinplate’

lit. blade.tin
(11b) pez espada ‘swordfish’
lit. fish sword
(12a) tele.novela ‘soap opera’

lit. TV.novel
(12b) zarza.mora ‘blackberry’
lit. bramble.berry
Given the apparent detachment between morphology and phraseology, it comes

as no surprise that the above morphological categories may overlap to some extent
with those proposed by phraseologists for structurally parallel constructions. One
of these is collocations, i. e. word combinations whose members display a high
co-occurrence rate and are semi-idiomatic, but where the rules of phrase grammar
are normally observed (Ruiz Gurillo 2002). The differences between compounds
and collocations are gradual and not unambiguous, since both types display
shared features (e. g. frequency of co-occurrence, lack of stress unity, being formed
by several words) but also points of divergence, for instance having a naming
function and being paradigmatically related to other units, which are typical of
compounds and impossible in collocations. The following formations have been
regarded as compounds in some views and as collocations in other, with the form
N+A (13a), N+N (13b) or N+p+N (13c) (see Table 1 in Section 4):
(13a) león marino ‘sea lion’

lit. lion marine
(13b) paquete bomba ‘mail bomb’
lit. parcel bomb
(13c) ciclo de conferencias ‘conference series’

lit. cicle of conferences
Within the range of existing nominal structures, several types stand out in Span-
ish: orthographic constructions (Section 3.1.1), where several different word-
classes are found as input, together with the syntagmatic types N+N (Sec-
tion 3.1.2), N+p+N (Section 3.1.3) and N+A (Section 3.1.4).
3.1.1 Orthographic nominal constructions
Spelling may be indicative of a unit’s lexical status. That is the case of construc-
tions which unequivocally qualify as compounds and as such are spelt as one
word. The following units, for example, are made up of a preposition and a
noun:
(14a) sin.vergüenza ‘scoundrel’

lit. without.shame
(14b) sobre.peso ‘overweight’
lit. over.weight
These compounds are characterized by morphological indivisibility and single

stress, and many of them are highly lexicalized. The most productive type of
Spanish orthographic compounding is the pan-Romance V+N (Kornfeld 2009:
438 f.; Moyna 2011), in which the verb is the predicate and the noun its direct
object, and where the resulting unit may be an agent (15a), an instrument (15b),
or more marginally an activity (15c). V+N nouns are exocentric but fully transpar-
ent (even if not always predictable; see (3) and related discussion) and are always
inseparable. The invariable plural form of the second constituent is caused by its
semantic notion of habitual/repeated activity (15), although it is kept in singular
in uncountable nouns (16). Therefore, the following units can be unambiguously
declared genuine compounds; further proof of their morphological nature is pro-
vided by their solid spelling.
(15a) aparca.coches ‘valet’

lit. park.cars
(15b) para.rrayos ‘lightning conductor’
lit. stop.lightning.PL
(15c) cumple.años ‘birthday’
lit. reach.years
(16) guarda.rropa ‘cloakroom’

lit. keep.clothing
In contrast to such units, there are compounds whose form fluctuates between a
single-word and a two-word spelling. These are phrasal structures with an
increasingly tighter compound status, which forms a continuum from phrases to
completely settled compounds and intermediate hybrid formations. It is therefore
possible to come across guardia civil and guardiacivil, or retrato-robot and retrato
robot (cf. Van Goethem 2009 for a scalar proposal on French A+N units):
(17a) guardia civil ‘Civil Guard’

lit. guard civil
(17b) retrato-robot ‘photofit portrait’
lit. portrait-robot
A more extreme although less frequent situation is that in which both compound
constituents are pluralized, be the compound as a whole in plural or not. Con-
structions like (18) have been analyzed as exocentric compounds with morpho-
logical mismatches in their number and gender (RAE 2010: 193, 199; Scalise/
Fábregas 2010: 122; Buenafuentes 2014: 4). These formations are dealt with in
detail in the following sections.
(18) relaciones públicas ‘public relations’

lit. relations public.PL
(19) María es la relaciones públicas de la empresa

‘María is the public relations of the company’
3.1.2 Noun + Noun
N+N formations are one of the most frequently studied phenomena within the
morphology-syntax divide, with a variety of labels revealing their ambiguous
condition (binominals, coordinate compounds, dvandvas) in a good number of
languages (Bauer 1998; Bisetto/Scalise 2005; Booij 2009). The constituents of
N+N constructions concatenate with no tying formal mark, although a hyphen
occasionally signals lexical status.2 Because Spanish is, with the exception of the
2 A subtype of binominal compounds incorporates a linking vowel, as in aj.i.aceite lit. gar-

lic.i.oil ‘sauce made of garlic and olive oil’. This type is not further discussed due to its unproduc-
formations in Section 3.1.1, reluctant to accept novel nominal compounds, N+N

units are significant from a lexical perspective. Synchronically, this is a produc-
tive type, and one for which constraints are not easily found. This alleged fertility
leads to a wide range of possible syntactic and semantic options, which are clas-
sified as appositional (20a), specifying (20b) and classifying (20c) in the phrase-
ological literature (Ruiz Gurillo 2002). Under this view, such formations are collo-
cations whose first constituent is the base (merienda, efecto) and the second is
the collocate (cena, invernadero):
(20a) merienda cena ‘late afternoon-snack / early supper’

lit. afternoon-snack supper
(20b) efecto invernadero ‘greenhouse effect’
lit. effect greenhouse
(20c) perro policía ‘police dog’
lit. dog police
For Booij (2009: 223), the naming function shared by compounds and phrases
complicates their demarcation especially in languages with left-headed com-
pounding, since certain formations can be seen as compounds but also as phrases
followed by an apposition. The fact that plural inflection tends to appear on the
first constituent only (meriendas cena, efectos invernadero) substantiates access
from syntax to these formations, and Booij’s (2009) interpretation is hence a
phrasal one. This argument is not refuted by the use of these units in more collo-
quial registers, where inflection is attested for both members (perros policías,
muebles-bares). The degree of fixity is also significant here. Val Álvaro (1999:
4782) puts forward that an inflexible layout is typical of coordinate compounds
because, given the paratactic relationship of their constituents, it is an optimal
means to make the first member more salient. This happens, for example, when
the first member precedes the second one chronologically (merienda cena) or
when it is cognitively more relevant (perro policía). Similarly, sets of N+N forma-
tions may display a shared second (21) or first constituent (22):3
tive status. The same applies to minor types like V+V reduplicatives (pilla.pilla lit. catch.catch
‘tag’, a playground game) or V+V formations (duerme.vela lit. sleep.stay up ‘slumber’), which are
not illustrative of current trends (Val Álvaro 1999: 4804–4807).
3 An analogous series is comprised by visita relámpago lit. visit lightning ‘lightning visit’, guerra
relámpago lit. war lightning ‘blitzkrieg’, viaje relámpago lit. trip lightning ‘lightning trip’, etc.
These have been rejected as nominal MWEs because appositive nouns like clave or relámpago are
not restricted in their co-occurrence, and they can be accompanied by almost any noun. That
(21a) cuestión clave ‘key matter’

lit. matter key
(21b) decisión clave ‘key decision’
lit. decision key
(21c) hombre clave ‘key man’
lit. man key
(22a) hombre anuncio ‘sandwich-board man’

lit. man ad
(22b) hombre rana ‘frogman’
lit. man frog
(22c) hombre araña ‘spiderman’
lit. man spider
One variant is represented by the examples in (23), which have been analyzed
either as morphological or as syntactic structures. These constructions have also
been considered collocations on the basis that nouns concatenate with no prepo-
sition whatsoever (Ruiz Gurillo 2002), but their referential uniqueness makes
such reading unadvisable. Then again, an interpretation in terms of compound-
ing is hindered essentially by plural inflection, which materializes internally
(fotos tamaño carnet, cremas tipo pomada). This, together with the possibility of
recovering an elided preposition de ‘of’ after the left-most member (24), seems
sufficient evidence for a syntactic nature, in line with the units in (20).
(23a) foto tamaño carnet ‘ID size photo’

lit. photo size ID-card
(23b) crema tipo pomada ‘ointment-like cream’
lit. cream type ointment
(24a) foto de tamaño carnet ‘ID size photo’

lit. photo of size ID-card
(24b) crema de tipo pomada ‘ointment-like cream’
lit. cream of type ointment
such constructions can be inflected for number in standard registers (viajes relámpagos, guerras
relámpagos) points to semantic specialization and suggests that they are more akin to standard
modifying phrases (cf. Val Álvaro 1999: 4785; Montoro del Arco 2008: 133 f.).
3.1.3 Noun + preposition + Noun
N+p+Ns are a fertile kind of construction that links a noun to a simple (25a) or dever-
bal noun (25b) by way of a preposition. N+p+Ns are head-initial formations whose
right-hand constituent is subordinated and displays adjective-like behavior:4
(25a) banco de datos ‘databank’

lit. bank of data
(25b) máquina de escribir ‘typewriter’
lit. machine of writing
The first hurdle in the description of N+p+N units is that they are derived from a
syntactic pattern whereby a nominal head is postmodifed by a prepositional
phrase, but at the same time they perform a naming function that is typical of
compounding. Several criteria have been put forward to test the compoundhood
of N+p+N constructions. One is whether an equivalent lexeme exists in a different
language (26), or whether a synonymous structure has been attested in Spanish
through a different word-formation process, as in (27), although these do not
seem entirely reliable criteria. Both features hint at the lexical status of N+p+Ns
but do not evidence a morphological origin which, together with the syntactic
provenance of these formations, has led to their rejection as compounds (cf.
Rainer/Varela 1992). Telaraña, for example, developed out of lexicalization from
tela de araña, a process that has nothing to do with morphology and can be more
accurately described as univerbation than as compounding (Gaeta/Ricca 2009:
44 f.).
(26a) dolor de cabeza ‘headache’

lit. ache of head
(26b) máquina de afeitar ‘shaver’
lit. machine of shaving
(27a) abridor de latas abrelatas ‘can opener’

lit. opener of cans lit. to open.cans
(27b) tela de araña telaraña ‘spider web’
lit. fabric of spider lit. fabric.spider
4 The label syntagmatic compound has been widely employed but it is also regarded as inaccu-
rate on the grounds that the phraseologization of these constructions converts them into lexical
units, not compounds, as they do not originate in morphology.
It was discussed above that whether or not constituents can be modified is a good
indication of the morphological status of a construction. The following examples
show how, for two N+p+N formations (cf. (28a) and (29a)), postmodification is
permitted (cf. (28b) and (29b)), while internal separability is ungrammatical (cf.
(28c) and (29c)):
(28a) toque de queda ‘curfew’

lit. call of remain
(28b) toque de queda reglamentario ‘obligatory curfew’
lit. call of remain obligatory
(28c) *toque reglamentario de queda
lit. call obligatory of remain
(29a) botas de montar ‘riding boots’

lit. boots of riding
(29b) botas de montar hechas a mano ‘handmade riding boots’
lit. boots of riding handmade
(29c) *botas hechas a mano de montar
lit. boots handmade of riding
Inflection in N+p+N units is customarily placed on the head, although the right-
hand member may display permanent plural if it refers to a plural notion. Even in
the latter case, the plural marker of the whole compound appears on the head
(agencias de viajes, trenes de mercancías, cuentos de hadas):
(30a) agencia de viajes ‘travel agency’

lit. agency of travels
(30b) tren de mercancías ‘freight train’
lit. train of merchandise.PL
(30c) cuento de hadas ‘fairy tale’
lit. tale of fairies
Semantically speaking, N+p+N constructions are versatile, and several semantic

relations may be found between N1 and N2: origin (31a), content (31b), manner
(31c), material (31d), location (31e) or purpose (31f) (Lang 1992: 122). As it
often happens in descriptions of compound semantics, categories show fuzziness
and areas of overlap are evident, e. g. between origin and location, or between
content and material. This potentiality of meanings touches upon the indeter-
minacy of the preposition de ‘of’, by far the most frequent one but the least
explicit semantically, which has favored the use of other prepositions as a dis
ambiguation strategy (32). The existence of these constructions, however, does

not prevent the coinage of equivalent ones with de, and hence the existence of
doublets (camisa de cuadros, esmalte de uñas, etc.; cf. Piunno 2016: 16–19).
(31a) almeja de río ‘marsh clam’

lit. clam of river
(31b) gota de rocío ‘dew drop’
lit. drop of dew
(31c) sierra de mano ‘hand saw’
lit. saw of hand
(31d) diente de oro ‘gold tooth’
lit. tooth of gold
(31e) cielo de la boca ‘roof of the mouth’
lit. sky of the mouth
(31f) bestia de carga ‘beast of burden’
lit. beast of burden
(32a) camisa a cuadros ‘checked shirt’

lit. shirt with squares
(32b) televisión por satélite ‘satellite TV’
lit. TV through satellite
(32c) café con leche ‘white coffee’
lit. coffee with milk
(32d) fabricación en serie ‘mass production’
lit. production in series
(32e) hockey sobre patines ‘roller hockey’
lit. hockey on skates
(32f) esmalte para uñas ‘nail polish’
lit. polish for nails
In phraseological studies, the most frequently studied N+p+N constructions are

those where the left-hand noun refers to a set or portion of what is designated by
the right-hand noun, that is, partitive formations. The first noun is often semanti-
cally selected by the second (33), although this is not a requirement (34). A certain
degree of variability is possible, as in (34) (however, rebanada de pan ‘slice of
bread’ vs. *rebanada de chocolate ‘slice of chocolate’), but idiomaticity is non-ex-
istent, which reveals the regular semantic contribution of the constituents. Such
N+p+N units must consequently be analyzed as collocations.
(33a) banco de peces ‘shoal’

lit. shoal of fish
(33b) ramo de flores ‘bouquet’
lit. bouquet of flowers
(34a) pizca de sal ‘pinch of salt’

lit. pinch of salt
(34b) pizca de pan ‘piece of bread’
lit. pinch of bread
(34c) pizca de tabaco ‘pinch of tobacco’
lit. pinch of tobacco
Nominal phrases constitute a different subtype, with full fixity and idiomaticity.
These are infrequent constructions with a significant degree of lexicalization and
metaphorical meanings, which bears witness to their phraseological status (exo-
centricity is impossible in syntactic formations). Some of such metaphorical
units, e. g. (35b), may perform a limited range of syntactic roles at the clause level,
usually direct object or subject complement, and never subject. This goes against
an analysis of these formations as compounds because their use seems to be lim-
ited to comparative constructions, as in (36):
(35a) caballo de batalla ‘important issue’

lit. horse of battle
(35b) la carabina de Ambrosio ‘useless object, person or situation’
lit. the carbine of Ambrosio
(36) Lo que usted propone es la carabina de Ambrosio

‘What you are suggesting is completely useless’
(Davies 2002–)
In the vast majority of such constructions no article is found between the prepo-
sition and the right-hand member, although there are exceptions, for example
when an article denotes a well-known entity:
(37a) abogado del diablo ‘devil’s advocate’

lit. advocate of the devil
(37b) pipa de la paz ‘peace pipe’
lit. pipe of the peace
3.1.4 Noun + Adjective / Adjective + Noun
Spanish features abundant A+N and N+A nouns. Because of native left-headed-
ness, the former are less numerous even if, due to their spelling, they stand out
more clearly within the field of compounding than the latter. Moyna attributes a
syntactic origin to these formations, which explains why “[…] they are the hardest
to distinguish from non-compounded phrases” (2011: 181; cf. Gaeta/Ricca 2009:
51 ff. for Italian). Most A+N units are endocentric and display a relationship of
modification between their constituents (38a), although heads can become
opaque over time and acquire metaphorical readings (38b). It is possible to find
exocentric formations too, as in example (38c), which is not ‘a kind of table’ but
‘a kind of meeting’.
(38a) media.noche ‘midnight’

lit. half.night
(38b) alta.voz ‘loudspeaker’
lit. high.voice
(38c) mesa redonda ‘round table’
lit. round table
Spanish N+A compounds (39) are difficult to distinguish from N+A phrases (40)
if one only looks at their meaning, since in both kinds the head can be a concrete
noun (39a), a noun denoting physical state (39b), or an abstract noun (39c). As
in other Romance languages, orthography is not reliable by itself, especially in
formations with a separate spelling, since it does not necessarily reflect stress
assignment (cf. Van Goethem 2009).
(39a) agua bendita ‘holy water’

lit. water holy
(39b) dolor crónico ‘chronic pain’
lit. pain chronic
(39c) poder adquisitivo ‘purchasing power’
lit. power purchasing
(40a) agua limpia ‘clean water’

lit. water clean
(40b) dolor ficticio ‘imaginary pain’
lit. pain fictitious
(40c) poder efímero ‘ephemeral power’
lit. ephemeral power
The adjectives in N+A constructions can be described as mainly relational

(budista ‘Buddhist’, carnívoro ‘carnivorous’, sindical ‘unionist’) and qualitative
(grande ‘big’, ancho ‘wide’, rojo ‘red’) (Koike 2001: 119 f.). These adjectives tend
to be polysemous and highly frequent (the former perhaps as a consequence of
the latter), while the noun is semantically autonomous and determines the
meaning of the adjective. N+A formations exhibit the semantic coherence that is
characteristic of lexical units and, despite not being orthographically a single
word, equivalents in other languages exist too (41). Combinations parallel to
N+A constructions can be found also in N+p+N units, where a prepositional
phrase replaces the adjective (42):
(41a) escalera mecánica (41b) escalator

lit. staircase mechanical
huelga patronal lockout
lit. strike employer
(42a) cita médica (42b) cita del médico

lit. appointment medical lit. appointment of doctor
crisis petrolera crisis del petróleo
lit. crisis oil lit. crisis of the oil
The customary syntactic tests of compoundhood may be applied in the distinction

of N+A compounds and phrases: attributive use of the adjective (43), premodifica-
tion of the adjective (44), swapping positions between adjective and noun (45),
internal interruptibility (46), and replacement of the modifier by a synonym (47).
These features reveal whether a given formation is more similar to a phrase, as in
the examples labelled (a) below, or to a compound, as in those labelled (b):
(43a) mesa espaciosa la mesa es espaciosa

‘spacious table’ lit. the table is spacious
(43b) ingeniero electrónico ?el ingeniero es electrónico
‘electronic engineer’ lit. the engineer is electronic
(44a) charla animada charla muy animada

‘lively chat’ lit. the chat is lively
(44b) registro civil ?registro muy civil
‘civil registry’ lit. very civil registry
(45a) objeción principal principal objection

‘main objection’ lit. objection main
(45b) poder especial *especial poder

‘special power’ lit. power special
(46a) público joven público masculino joven

lit. audience young lit. young male audience
(46b) oso hormiguero *oso grande hormiguero
lit. bear ant lit. bear big ant ‘anteater’
(47a) amor eterno amor imperecedero

lit. love eternal lit. love everlasting
(47b) caja fuerte *caja robusta
lit. box strong lit. box robust
Interestingly, the adjectives in the above collocations, (43a)–(47a), have an

intensifying role, while those in compounds, (43b)–(47b), share a classifying or
determinative function. The label lexical collocation has been employed for
cases where the semantic contribution of the adjective depends to a great
extent on that of the noun, such as fiesta nacional ‘national holiday’ or cam
paña electoral ‘election campaign’, which would otherwise be categorized as
compounds. Regardless of the term, this partly explains why compounds are
less flexible than collocations in their structure, which in turn causes a wider
variability in collocations and is a good argument for the listing of compounds
in the lexicon. At the semantic level, N+A collocations are compositional but
compounds show some degree of non-compositionality. Ruiz Gurillo (2002:
334) discusses agua bendita ‘holy water’, whose meaning is achieved by sum-
ming up the semantics of the two nouns plus additional features from the men-
tal lexicon. In principle, the higher the degrees of compositionality and motiva-
tion, the closer a unit stands to compounding; the less isomorphic and
motivated it is, the closer it stands to collocations. Schlücker/Hüning (2009;
also Bauer 2017: 12 f.), in contrast, point out that semantic specialization or
compositionality are not definitive criteria.
One problem for the compoundhood of N+A formations is that, notwith-
standing sporadic hesitation, plural inflection is normally applied to both con-
stituents, and this is characteristic of phrases. As with juxtaposed nouns (Sec-
tion 3.1.2), this violates the Lexical Integrity Principle, a behavior expected from
the noun-adjective relationship in Spanish. This is compelling proof of the syn-
tactic origin of these units:
(48a) bombas lacrimógenas ‘tear gas canisters’

lit. bombs tear-producing.PL
(48b) llave.s inglesa.s ‘monkey wrenches’

lit. keys English.PL
In contrast to N+p+Ns, N+A units may undergo derivation, in which case the
whole construction serves as lexical base, as in agua bendita ‘holy water’ and
cuenta corriente ‘current account’, from which -era and -ista generate an instru-
ment (49a) and an agent (49b). This test proves the semantic unity of such con-
structions and ratifies their lexical nature, although it tells us nothing about their
morphological status. In addition, the test is of limited application from a mor-
phological viewpoint because operating derivation on Spanish N+A constructions
most frequently leads to ungrammatical formations (Bustos Gisbert 1986: 139).
(49a) aguabenditera ‘home stoup’

lit. water.holy.er
(49b) cuentacorrentista ‘current account holder’
lit. account.current.ist
N+A units show heterogeneous behaviors, and disparities exist regarding their
endocentricity/exocentricity, ability to undergo derivation or locus of inflection.
In particular, some authors have argued for a level intermediate between N+A
compounds and phrases. This would involve sets of MWEs that are compositional
but at the same time share one of their constituents, e. g. negro ‘black’ in (50).
Here, negro contributes a regular figurative sense throughout different examples,
while the other member of the construction adds a literal meaning. These cer-
tainly behave as mixed nominal phrases insofar as they have a fixed component
and an idiomatic one (Ginebra 2002: 148–151).
(50a) dinero negro ‘dirty money’

lit. money black
(50b) lista negra ‘blacklist’
lit. list black
(50c) mercado negro ‘black market’
lit. market black
3.2 A
djectives
Complex adjectival constructions are less challenging than nominal ones thanks
to their spelling, which may be closed or hyphenated but always reveals their
lexical nature. The formal makeup of these constructions is adjective+adjective
(A+A) or N+A. The A+A examples in (51) are lexicalized and represent a synchron-
ically unproductive type, while those in (52) are profuse and stand unambigu-
ously within morphology. The former type is limited to adjectives expressing
colors and judgement, while the latter displays a much wider semantic scope and
is frequently recursive.
(51a) agri.dulce ‘bittersweet’

lit. bitter.sweet
(51b) verde.azul ‘green-blue’
lit. green.blue
(52a) político-laboral ‘related to politics and labour’

lit. political labour
(52b) nacional-cultural-social ‘national-cultural-social’
lit. national-cultural-social
Two main kinds of N+A constructions exist: one where the noun refers to salient
body parts (53), an exocentric and usually non-compositional type, and a small
group where the noun is the name of a language and the head is a participle
meaning ‘to speak’, cf. (54). Both are analyzable as compounds as they receive
external inflection (e. g. pelirrojos lit. hair.red.PL, vascoparlantes lit. Basque.
speaking.PL) and forbid internal modification (*castellano.muy.hablante lit.
Spanish.very.speaking).
(53a) pelirrojo ‘red-haired’

lit. hair.red
(53b) paticorto ‘short-legged’
lit. leg.short
(54a) castellanohablante ‘Spanish-speaking’

lit. Spanish.speaking
(54b) vascoparlante ‘Basque-speaking’
lit. Basque.speaking
Some adjective compounds denote a color which is derived from the colors
expressed by their constituents (55), while others denote nationalities (56). Plural
marking varies, since most formations are peripherally inflected to the right (57a),
but some remain uninflected (57b); gender is always expressed in the right-most
member, both in the singular and the plural forms (58). The phraseological nature
of these constructions can be observed in the restricted selection of their compo-
nents (*azul.i.blanco lit. blue.i.white), which makes compoundhood relevant

only diachronically.
(55a) blanqu.i.azul ‘blue and white’

lit. white.i.blue
(55b) roj.i.blanco ‘red and white’
lit. red.i.white
(56a) hispano-francés ‘Hispanic-French’

lit. Hispanic-French
(56b) anglo-eslovaco ‘Anglo-Slovak’
lit. Anglo-Slovak
(57a) vaca.s blanqu.i.marron.es ‘white and brown cows’

lit. cows white.i.brown.PL
(57b) camisa.s azul marino ‘navy blue shirts’
lit. shirts blue navy
(58a) aficionad.as verd.i.negr.as ‘green and black fans’

lit. fans.FEM green.i.black.FEM-PL
(58b) cumbre.s ruso-judí.as ‘Russian-Jewish summit’
lit. summits Russian.Jewish.FEM-PL
Adjective compounds therefore resemble phrases, but can be unproblematically

analyzed as compounds, as plural and gender inflection is applied externally. For
the same reason, only the constituents in phrases can be independently modified
(59b). This is ungrammatical in compounds (59a).
(59a) *pat.i.muy.corto
lit. leg.i.very.short
(59b) muy ancho de espaldas ‘having a wide back’ (person)
lit. very wide of back
3.3 Verbs
Genuine verbal compounding is so marginal in Spanish that it is altogether

omitted from some works (Lang 1992), while others portray it as “virtually absent”
(Klingebiel 1989: 1). Unlike noun and adjective compounds, this type cannot be
formed by concatenating two lexemes from the word-class of the compound, here
verbs. The most representative type of verbal compounding is N+V, described

sometimes as back-formation from adjectives (Val Álvaro 1999) and sometimes as
noun incorporation that comes from Latin (Moyna 2011), cf. (60). The rule’s
current productivity is null, with the exception of a few recent formations derived
by back-formation, e. g. (61a) from boquiabierto ‘open-mouthed’, or (61b) from
publicontratación ‘crowdsourcing’.
(60a) maniobrar ‘to maneuver’

lit. hand.to act
(60b) pelechar ‘to grow new fur’
lit. fur.to grow
(61a) boquiabrir ‘to open one’s mouth’

lit. mouth.to open
(61b) publicontratar ‘to crowdsource’
lit. public.to hire
These formations aside, the verbal procedure that most closely resembles com-
pounding is that of light verb constructions (62), where a semantically void verb
is accompanied by a noun to create a conceptual unit. These constructions are
compositional and have a corresponding synthetic lexical verb which often
expresses the same meaning. Even if they cannot be called morphological objects,
these are not regular verb phrases and resemble compounds because of their
highly regular and frequent occurrence (cf. Val Álvaro 1999: 4830–4834).
(62a) Pedro hizo mención de Luis Pedro mencionó a Luis

‘Pedro made mention of Luis’ ‘Pedro mentioned Luis’
(62b) Pedro dio aviso del fuego Pedro avisó del fuego
‘Pedro gave notice of the fire’ ‘Pedro warned about the fire’
Despite their verbal nature, formations like (63) stand apart from regular verbs
and from light verb constructions due to the fact that it is impossible to replace
their constituents by synonyms (64), to internally modify the noun (65), or
to apply sentence transformation on their structure (66) (cf. Val Álvaro 1999:
4831).
(63a) tomar el pelo ‘to pull somebody’s leg’

lit. to take the hair
(63b) estirar la pata ‘to kick the bucket’
lit. to stretch the leg
(64a) *coger el pelo lit. to catch the hair

(64b) *extender la pata lit. to extend the leg
(65a) *tomar el pelo bonito lit. to take the hair beautiful

(65b) *estirar la pata izquierda lit. to stretch the leg left
(66a) *El pelo le fue tomado por Luis a Pedro

‘Pedro’s leg was pulled by Luis’
(66b) *¿Qué ha estirado Pedro?
‘What has Pedro pulled?’
One peculiarity of verbal MWEs is their lack of predisposition towards orthographic

fusion, which would lead to noun incorporations such as *pelotomar (lit. hair.to
take) or *pataestirar (lit. leg.to stretch). One likely explanation is the possibility to
bring the verbal complement into theme position, thus suggesting that the
components in these structures are not morphological and retain at least some
syntactic independence. This is observable in brillar por su ausencia ‘to be
conspicuous by its absence’ and hilar fino ‘to split hairs’, and makes it simpler to
set boundaries between verb compounds and verbal MWEs.
(67a) Por su ausencia no brilla

‘By its absence it is not conspicuous’
(67b) Por muy fino que hiles no lo conseguirás
‘Many hairs though you split, you will not achieve it’
Verbal collocations must be taken into account as well (cf. (68)). Here, the head is
a verb that is complemented by a noun (68a), a preposition plus a noun (68b) or
an adverb (68c). These exhibit different degrees of idiomaticity and fixity, and
must be regarded as syntactic.
(68a) estallar una revolución/rebelión/protesta

lit. to break out a revolution/rebellion/protest
(68b) gozar de popularidad/fama/renombre/tirón
lit. to enjoy of popularity/fame/renown/momentum
(68c) dormir plácidamente
lit. to sleep placidly
As happens in Italian (Iacobini 2009), it may be the case that Spanish verbal
MWEs are proportionally more widely employed than MWEs of other word classes
because of the low productivity of verbal compounding, although this has yet to
be substantiated. Even though verbal MWEs do occur, it seems safe to assert that
the native procedures for phrasal or multi-word verbs are not powerful if com-
pared to Germanic languages or even Romance languages like Catalan or Italian
(Guevara 2012; Bisetto 2015).
4 Reconciling compounds and MWEs

The previous sections have evidenced the heterogeneous and unequal perfor-
mance of Spanish compounds and MWEs for the categories noun, adjective and
verb. This section reconsiders these views and describes their competitive vs.
cooperative relationship.
Scholars have ascribed a range of attributes and behaviors to MWEs and com-
pounds. This has brought about a catalogue of discriminating measures designed
to allocate a structure to morphology, phraseology or syntax. One thorough
approach is Ruiz Gurillo (2002), where features are reviewed at the phonological,
syntactic, lexico-semantic and pragmatic levels. Table 1 outlines the most promi-
nent characteristics and indicates if they are possible (+), impossible (–) or
optional (±) in synchronic compounds, phrases and collocations.5
Table 1: Cross-categorial features (from Ruiz Gurillo 2002)
Features Compound Phrase Collocation
Multi-word nature + + +
Naming ability + + –
Consolidated formation ± + ±
Frequent co-occurrence + + +
Paradigm membership + – –
Lack of stress unity + + +
Fixed lexical components + + +
5 These features have been discussed at different points in the present article and appear here
with specialized Spanish terminology. Paradigm membership, for example, refers to the fact
that, if a construction is coined via a synchronic syntactic procedure, it will be placed together
with the previous constructions created by that rule. The body of constructions built through the
same structure would therefore constitute its consolidation as a paradigm. Similarly, isomor-
phism is a variable of a unit’s idiomaticity, since it indicates to what extent a unit can be broken
down in meaningful subcomponents.
Features Compound Phrase Collocation
Variability of lexical components
Plural inflection + + +
Insertion of modifiers – – ±
Isomorphism + – +
Meaning compositionality + – +
Metaphors and tropes – + ±
Idiomaticity – + ±
Lexical selection – – +
Table 1 makes manifest an uneven distribution pattern of features, with the result
that some are possible in all three constructions (e. g. the ability to be made up of
multiple words), others are largely optional (e. g. making up a consolidated for-
mation), and others are impossible (e. g. insertion of modifiers), although excep-
tions have been noted for most of the categories. Taken together, this causes a
cross-categorial overlap which leads to descriptive vagueness and fuzzy borders.
Depending on the degree of concurrence of these features, we will be faced with
a more or less prototypical morphological, phraseological or syntactic unit. The
combination of these characteristics also demarcates two features often associ-
ated with phraseology: fixity and idiomaticity. In principle, the more fixed and
idiomatic a unit is, the more it can be considered as unambiguously phraseologi-
cal, even if less prototypical constructions may be phraseological too (Gries 2008:
5 f.). There are hence archetypal compounds and archetypal phraseologisms,
depending on their overall reaction to the above criteria. In view of their border
properties, Gaeta/Ricca (2009) accommodate compounds and phrases into a
quadripartite system that distinguishes the feature of being listed in the lexicon
from that of being the output of morphology. For these authors, lexicalization and
compoundhood are independent notions and each may be present or absent in a
particular construction. This materializes in a four-level typology (69) which
embraces prototypical compounds (69a), prototypical phrases (69d), and two
intermediate positions (69b) and (69c):
(69a) [+ morphological], [+ lexical]

(69b) [+ morphological], [– lexical]
(69c) [– morphological], [+ lexical]
(69d) [– morphological], [– lexical]
The rationale is that, just like there are “[…] lexical units that are not compounds,
but syntactic units, we should also find compounds (morphological units) which
are not lexical units” (Gaeta/Ricca 2009: 40). An example of (69a) is compraventa
‘buying and selling’, and one of (69d) is gorra de metal ‘metal cap’. Type (69c)
involves syntactic elements that have a conceptual referent, e. g. dolor de cabeza
‘headache’, while (69b) is a priori an unexpected kind: compounds that are not
lexically listed. This is possible for extremely productive morphological pro-
cesses, whose output is large, and not all of which is lexicalized. In Spanish, it is
the case of V+N compounding, as in espantacucarachas ‘cockroach scarer’ (cf.
Section 3.1.1).
This leads us to the competitive vs. cooperative behavior of compounds and
MWEs. The fact that many phrasal constructions (e. g. guerra fría ‘cold war’, café
con leche ‘white coffee’) have a denominative role and are accompanied by a defi-
nition in lexicographic studies is proof of their naming ability, which in turn sets
them up as potential competitors for word-formation (Booij 2009: 220). This is
evident for example in doublets formed by one morphological and one phraseo-
logical construction, as in (42): cita médica ‘medical appointment’ vs. cita del
médico ‘appointment of the doctor’. Occasionally, one of the units becomes estab-
lished and blocks the other, e. g. *guerra de(l) frío lit. war of the cold (vs. guerra
fría ‘cold war’), although coexistence is not rare. The exact nature of this interac-
tion depends on language-specific factors (Hüning/Schlücker 2015 on German;
Masini this volume on Italian), not extensively discussed in the Spanish
literature.
The consequence deriving from this behavior is what one would expect: gen-
uine compounding is not a frequent lexical resource in Spanish, and this causes
the interference of MWEs as a naming device. In the case of nouns, Section 3.1
discusses orthographic constructions which unequivocally qualify as compounds
and the three configurations N+N, N+p+N and N+A. In the case of adjectives (Sec-
tion 3.2), broad agreement exists on their morphological origin, which is why
adjectival MWEs (70) are not generally required to fulfil a naming function.
(70) estar hecho polvo ‘to be exhausted’

lit. to be made dust
Finally, the role of verbal compounding in Spanish (Section 3.3) is so negligible

that most constructions are derived from phrasal processes. It seems that Spanish
resorts to MWEs differently for each word-class: adjectival compounding is prac-
tically self-sufficient and requires almost no additional support, verbal com-
pounding stands at the opposite extreme, so phraseology is often activated for
verbal MWEs, and nominal compounding stands midway. Unsurprisingly, the
differentiation between morphological and syntactic objects is the most problem-

atic in those areas where compounding and MWEs interact closely, i. e. N+A
nouns, N+N nouns and N+p+N nouns.
Bearing this in mind, the relationship between compounding and phraseo-
logical processes must be characterized as partly competitive and partly coopera-
tive. There is competition when two processes are synchronically productive and
struggle to coin naming units, so speakers may resort to both of them, at which
time doublets arise. On the other hand, the cooperation between compounding
and phrase-formation becomes manifest when the latter produces units for mor-
phologically unavailable compound types, thus guaranteeing that concepts can
be named. When both processes are available, compounding seems to be hierar-
chically superior (which is in keeping with the basic naming function of word-for-
mation). This can be noticed in adjectival formations, where compounding is
prevalent and MWEs are far less common despite being synchronically available.
In contrast, in verbal compounding, where compounding is either unproductive
or lexicalized, phraseological formations abound. This versatility of MWE forma-
tion in Romance languages has been explained by its fruitful use of prepositions,
which facilitates the creation of p+N strings that “[...] may function as deriva-
tional suffixes where proper suffixes may not be admitted or may not exist”
(Piunno 2016: 31). This view accounts for formations like tren de mercancías
‘freight train’ or cuento de hadas ‘fairy tale’ (30), where the prepositional modifi-
ers (de mercancías ‘of freight’, de hadas ‘of fairies’) counterweigh the non-exist-
ence of adjectival derivations from mercancía and hada.
Bauer (1998: 83 ff.) opines differently on the connection between MWEs and
compounds. In discussing English N+N constructions, he wonders if we are faced
not with two different prototypical categories plus midway cases, but with just
one broader category whose members display contrasting features. This would
certainly explain the oft-cited overlap of morphological and syntactic entities in
various languages (Ruiz Gurillo 2002; Gaeta/Ricca 2009). Bauer invokes the Avoid
Synonymy Principle (Kiparsky 1983), which accounts for the fact that the exist-
ence of a denominative unit (be it a compound or an MWE) prevents the use of its
competitor, and he wonders about the nature of this single category: morpholog-
ical or syntactic. At present we lack strong evidence for a definitive distinction
between two types of N+N constructions, although that does not necessarily vali-
date the existence of a single category. The main obstacle, if so, is which frame-
work may embrace these formations, since their hybrid nature is irreconcilable
with a modular view of grammar. As in other works dealing with MWEs (Masini
2005, 2009, this volume; Booij 2009, this volume; Piunno 2016), Construction
Morphology (Booij 2010) is here deemed a suitable candidate since constructions
are versatile form-meaning pairings whose complexity ranges from simple words
to complex idioms. As has been shown, the data available for Spanish is not
favorable for a two-category distinction, and so the possibility of a single all-in-
clusive class is particularly welcome in this case. Turning to constructions of
course implies allowing MWEs into the mental lexicon, meaning that MWEs and
compounds co-exist, overlap somewhat in their forms and functions and are
hence competitors for the naming act. This position is consistent with the depic-
tion of the Spanish system presented above, and offers a middle-ground solution
to the apparently irreconcilable nature of these two sets of units.
5 C
onclusions
This article has offered a concise overview of MWEs and compounds in Contem-
porary Spanish. It has dealt with constructions that can be viewed as compounds,
phrases or collocations depending on an analysis based on a combination of syn-
tactic, phraseological and morphological features. A non-discrete demarcation of
such units is the clearest outcome of the tests available, with several features
shared by compounds and idiomatic expressions. These tests make it impossible
to empirically separate morphological from phraseological formations due to idi-
osyncrasies and exceptions caused by semantic and functional similarities. The
above arguments and examples indeed make a case for a gradient structure of
MWEs, of which compounds and phrases are extreme positions.
Some Spanish compounds and MWEs stand in cooperative rivalry. This asso-
ciation is apparently inversely proportional to their respective lexical output,
such that the more productive compounding is for a given category, the less pro-
ductive MWE formation will be. This ensures that a linguistic resource for concept
naming will always be available. In this sense, observation of the data makes it
safe to assert that Spanish compounding is productive mainly for nouns and
adjectives, and that MWE formation is exploited for other categories. It must be
borne in mind, however, that the environment of Spanish morpho-syntax is dif-
ferent from that of English, from which most current linguistic frameworks and
theories of word-formation have emerged. The contrast between the Spanish and
English systems is evident for example in the allegedly poor output of Spanish
compounding or very high productivity of the exocentric V+N pattern, measures
which will by need seem unsatisfactory if English is taken as the benchmark. It
may then be the case that a strict application of Germanic models on Romance
phenomena will most likely project an imperfect picture. The present situation
calls for an approach which considers MWEs in other languages but does not
impose external models to native patterns (e. g. Booij 2009; Gaeta/Ricca 2009;
Masini 2009).
In elucidating the status of MWEs, the need for agreement among linguistic
disciplines is urgent, a task that has been neglected so far. For decades, research
into morphology has made little headway in the analysis of phrase-like com-
pounds, and phraseologists have unsuccessfully struggled in explaining various
levels of multi-word formations. Joint efforts may thrive in precisely locating
MWEs in the language system, not through separate investigations, but by look-
ing at the common goals of morphology and phraseology: “a proper theory of the
relation between morphological and syntactic naming constructions is called
for” (Booij 2009: 220). Let us remember that phraseology is a young field whose
conceptual foundations seem to be under development. Gries puts it as follows
(2008: 22; also Colson 2016):
Many phraseologists […] have focused on rather descriptive work on phraseology (or, more
narrowly, idioms) and have often not been concerned with integrating their accounts of
phraseologisms in particular and other patterns more generally into a larger theory of the
linguistic system.
Hopefully, this dearth of theoretical descriptions will eventually be overcome and

develop into a robust treatment of MWEs which will allow us to explain border-
line cases like the above. Morphology and phraseology are undoubtedly on track
to achieving a comprehensive account of multi-word lexical phenomena, but a
concerted effort is needed to reach this end; until then, a definitive description of
MWEs will be on hold.
References
Language and Linguistics 2, 1. 65–86.
Bauer, Laurie (2017): Compounds and compounding. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 155).
Bisetto, Antonietta (2015): Do Romance languages have phrasal compounds? A look at Italian.
In: Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 68, 3. 395–419.
Bisetto, Antonietta/Scalise, Sergio (2005): The classification of compounds. In: Lingue e
Linguaggio 4, 2. 319–332.
Booij, Geert (2009): Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. In: Word Structure 2, 2.
219–240.
Buenafuentes de la Mata, Cristina (2010): La composición sintagmática en español. San Millán
de la Cogolla: Cilengua.
Buenafuentes de la Mata, Cristina (2014): Compounding and variational morphology: The
analysis of inflection in Spanish compounds. In: Borealis: An International Journal of
Hispanic Linguistics 3, 1. 1–21.
Bustos Gisbert, Eugenio (1986): La composición nominal en español. Salamanca: Universidad

de Salamanca.
Colson, Jean-Pierre (2016): Editorial: Phraseology at the intersection of grammar, culture and
statistics. In: Yearbook of Phraseology 7. 1–2.
Davies, Mark (2002–): El Corpus del Español. Internet: www.corpusdelespanol.org (last access:
11.6.2018).
morphological objects? In: Rivista di Linguistica 21, 1. 35–70.
Ginebra, Jordi (2002): Las unidades del tipo dinero negro y dormir como un tronco: ¿Naturaleza
léxica o gramatical? In: Veiga, Alexandre/González Pereira, Miguel/Gómez, Montserrat
Souto (eds.): Léxico y gramática. (= Linguas e Lingüística 3). Lugo: Tris Tram. 147–154.
Gries, Stefan Th. (2008): Phraseology and linguistic theory. A brief survey. In: Granger,
Sylviane/Meunier, Fanny (eds.): Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam
u. a.: Benjamins. 3–25.
Guevara, Emiliano R. (2012): Spanish compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 175–195.
(= Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston:
De Gruyter. 450–467.
Iacobini, Claudio (2009): Phrasal verbs between syntax and the lexicon. In: Rivista di
Linguistica 21, 1. 97–117.
Kiparsky, Paul (1983): Word-formation and the lexicon. In: Ingemann, Frances J. (ed.):
Proceedings from the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence, KS: University
of Kansas. 3–32.
Klingebiel, Kathryn (1989): Noun + verb compounding in Western Romance. (= University of
California Publications in Linguistics 113). Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.
Koike, Kazumi (2001): Colocaciones léxicas en el español actual: Estudio formal y léxico-
semántico. Alcalá de Henares: University of Alcalá de Henares.
Kornfeld, Laura Malena (2009): IE, Romance: Spanish. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol
(eds.): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 436–452.
Lang, Mervyn F. (1992): Formación de palabras en español: Morfología derivativa productiva en
el léxico moderno. Madrid: Cátedra.
Masini, Francesca (2005): Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: The case of
Italian verb-particle constructions. In: SKY Journal of Linguistics 18. 145–173.
Montoro del Arco, Esteban T. (2008): Relaciones entre morfología y fraseología: Las
formaciones nominales pluriverbales. In: Montoro del Arco, Esteban T./Pérez, Ramón
Almela (eds.): Neologismo y morfología. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. 121–146.
Moyna, María Irene (2011): Compound words in Spanish. Theory and history. Amsterdam u. a.:
Benjamins.
Pafel, Jürgen (2017): Phrasal compounds and the morphology-syntax relation. In Trips, Carola/
Kornfilt, Jaklin (eds.): Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding.
(= Morphological Investigations 1). Berlin: Language Science Press. 233–259.
Piunno, Valentina (2016): Multiword modifiers in some Romance languages. Semantic formats
and syntactic templates. In: Yearbook of Phraseology 7. 3–34.
RAE: Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2010): Nueva
gramática de la lengua española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa.
117–142.
Rao, Rajiv (2015): On the phonological status of Spanish compound words. In: Word Structure 8,
1. 84–118.
Renner, Vincent (2006): Les composés coordinatifs en anglais contemporain. Unpublished PhD
dissertation. Université Lumière Lyon 2. Internet: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/
tel-00565046 (last access: 10.12.2016).
Ruiz Gurillo, Leonor (2002): Compuestos, colocaciones, locuciones: Intento de delimitación. In:
Veiga, Alexandre/González Pereira, Miguel/Gómez, Montserrat Souto (eds.): Léxico y
gramática. Lugo: Tris Tram. 327–339.
Scalise, Sergio/Fábregas, Antonio (2010): The head in compounding. In: Scalise, Sergio/Vogel,
Irene (eds.): Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding. Amsterdam u. a.: Benjamins.
109–125.
comparison between German A+N compounds and corresponding phrases. In: Rivista di
Val Álvaro, José Francisco (1999): La composición. In: Demonte, Violeta/Bosque, Ignacio (eds.):
Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 3: Entre la oración y el discurso.
Morfología. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. 4757–4842.
241–253.
Maria Koliopoulou
ompounds and multi-word expressions
C
in Greek
1 I ntroduction
Complex lexical units include compounds as well as multi-word expressions dis-
playing mixed morphosyntactic properties.1 These mixed properties are deter-
mined by language-specific characteristics. Moreover, a diversity of properties is
observed among the different types of multi-word expressions; in some cases
even within the same type of structure. Therefore, their status is rather unclear, as
is also revealed by the strong name variation among scholars (Hüning/Schlücker
2015: 450 f.), even within the same language. The different naming suggestions
cannot be considered as one-to-one equivalents or synonyms. The selection of
one of them is also determined by the theoretical approach adopted. Specifically,
the selection or the creation of a new label depends on the type of grammatical
model as well as on the role of the lexicon to the formation of new lexical units.
Multi-word expressions in Greek have caught the attention of linguists in the
twentieth century. This type of lexical unit has been used more often in the form
of loan translations from English and French (Anastassiadis-Symeonidis 1986,
1994). Since then it has been rather prominent in many terminological domains
as well as in media language. Moreover, it constitutes a commonly selected for-
mation type of lexical units for the naming of new concepts or the translation of
borrowed terms gaining ground over the formation of typical compounds.
The phenomenon of terminological variation regarding multi-word expres-
sions is also apparent in the literature of Greek. Different names that have been
suggested among scholars are for instance lexical phrases (Anastassiadis-Syme-
onidis 1986; Ralli 1991), multi-word compounds (Ralli 1992; Anastassiadis-Syme-
onidis 1996; Christofidou 1997; Ralli/Stavrou 1998) and loose multi-word com
pounds (Ralli 2005, 2007; Koliopoulou 2006, 2008, 2009). Ralli (2013a, 2013b; cf.
also Bağriaçik/Ralli 2015) adopts in her later studies the term phrasal compounds,
inspired by Booij’s (2009, 2010: 169–192) term phrasal names, in order to differen-
1 I wish to thank the editor of this volume, Anna Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, Pius ten Hacken as
well as the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and criticism. Needless to
say, remaining mistakes and opinions expressed are of my own responsibility.
Open Access. © 2019 Koliopoulou, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-008
222 Maria Koliopoulou
tiate specific types of complex lexical units from typical one-word compounds
which are morphological objects. However, the use of the term phrasal compound
to refer to this type of structure can be misleading, since it is also used to denote
another kind of structure, namely compounds with a phrasal element at the non-
head position, like chicken and egg situation in English. Such structures are not
possible in Greek (cf. Section 2.1).
In this study, I adopt the term multi-word expression as a term that is general
and theory-neutral – also suggested by Hüning/Schlücker (2015: 451) – to refer to
different types of complex lexical units in Greek sharing morphological and syn-
tactic features in various proportions. The aim of this study is to analyze their
complicated properties and compare them to typical compounds without letting
theoretical considerations override the data. After having analyzed in detail the
different types of multi-word expressions in Greek, I will come back to more the-
oretical considerations regarding their interrelation with other comparable lexi-
cal units as well as their locus of realization in grammar.
Specifically, this study is structured as follows: Section 2 gives an overview of
various complex lexical units found in Greek. Typical compounds, multi-word
expressions as well as phrase-like structures are analyzed in detail and compared
to each other. Section 3 discusses the interrelation between the various types
arguing that they coexist in the lexicon as complementary resources of nominal
naming units. However, coexistence in the lexicon does not exclude competition
among types. Section 4 deals with the question of how complex lexical units can
be accounted for in the lexicon and in grammar. Finally, Section 5 summarizes
the conclusions.
2 T
ypical compounds vs. other complex lexical
units
Compounding can be considered as the output of a morphological operation sit-
uated closer to syntax than any other morphological formation (Scalise 1992: 4).
As a result of this closeness, it is sometimes rather difficult to differentiate com-
pounds from phrases2, and even more from intermediate structures displaying a
2 Many studies have been carried out on the distinction between compounds and phrases based
on selected criteria mostly concerning the formal properties of a compound contrary to those of
a syntactic phrase (e. g. Borer 1988; Scalise 1992; ten Hacken 1994; Bisetto/Scalise 1999; Bauer
2001; Olsen 2001; Donalies 2004; Gaeta/Ricca 2009; Schlücker/Hüning 2009). Despite the detec-
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Greek 223
mix of properties of different types of structures. However, the demarcation

between typical one-word compounds and intermediate structures is relatively
clear with regard to the Greek data. The difficulty consists in the demarcation
between the different types of intermediate structures, the analysis of the degree
of structural connection with typical compounds or with regular syntactic
phrases, as well as in the decision on whether these structures belong to mor-
phology or to syntax.
2.1 Typical compounds
Compounding is one of the most productive morphological processes in Greek.

One-word compound formations mostly built up from stems are found in both
spoken and written language in various types of texts. The spontaneous creation
of compounds that in some cases succeed to be established and to enter the
speakers’ mental lexicon is not rare.
Compounds in Greek involve all major lexical categories, namely nouns (1),
adjectives (2) and verbs (3). Determinative compounds are right-headed, as shown
by the examples below.3
(1) κεφαλόσκαλο ← κεφάλ(ι)Ν -ο- σκαλ(ί)Ν

kefaloskalo kefal(i) -o- skal(i)
upper/wider step head LE4 step
(2) εθιμοτυπικός ← έθιμ(ο)N -ο- τυπικόςΑ

ethimotipikos ethim(o) -o- tipikos
formal/traditional custom LE typical
(3) κρυφοκοιτάζω ← κρυφ(ά)Adv -ο- κοιτάζωV

krifokitazo krif(a) -o- kitazo
watch secretly secretly LE watch/look
tion of specific criteria, there is no agreement on a clear-cut distinction between compounds and
phrases, at least not cross-linguistically.
3 Greek examples in this chapter are given in Greek as well as transliterated in the Latin script,
before being translated into English.
4 The abbreviation stands for “linking element”.
Nominal compounds consisting of two nouns are the most productive ones (1), as
in a number of other languages, for instance in German. Verbal compounding is
very productive in Greek in comparison to other European languages, either in
the form of determinative structures, as in (3), or in the form of coordinative struc-
tures (e. g. πηγαινοέρχομαι ‘come and go’). In German, for instance, the limited
number of verbal compounds is the result of a backformation process from nom-
inal compounds (Becker 1992: 20 f.; Günther 1997: 6).
With regard to their structural properties, compounds in Greek usually con-
sisting of stems form one phonological word written as one graphemic unit
(cf. (1)–(3)). This phonological word has one main stress assigned either on the
antepenultimate syllable of the entire compound formation (1), or on the regular
stress position of the right-hand constituent (2, 3). Stress assignment is deter-
mined by two specific phonological rules applicable to all compound formations
(Nespor/Ralli 1994: 201, 1996: 357). The form of these rules will not concern us
here.
Moreover, compounds in Greek constitute one morphological unit, to which
syntactic operations do not have access. In the following, I contrast the properties
displayed by a compound formation (4) with those of a syntactic phrase (5), both
consisting of an adjective and a noun, so that the analysis is comparable. The first
indication of the word atomicity displayed by compounds is related to the fact
that word internal inflection is not allowed (4b), contrary to syntactic phrases,
whose components are inflected.
(4) [A N]compound
(4a) τρελόπαιδοNeu.Nom.Sg ← τρελ(ό)Neu.Nom.Sg -ο- παιδ(ί)Neu.Nom.Sg
trelopedo trel(o) -o- ped(i)
crazy boy crazy LE child
(4b) *τρελ-ά-παιδ-αNeu.Nom.Pl ← τρελ(ά)Neu.Nom.Pl παιδ(ιά)Neu.Nom.Pl
trel-a-ped-a trel(a) ped(ia)
crazy boys crazy children
(5) [A N]phrase
(5a) τρελ-όNeu.Nom.Sg παιδ-ίNeu.Nom.Sg
trel(o) ped-i
crazy child/boy
(5b) τρελ-άNeu.Nom.Pl παιδ-ιάNeu.Nom.Pl
trel-a ped-ia
crazy children/boys
Apart from this first distinctive characteristic, I will apply a number of diagnostic
tests to both types of structure in order to verify the lexical integrity of compound
structures. Some of the typical diagnostic tests found in the literature on com-
pounding in Greek (cf. Ralli 2013a: 21, 24; Bağriaçik/Ralli 2015: 328 f.; ten Hacken/
Koliopoulou 2016: 130 ff.) are the following: a) independent modification of the
non-head (6), b) coordination of the components (7), c) reversing the word order
(8).
(6a) *πολυ-τρελ-ό-παιδο
poli-trel-o-pedo
very crazy boy
(6b) πολύ τρελό παιδί
poli trelo pedi
very crazy boy
(7a) *τρελ-ο-και-χαζ-ό-παιδο
trel-o-ke-chaz-o-pedo
crazy and stupid boy
(7b) τρελό και χαζό παιδί
trelo ke chazo pedi
crazy and stupid boy
(8a) *παιδ-ό-τρελο
ped-o-trelo
boy crazy
(8b) παιδί τρελό
pedi trelo
boy crazy
With regard to the last test, according to which the order of the constituents of
syntactic phrases can be reversed (8b), it should be mentioned that this possibil-
ity increases the emphasis on the syntactic phrase. Specifically, the property des-
ignated by the adjective is highlighted by this stylistic variation (ten Hacken/Koli-
opoulou 2016: 131 f.). On the contrary, the word order of compound components is
fixed (8a). Even in compounds consisting of components with the same lexical
category, like noun-noun compounds, the change of the order of the two compo-
nents is – at least in Standard Modern Greek – ungrammatical (cf. (1) κεφαλόσκα
λο/*σκαλοκέφαλο ‘upper/wider step’).
A further distinctive characteristic is related to the type of constituents partic-

ipating in syntactic phrases or compounds. Phrases consist of words while com-
pounds in Greek usually consist of stems. However, the possibility of a word con-
stituent in one of the two positions or even in both positions of a compound
formation cannot be excluded. Since both types of free lexemes can occupy any
constituent position, four structural patterns result from all possible combina-
tions (cf. Ralli 2005: 237 f., 2013a: 16; Koliopoulou 2013: 24 f.).
(9a) [stem-stem]
καραβόπανο ← καράβ(ι)5 -ο- παν(ί)
karav-o-pano karav(i) -o- pan(i)
sailcloth ship LE cloth
(9b) [stem-word]
θαλασσοταραχή ← θάλασσ(α) -ο- ταραχή
thalassotarachi thalassa(a) -o- tarachi
sea disturbance sea LE disturbance
(9c) [word-stem]
επτάψυχος ← επτά ψυχ(ή)
eptapsichos epta psich(i)
having seven lives seven soul
(9d) [word-word]
ξαναμιλάω ← ξανά μιλάω
ksanamilao ksana milao
talk again again talk
The most productive pattern is that of stem-stem formations (9a), since stem-con-
stituents are preferred in Greek compounds.
The preference for a specific type of constituent in the compound formations
constitutes an important parameter determining various structural characteris-
tics of compounds (cf. Koliopoulou 2013, 2014a), among others the possibility of
the appearance of a linking element. Specifically, in case the first constituent is a
stem (9a), (9b), the two constituents are linked to each other with the element
-o-.6 Its appearance is obligatory and rather systematic, motivated by the fact that
compound constituents are usually stems.
5 A stem constituent in a Greek compound can also be indicated by the fact that the truncated
inflectional ending is given in parentheses.
6 Other possible forms of the linking element are -ι- and -α- appearing in rare cases (cf. Ralli
2013a: 50–53).
The impact of the “word- vs. stem-based parameter” in compounding

becomes obvious if we compare Greek with German compounds.7 German com-
pounds are mostly built out of words, without excluding cases of a stem constitu-
ent in the first position of the compound, as in Stimmabgabe (‘voting’, Stimm(e)
‘vote/voice’, Abgabe ‘delivery’). They are also characterized by the appearance of
a linking element as for instance Arbeit-s-ablauf (‘workflow’).
However, the linking element in German compounds displays very different
properties compared to the Greek linking element -o- (Koliopoulou 2014b). There-
fore, the appearance of a linking element is not systematic, its form is variable,
while compounds without linking element are very productive (e. g. Stimm-Æ-ab
gabe ‘voting’).
The preference of a particular language to build compounds out of words or
stems affects further characteristics of the compounding process, for instance the
possibility of recursion. Specifically, compounds in German tend to be expanded
through recursion either in the non-head or the head position, as shown in (10a)
and (10b) respectively (cf. Bauer 2009: 350; Neef 2009: 386; Koliopoulou 2017:
123). By contrast, recursion in Greek compounds, as illustrated in (11), is a rather
rare phenomenon (cf. Koliopoulou 2013: 29 f.; Mukai 2013: 43).
(10a) [[Stadt][fahrplan]] ← Stadt Fahrplan

city timetable city timetable
(10b) [[Altstadt][plan]] ← Altstadt Plan
old town map old town plan
(11a) [[ζαμπον]-ο-[τυρόπιτα]] ← ζαμπόν τυρόπιτα

zampon-o-tiropita zampon tiropita
ham-cheese pie ham cheese pie
(11b) [[ποδοσφαιρ]]-ό-[φιλος]] ← ποδόσφαιρο φίλος
podosfer-o-filos podosfero filos
football fun football friend
The difference in the degree of recursion between German and Greek compounds
is related to the type of constituents. Specifically, I argue that stem constituents
exhibit more restrictions than word constituents, whose more independent char-
acter allows the connection with further compound members, either in the head
or in the non-head position.
7 For an extensive comparison between Greek and German compounds cf. Koliopoulou (2013,
2014a, 2014c, 2015).
2.2 M
ulti-word expressions
Another type of complex lexical unit composed of free morphemes are multi-word
expressions. These peculiar structures, found also in Greek, have been already
studied by many scholars (cf. literature mentioned in Section 1 as well as Ana-
stassiadis-Symeonidis 1986: 138–143, 203 ff.; Koliopoulou 2012: 862) in compari-
son to one-word compounds, to syntactic phrases and even to each other, since
the various types display different characteristics. Specifically, contrary to typical
compounds constituting one morphological word to which syntax has no access,
multi-word expressions in Greek are structures with some morphological proper-
ties (cf. Section 2.2.1) without though preventing syntax from having access to
their internal structure. They can be considered as intermediate structures, since
they behave similarly to one-word compounds, but they also bear features typical
for syntactic phrases. Their mixed properties vary not only within the different
types of intermediate structures, but in some cases even among the various exam-
ples of the same type (cf. (26)–(27)).
Specifically, multi-word expressions in Greek are nominal structures8 com-
posed either of an inflected adjective and a noun or of two nouns. They look like
syntactic phrases since their components are independent phonological words,
contrary to one-word compounds constituting a single phonological word,
regardless of the type of the compound constituents. Moreover, multi-word
expressions consist of two inflected words. Compounds, by contrast, are usually
formed out of stems linked by the element -o-. Compound formations are inflected
at the right edge of the structure.
To be more specific, there are four types of multi-word structures9:
a) [A N] expressions composed of an inflected adjective and a noun (12),
b) [N NGEN] expressions consisting of two nouns, the second being in the genitive
case (13),
c) [N NAttr.] expressions consisting of two nouns in attributive relation (14),
d) [N NApp.] expressions composed by two nouns in appositive relation (15).
8 There are only nominal multi-word expressions in Greek, which should not be confused with
other types of phrasal expressions, like την κάνω (tinFEM.ACC.SG kano1P.SG, her make, ‘I am going’),
namely fossilized expressions with a very idiomatic meaning (cf. Ralli 2013a: 252).
9 Most examples are taken from Anastassiadis-Symeonidis (1986), the first linguist that men-
tioned and analyzed thoroughly these structures in Greek.
(12) [A N]
(12a) ψυχρός πόλεμος ← ψυχρόςMasc/Nom/Sg πόλεμοςMasc/Nom/Sg
psichros polemos psichros polemos
cold war cold war
(12b) τρίτος κόσμος ← τρίτοςMasc/Nom/Sg κόσμοςMasc/Nom/Sg
tritos kosmos tritos kosmos
third world third world
(12c) μαύρη αγορά ← μαύρηFem/Nom/Sg αγοράFem/Nom/Sg
mavri agora mavri agora
black market black market
(12d) μεγάλη οθόνη ← μεγάληFem/Nom/Sg οθόνηFem/Nom/Sg
megali othoni megali othoni
cinema big screen
(13) [N NGEN]
(13a) αγορά εργασίας ← αγοράNom.Sg εργασίαςGen.Sg
agora ergasias agora ergasias
job market market job
(13b) τάγματα ασφαλείας ← τάγματαNom.Pl ασφαλείαςGen.Sg
tagmata asfalias tagmata asfalias
security battalions battalions safety
(13c) κρέμα ημέρας ← κρέμαNom.Sg ημέραςGen.Sg
krema imeras krema imeras
day cream cream day
(13d) άρση βαρών ← άρσηNom.Sg βαρώνGen.Pl
arsi varon arsi varon
weightlifting lift weight
(14) [N NAttr.]
(14a) λέξη κλειδί ← λέξηNom κλειδίNom
leksi klidi leksi klidi
key word word key
(14b) νόμος πλαίσιο ← νόμοςNom πλαίσιοNom
nomos plesio nomos plesio
frame law law frame
(14c) φόρος φωτιά ← φόροςNom φωτιάNom
foros fotia foros fotia
very high tax tax fire
(14d) γυναίκα αράχνη ← γυναίκαNom αράχνηNom
gineka arachni gineka arachni
greedy, dishonest woman woman spider
(15) [N NApp.]
(15a) μεταφραστής διερμηνέας
metafrastis diermineas
translator-interpreter
(15b) σκηνοθέτης παραγωγός
skinothetis paragogos
director-producer
(15c) ηθοποιός τραγουδιστής
ihtopios tragudistis
actor-singer
(15d) δικηγόρος πολιτικός
dikigoros politikos
layer-politician
Multi-word expressions constitute naming units, many of them displaying an idi-

omatic meaning. The degree of semantic opacity is in some cases comparable to
that of typical compounds. Consider, for instance, the example μαύρη αγορά
(‘black market’, (12c)), denoting a very specific type of market, or the example
άρση βαρών (‘weightlifting’, (13d)) denoting an athletic discipline. However, as
stated e. g. by Gaeta/Ricca (2009: 36), the semantic criterion is unreliable and can
even be misleading for the demarcation between morphological and syntactic
structures (cf. Section 2.2.1). Therefore, the present analysis is mainly based on
formal criteria.
With regard to headedness, all four types display the same order as compara-
ble adjective-noun (16a) and noun-noun syntactic phrases (16b).
(16a) μικρό καλάθι ← μικρόNeu/Nom/Sg καλάθιNeu/Nom/Sg

mikro kalathi mikro kalathi
small basket small basket
(16b) πόρτα σπιτιού ← πόρταFem/Nom/Sg σπιτιούNeu/Gen/Sg
porta spitiu porta spitiu
house door door house
Particularly, the nominal right-hand constituent is the head in [A N] formations.

In [N NGEN] and [N NAttr.] expressions the left-hand constituent bears the head prop-
erties. Interestingly, [A N] expressions share the same order also with adjec-
tive-noun one-word compounds displaying the head position at the right-hand
constituent (e. g. τρελόπαιδο ‘crazy boy’, cf. (4)). Nominal expressions of the types
[N NGEN] and [N NAttr.] display the reverse order in comparison to noun-noun
compounds which are right-headed (e. g. κεφαλόσκαλο ‘upper/wider step’ (1),
καραβόπανο ‘sailcloth’ (9a)). Therefore, with regard to headedness, [A N] expres-

sions share more characteristics with typical one-word compounds than [N NGEN]
and [N NAttr.] expressions.
A further property that some multi-word expressions share with typical com-
pounds is that they can be input to a derivation process, specifically to suffixation
(cf. Koliopoulou 2006: 49, 2009: 62, 2012: 863; Ralli 2007: 232 f., 2013a: 247 f., 266;
ten Hacken/Koliopoulou 2016: 132 f.). Specifically, one-word compounds, regard-
less of the type and the lexical category of constituents they consist of, can
become bases for derivational suffixation, cf. (17). The most common derivational
suffix added to a complex base is the adjectival suffix -ικ(ός), as shown in the
examples below.
(17) χαρτοπαικτικός ← χαρτN-ο-παίκτ(-ης)N [-ικος]ADJ

chartopektikos chart-o-pekt-is -ikos
card playADJ card-LE-player
καλογερικός ← καλA-ό-γερ(-ος)N [-ικος]ADJ
kalogerikos kal-o-ger-os -ikos
monkADJ good-LE-old man
[A N] expressions, like those given under (12), stripped off both inflectional end-
ings and turned into one complex stem can also receive a derivational suffix, as
shown in the examples given under (18). However, [A N] expressions are not the
only structures that display this possibility. As Anastassiadis-Symeonidis (1986:
140) mentions, some [N NGEN] expressions (13) can also be input to a suffixation
process, as shown in (19). The suffixes that take part in this derivational process
are the adjectival suffix -ικ(ός) and the nominal suffixes -ίτ(ης) and -ίστ(ας).
(18a) ψυχροπολεμικός ← ψυχρ(ός) πόλεμ(ος) [-ικός]ADJ

psichropolemikos psichr(os) polem(os) -ikos
cold war cold war
(18b) τριτοκοσμικός ← τρίτ(ος) κόσμ(ος) [-ικός]ADJ
tritokosmikos trit(os) kosm(os) -ikos
third world third world
(18c) μαυραγορίτης ← μαύρ(η) αγορ(ά) [-ίτης]NOUN
mavragoritis mavr(i) agor(a) -itis
black marketer black market
(19a) ταγματασφαλίτης ← τάγματ(α) ασφαλεί(ας) [-ίτης]NOUN

tagmatasfalitis tagmata asfalias -itis
security battalion member battalions safety
(19b) αρσιβαρίστας ← άρσ(η) βαρ(ών) [-ίστας]NOUN

arsivaristas ars(i) var(on) -istas
weightlifter lift weight
The possibility to become input to derivation is not applicable to all [A N] or

[N NGEN] expressions. Μεγάλη οθόνη (‘cinema’, (12d)) or αγορά εργασίας (‘job mar-
ket’, (13a)), for instance, cannot be input to any derivation process. Although
there are no certain criteria determining which structures can participate to fur-
ther derivation processes, it can be argued that these structures share more mor-
phological features with typical compounds.
[N NApp.] structures are different from the other types of multi-word expres-
sions with regard to headedness. Particularly, the two components share the
same formal and semantic properties and thus the head properties as well. Since
the two components display the same lexical category, it is possible to reverse
their order, as shown in (20).
(20a) μεταφραστής διερμηνέας / διερμηνέας μεταφραστής

metafrastis diermineas diermineas metafrastis
translator-interpreter / interpreter-translator
(20b) σκηνοθέτης παραγωγός / παραγωγός σκηνοθέτης
skinothetis paragogos paragogos skinothetis
director-producer / producer-director
Coordinative compounds in Greek that are possible in all major lexical categories
(21) do not usually display this possibility except for very few [A A] compounds,
such as (21b) (cf. Ralli 2007: 99; Koliopoulou 2013: 301).
(21a) αλατοπίπερο ← αλάτιN πιπέριN

alatopipero alati piperi
salt and pepper salt pepper
(21b) μαυρόασπρος/ασπρόμαυρος ← μαύροςA άσπροςA
mavroaspros/aspromavros mavros aspros
black and white black white
(21c) πηγαινοέρχομαι ← πηγαίνωV έρχομαιV
pigenoerchome pigeno erchome
come and go go come
Despite the fact that the order of the [N NApp.] components is more easily reversi-
ble, this possibility affects in some degree the meaning of the structure (Anastas-
siadis-Symeonidis 1986: 191 f.; Ralli 2013a: 256). Specifically, the first member
bears a more prominent semantic role than the second one. Therefore, the mean-
ing of the expression changes slightly in case the order of the constituents is
reversed.
Moreover, coordinative compounds and [N NApp.] structures are not directly
comparable, although some scholars treat them in this way (cf. Olsen 2001;
Bisetto/Scalise 2005). In many studies it has been argued that [N NApp.] expres-
sions display different characteristics in comparison to coordinative compounds
(cf. Wälchli 2005: 7; Bauer 2008: 4; Gaeta/Ricca 2009: 50; Manolessou/Tsolakidis
2009: 30). In the case of Greek, there is a clear demarcation between the two types
of formation since coordinative compounds constitute one phonological and
morphological word (21). In contrast, [N NApp.] expressions consist of two phono-
logically and morphologically independent words. Moreover, coordinative com-
pounds are not characterized by an appositional relation between the compo-
nents. The most common type of semantic relation found in Greek coordinative
compounds is the additive one (Ralli 2007: 80 f., 98, 2013a: 163; Koliopoulou 2013:
297 ff.).
Since multi-word expressions always consist of two inflected words, they do
not display the morphological properties of one-word compounds (cf. Anastassi-
adis-Symeonidis 1986: 149, 174, 196). Particularly, the inflected components of
[A N] expressions agree in gender, case and number, as shown in (22), like regular
syntactic phrases.
(22a) ψυχρόςMasc/Nom/Sg πόλεμοςMasc/Nom/Sg ‘cold war’

psichros polemos
(22b) ψυχροίMasc/Nom/Pl πόλεμοιMasc/Nom/Pl
psichri polemi
(22c) ψυχρούMasc/Gen/Sg πολέμουMasc/Gen/Sg
psichru polemu
(22d) ψυχρώνMasc/Gen/Pl πολέμωνMasc/Gen/Pl
psichron polemon
Similar characteristics of agreement in gender, case and number are also dis-
played by [N NApp.] expressions (cf. (15)), as illustrated below.
(23a) μεταφραστήςMasc/Nom/Sg διερμηνέαςMasc/Nom/Sg ‘translator-interpreter’

metafrastis diermineas
(23b) μεταφραστήMasc/Gen/Sg διερμηνέαMasc/Gen/Sg
metafrasti dierminea
(23c) μεταφραστέςMasc/Nom/Pl διερμηνείςMasc/Nom/Pl
metafrastes dierminis
(23d) μεταφραστώνMasc/Gen/Pl διερμηνέωνMasc/Gen/Pl

metafraston diermineon
[N NGEN] expressions show inflectional properties similar to syntactic phrases, like

πόρτα σπιτιού ((16b), ‘house doorGEN’). Specifically the first noun can be inde-
pendently inflected, while the second one always appears in genitive case, trig-
gered by the first noun, the head of the structure (cf. Koliopoulou 2012: 866), as
shown below.
(24a) κρέμαFem/Nom/Sg ημέραςFem/Gen/Sg ‘day creme’

krema imeras
(24b) κρέμεςFem/Nom/Pl ημέραςFem/Gen/Sg
kremes imeras
(24c) κρέμαςFem/Gen/Sg ημέραςFem/Gen/Sg
kremas imeras
(24d) κρεμώνFem/Gen/Pl ημέραςFem/Gen/Sg
kremon imeras
Moreover, the genitive case of the non-head is always singular regardless of the
number value of the head, as presented in (24b) and (24d). The inflectional prop-
erties of the non-head are less variable than the inflectional properties of the non-
head of equivalent regular phrases. Specifically, both constituents of a syntactic
phrase can be variably inflected regarding the features of number, as illustrated
in (25).
(25a) πόρτες Fem/Nom/Pl σπιτιούNeu/Gen/Sg ‘house doors (of one house)’

portes spitiu
(25b) πόρτες Fem/Nom/Pl σπιτιώνNeu/Gen/Pl ‘house doors (of many houses)’
portes spition
[N NAttr.] expressions display inflectional properties different from syntactic

phrases. Despite the fact that the non-head displays a certain degree of inflec-
tional autonomy, there are some restrictions with regard to the features of plural
number and genitive case (cf. Koliopoulou 2009: 67, 2012: 866; Ralli 2013a: 254),
as shown below.
(26a) λέξηFem/Nom/Sg κλειδίNeu/Nom/Sg ‘key word’

leksi klidi
(26b) λέξειςFem/Nom/Pl κλειδιάNeu/Nom/Pl

leksis klidia
?λέξειςFem/Nom/Pl κλειδίNeu/Nom/Sg
leksis klidi
(26c) λέξηςFem/Gen/Sg κλειδίNeu/Nom/Sg
leksis klidi
*λέξηςFem/Gen/Sg κλειδιούNeu/Gen/Sg
leksis klidiu
(26d) λέξεωνFem/Gen/Pl κλειδίNeu/Nom/Sg
lekseon klidi
λέξεωνFem/Gen/Pl κλειδιάNeu/Nom/Pl
lekseon klidia
?λέξεωνFem/Gen/Pl κλειδιώνNeu/Gen/Pl
lekseon klidion
Interestingly, comparing two example of the same type of expression, λέξη κλειδί
(‘key word’, (14a), (26)) and νόμος πλαίσιο (‘frame law’, (14b), (27)), it becomes
obvious that not all examples have the same inflectional properties in compara-
ble contexts (cf. Koliopoulou 2009: 67 f., 2012: 866 f., Ralli 2013a: 254 f.). Specifi-
cally, the non-head of the expression νόμος πλαίσιο displays a higher degree of
inflectional autonomy in comparison to the inflectional variation displayed by
the non-head of the example λέξη κλειδί (cf. (26b)–(27b), (26d)–(27d)). Moreover,
with regard to the features of plural and genitive case there are different gram-
maticality judgements among native speakers.
(27a) νόμοςMasc/Nom/Sg πλαίσιοNeu/Nom/Sg ‘frame law’

nomos plesio
(27b) ?νόμοιMasc/Nom/Pl πλαίσιαNeu/Nom/Pl
nomi plesia
νόμοιMasc/Nom/Pl πλαίσιοNeu/Nom/Pl
nomi plesio
(27c) ?νόμουMasc/Gen/Sg πλαίσιοNeu/Nom/Sg
nomu plesio
νόμουMasc/Gen/Sg πλαισίουNeu/Gen/Sg
nomu plesiu
(27d) νόμωνMasc/Gen/Pl πλαίσιοNeu/Nom/Sg
nomon plesio
*νόμωνMasc/Gen/Pl πλαίσιαNeu/Nom/Pl
nomon plesia
*νόμωνMasc/Gen/Pl πλαισίουNeu/Gen/Sg
nomon plesiu
*νόμωνMasc/Gen/Pl πλαισίωνNeu/Gen/Pl
nomon plesion
Regarding the variation in behavior of this type of multi-word expression, it has

been argued that they are in a process of desyntacticization, passing from the
status of syntactic phrases to that of intermediate structures, i. e. to the status of
formations displaying morphosyntactic features (cf. Ralli 2007: 247 ff., 2013a: 255;
Koliopoulou 2012: 867). However, after more careful consideration, the only safe
claim that can be made is that these expressions have not yet acquired a stable
status and that their inflectional properties vary among the different instances of
this type and among speakers. They are indeed in a transitional stage, although it
is not clear if these expressions gradually gain more syntactic autonomy or if they
tend to lose their syntactic status.
2.2.1 Syntactic fixedness
Despite the fact that multi-word expressions share basic properties with regular
syntactic phrases, they share many properties with typical compounds as well.
Specifically, all four types of multi-word expression in Greek display a certain
degree of syntactic fixedness. Some expressions are more restricted than others
with regard to the degree of access to syntactic operations, as illustrated by the
result of applying a number of tests concerning their internal properties i. e. their
degree of lexical integrity (Anderson 1992: 84). Their mixed morpho-syntactic
properties have been studied in detail (Anastassiadis-Symeonidis 1986, 1994,
1996; Ralli 1991, 1992, 2005, 2007, 2013a, 2013b; Christofidou 1997; Ralli/Stavrou
1998; Koliopoulou 2006: 43–56, 2008, 2009, 2012; Bağriaçik/Ralli 2015; ten
Hacken/Koliopoulou 2016). In most of these studies, the degree of lexical integrity
of the multi-word expressions has been analyzed on the basis of diagnostic tests
exploring how many properties they share with regular syntactic formations.
In the following, I use the tests applied to typical compounds (cf. (6)–(8)) in
the previous section in order to determine the degree of syntactic fixedness dis-
played by the different types of multi-word expressions found in Greek (cf. (12)–
(15)). Moreover, I use an additional test regarding the possibility of adjective-noun
syntactic phrases to double the definite article for emphatic reasons, which is
only applicable to [A N] expressions. I summarize the tests under (28):
(28a) independent modification of the non-head

(28b) coordination of the components

(28c) reversion of the word order
(28d) doubling of the definite article of [A N] structures
In (29), I apply the above tests contrastively to the [A N] expression μεγάλη οθόνη
(‘cinema’, (12d)) as well as to the corresponding syntactic phrase μεγάλη οθόνη
(‘big screen’). The examples chosen for the contrastive analysis consist of the
same constituents. However, the difference between them is clear since the [A N]
expression denotes the cinema, whereas the meaning of the syntactic phrase is
fully compositional, denoting a big screen.
(29) [A N] expression [A N] phrase

(29a) *πολύ μεγάλη οθόνη (29a΄) πολύ μεγάλη οθόνη
poli megali othoni poli megali othoni
lit. very big screen
(29b) *μεγάλη και φωτεινή οθόνη (29b΄) μεγάλη και φωτεινή οθόνη
megali ke fotini othoni megali ke fotini othoni
lit. big and bright screen
(29c) ... σε μια *οθόνη μεγάλη (29c΄) ... σε μια οθόνη μεγάλη
… se mia othoni megali … se mia othoni megali
lit. … in a screen big
(29d) *η οθόνη η μεγάλη (29d΄) η οθόνη η μεγάλη
i othoni i megali i othoni i megali
lit. the screen the big
It is obvious from the negative response of the [A N] expression to all diagnostic

tests that the structure displays a certain degree of lexical autonomy, contrary to
the corresponding syntactic phrase, which allows access of all syntactic opera-
tions to its structure.
In (30), I test the structural properties of the [N NGEN] expressions by applying
the tests (28a–c). Specifically, I take as an example the expression αγορά εργασίας
(‘job market’, (13a)) contrastively to the syntactic phrase αναζήτηση εργασίας (‘job
search’) which bears the same non-head (cf. Koliopoulou 2009: 63; Ralli 2013a:
248).
(30) [N NGEN] expression [N NGEN] phrase

(30a) *αγορά μόνιμης εργασίας (30a΄) αναζήτηση μόνιμης εργασίας
agora monimis ergasias anazitisi monimis ergasias
lit. market permanentGen jobGen search permanentGen jobGen
(30b) *αγορά εργασίας και (30b΄) αναζήτηση εργασίας και

απασχόλησης απασχόλησης
agora ergasias ke anazitisi ergasias ke
apascholisis apascholisis
lit. market jobGen and search jobGen and
occupationGen occupationGen
(30c) *εργασίας αγορά (30c΄) εργασίας αναζήτηση
ergasias agora ergasias anazitisi
lit. jobGen market jobGen search
The negative response of the [N NGEN] expression to the applied test reveals a
degree of syntactic fixedness similar to that of the [A N] expressions.
The reaction of [N NAttr.] expressions to the same tests is not different from that
of the structures tested above, as illustrated in the following on the basis of the
example φόρος φωτιά (‘very high tax’, (14c)).
(31a) *φόρος μεγάλη φωτιά

foros megali fotia
tax big fire
(31b) *φόρος φωτιά και καπνός
foros fotia ke kapnos
tax fire and smoke
(31c) *φωτιά φόρος
fotia foros
fire tax
With regard to the possibility of reversing the order of the constituents, most of
the examples belonging to this type of expression have a negative response,
proven by (31c) as well as by (32a΄–c΄). However, there are a few exceptions, e. g.
(32d΄), in which the inversion of the two constituents is allowed (Koliopoulou
2006: 52, 2009: 66), since in this way the property designated by the non-head
can be highlighted.10
(32a) λέξη κλειδί (32a΄) *κλειδί λέξη

leksi klidi klidi leksi
lit. word key key word
10 By contrast, Anastassiadis-Symeonidis (1986: 197) mentions no exception regarding the pos-

sibility of reversing the order of the constituents.
(32b) νόμος πλαίσιο (32b΄) *πλαίσιο νόμος

nomos plesio plesio nomos
lit. law frame frame law
(32c) γυναίκα αράχνη (32c΄) *αράχνη γυναίκα
gineka arachni arachni gineka
lit. woman spider spider woman
(32d) εταιρία μαϊμού (32d΄) μαϊμού εταιρία
eteria maimu maimu eteria
lit. company monkey monkey company
‘fake company’
The frequency of use or the degree of semantic compositionality (cf. Fellbaum

2011) are possible parameters that influence the varying degree of syntactic fixed-
ness determining which structure may be characterized by a free word order.
The last type of multi-word expressions displays an appositional relation
between the constituents. As already mentioned in the previous section, these
expressions are double-headed. Therefore, the tests listed under (31) are almost
inapplicable. Specifically, the application of the tests regarding the coordination
of compounds (31b) as well as reversing of the order (31c) would not make much
sense, since appositional structures are recursive and can be coordinated with
further constituents attached to any of two members. Moreover, the order of the
constituents is reversible (cf. (20)), since the structures are double-headed,
despite the semantic restrictions.
I consider test (28a) in that I check the possibility of independent modifica-
tion of one of the two constituents, although none of them is a non-head (33a).
Moreover, I apply a further diagnostic test in order to investigate the degree of
lexical integrity in their internal structure of the [N NApp.] expressions. Specifi-
cally, in (33b) I test the possibility of insertion of an uninflected adjective (πρώην
‘former’), while in (33c) I test the possibility of insertion of a parenthetical ele-
ment between the constituents.
(33a) *μεταφραστής ικανός διερμηνέας

metafrastis ikanos diermineas
lit. translator capable interpreter
(33b) ?μεταφραστής πρώην διερμηνέας
metafrastis proin diermineas
lit. translator former interpreter
(33c) ?ο μεταφραστής, όπως βλέπετε, διερμηνέας είναι …
o metafrastis, opos vlepete, diermineas ine …
lit. the translator, as you see, interpreter is …
As illustrated above, the independent modification of one of the two members by

a qualifying adjective is not possible, cf. (33a). However, this type of expression
displays a limited degree of syntactic fixedness in comparison to the other types
of multi-word expressions, since an element can intervene in their internal struc-
ture, as shown in (33b) and (33c).
2.2.2 Summary
In (34), I summarize the main points of the analysis of the four types of mul-
ti-word expression found in Greek regarding their degree of syntactic fixedness:
(34a) [A N] and [N NGEN] expressions look like syntactic phrases and are inflected
as such. However, both their inflectional properties as well as their behav-
ior on the diagnostic tests show a certain degree of lexical integrity. Specif-
ically, they share the most morphological characteristics with typical com-
pounds compared to the other types of expressions. Moreover, they can be
input to a suffixation process. Although both types of expressions are
rather rigid with regard to their morphosyntactic features, not all instances
may take part in a suffixation process.
(34b) [N NAttr.] expressions display a rather unclear status. Not only their inflec-
tional properties but also their response to the tests of syntactic fixedness
varies among the different instances.
(34c) [N NApp.] expressions constitute a borderline case among multi-word
expressions in Greek. Not only with regard to their inflectional properties
but also with regard to their behavior in the diagnostic tests, they show the
lowest degree of syntactic fixedness among all types of expressions con-
sidered in this study. However, they still show some signs of lexical auton-
omy, according to which their classification as multi-word expressions is
justified.
2.3 P
hrase-like structures
Although there is a clear distinction between typical compounds and multi-word

expressions in Greek, the variety of structures sharing properties with compounds
as well as with syntactic phrases creates a certain difficulty in differentiating
them from each other and classifying them into distinctive types. Specifically, it
has been argued that there are further types of [A N] and [N NGEN] formations
which can be classified neither as multi-word expressions nor as regular syntactic
phrases (Anastassiadis-Symeonidis 1986; Ralli/Stavrou 1998; Ralli 2005, 2007,

2013a: 257 ff.; Koliopoulou 2006: 21 ff., 36 f., 2012: 863 f.). In order to designate this
extra type of intermediate structure, Koliopoulou (2012) uses the term “special
noun phrases”, while Ralli (2013a) prefers the term “constructs”.
The argument that they differ from [A N] and [N NGEN] multi-word expressions,
although they display the same structure, is based on the observation that the
two members display a special syntactic relation. Specifically, formations of the
[A N] type consist of a relational (35a, b) or classifying adjective (35c, d). In [N NGEN]
the right-handed noun, i. e. the non-head, has the role of a head argument (36).
(35) [A N]
(35a) θεατρική κριτική ← θεατρική κριτική
theatriki kritiki theatriki kritiki
theater review theatrical criticism/review
(35b) βιομηχανική ζώνη ← βιομηχανική ζώνη
viomichaniki zoni viomichaniki zoni
industrial zone industrial zone
(35c) πυρηνική δοκιμή ← πυρηνική δοκιμή
piriniki dokimi piriniki dokimi
nuclear testing nuclear testing
(35d) ψηφιακό κύκλωμα ← ψηφιακό κύκλωμα
psifiako kikloma psifiako kikloma
digital circuit digital circuit
(36) [N NGEN]
(36a) επεξεργασία δεδομένων ← επεξεργασία δεδομένωνGEN
epeksergasia dedomenon epeksergasia dedomenon
data processing processing data
(36b) εκπομπή αερίων ← εκπομπή αερίωνGEN
ekpompi aerion ekpompi aerion
gas emission emission gases
However, as it is obvious from the examples above, both types of structure dis-
play a certain degree of semantic opacity, like the corresponding types of mul-
ti-word expression.
According to their response to the diagnostic test of syntactic atomicity, both
structures can be subjects to syntactic operations. Specifically, in (37) I consider
the application of the tests (28a–d) to the [A N] structure βιομηχανική ζώνη (35b)
and in (38) I apply the tests (28a–c) to the [N NGEN] example εκπομπή αερίων, cf.
(36b).
(37a) έντονα βιομηχανική ζώνη

entona viomichaniki zoni
lit. intensive industrial zone
(37b) βιομηχανική και μολυσμένη ζώνη
viomichaniki ke molismeni zoni
lit. industrial and polluted zone
(37c) ζώνη βιομηχανική
zoni viomichaniki
lit. zone industrial
(37d) η βιομηχανική η ζώνη
i viomichaniki i zoni
the industrial the zone
(38a) εκπομπή βλαβερών αερίων

ekpompi vlaveron aerion
lit. emission harmful gases
(38b) εκπομπή αερίων και θερμότητας
ekpompi aerion ke thermotitas
lit. emission gases and heat
(38c) ?αερίων εκπομπή
aerion ekpompi
lit. gases emission
It becomes clear from the above tests that syntactic operations have access to
their internal structure, contrary to the [A N] and [N NGEN] multi-word expressions
which display a certain degree of lexical integrity, as shown in (29) and (30).
However, due to the argument structure displayed by these structures it can
be argued that they are of a different nature from common syntactic phrases. Par-
ticularly, their structure resembles that of compounds consisting of a relational
adjective and a noun (ten Hacken 1994: 89–98; Bisetto 2010: 65–85). Moreover,
they constitute naming units which also supports the view that they are of a dif-
ferent nature than common syntactic phrases. Therefore, they constitute a fur-
ther type of complex lexical units, which on the one hand differs from regular
syntactic phrases, and on the other cannot be classified as belonging to the set of
the multi-word expressions analyzed above. Moreover, they display more syntac-
tic properties than the multi-word expressions. Thus, their demarcation from syn-
tactic phrases is a rather difficult task, since it is only based on a few minor dis-
tinctive characteristics and not on their response with regard to the diagnostic
tests of syntactic fixedness.
3 C
omplementation vs. competition
I have argued above for a distinction between three types of complex lexical units
in Greek: one-word compounds, multi-word expressions and phrase-like struc-
tures. All three constitute nominal structures sharing a function, i. e. to name con-
cepts, particularly complex concepts. Regarding their function, they are clearly
different from syntactic phrases, which describe a concept but do not name it.
Since they provide further means for naming concepts associated with various
terminological areas, the set of naming devices in the nominal domain of the lex-
icon is extended through their existence. In this sense, the three types of complex
lexical units constitute complementary resources of nominal naming units.
Complementation in the lexicon with regard to different naming strategies
does not exclude competition among structures. Specifically, typical one-word
compounds and multi-word lexical units do not exist in Greek side by side,
although this scenario cannot be excluded for all languages. Take for instance
lexical units in German (cf. ten Hacken/Koliopoulou 2016), like grüner Tee and
Grüntee (‘green tee’) or schwarzer Markt and Schwarzmarkt (‘black market’), coex-
isting synchronically. Their coexistence is explained by Hüning/Schlücker (2015:
459) on the grounds of stylistic variation and/or diachronic change arguing that
the structure schwarzer Markt, for instance, has been gradually replaced by the
compound Schwarzmarkt, which is synchronically more frequent than the equiv-
alent phrase.
In Greek, the three types of complex lexical units compete with each other.
However, there is no evidence supporting the existence of a blocking mechanism
(cf. Rainer 2016), although the formation of typical compounds is much more pro-
ductive and regular than the formation of multi-word structures. Moreover, I
claim that the selection of a possible naming strategy depends on the character-
istics of the concept. Specifically, a borrowed nominal concept or a complex con-
cept meant for terminological use is a possible candidate for a type of multi-word
lexical unit.
4 Complex lexical units in lexicon and grammar

In Greek, there is a clear demarcation between compounds and other complex
lexical units, i. e. multi-word expressions and phrase-like structures. Among
these, compounds are the only type of complex lexical units built in morphology.
Taking into consideration the various types of multi-word formations and in some
cases their variable features, the question arises how they can be accounted for.
They are neither morphological structures nor regular syntactic phrases; they are
rather situated in between. Therefore, multi-word expressions in Greek have been
often assigned to a continuum situated between the two components. In this
sense, different grammatical models supporting the interaction between the two
domains (Kiparsky 1982; Bybee 1985; Borer 1988) have been adopted by many
scholars as the most sufficient way to deal with multi-word expressions and their
variable features in Greek (cf. Ralli 1991, 1992, 2007: 245 f.; Ralli/Stavrou 1998;
Koliopoulou 2009: 69, 2012: 868).
In a similar context, Ralli (2013a: 261 f., 266 ff., 2013b: 183 f., 194), based on
Borer’s (2009) analysis of comparable nominal constructs in Hebrew, argues that
multi-word expressions in Greek are derived within the syntactic domain which
interacts with morphology. Her argument is rather justified, since multi-word
expressions and phrase-like structures in Greek look like syntactic phrases that
consist of two phonologically and morphologically independent words. However,
they are different from regular syntactic phrases, since their structure is not
accessible to all syntactic operations. Moreover, they display a certain degree of
lexical integrity coinciding in many cases with a non-compositional meaning,
also displayed by typical compounds.
The fact that there is strong variation among the different types of multi-word
structures with regard to their mixed morphosyntactic properties supports the
view that there is no clear borderline between morphology and syntax and that
the two domains are situated on a continuum.11 Multi-word expressions in Greek
which display a varying degree of structural visibility to syntactic operations
occupy different positions on this continuum. [A N] and [N NGEN] expressions in
Greek are clearly nearer to the morphological domain, i. e. to typical compounds,
than any other multi-word expression. The fact that some [A N] and [N NGEN] for-
mations can be input to a derivational process is a further argument in favor of
the interaction between morphology and syntax, since structures generated in
syntax are turned into one complex stem in order to undergo a morphological
operation (cf. (18)–(19)). The other two types of nominal expressions are wide-
spread on the continuum, specifically between the [A N] and [N NGEN] formations
and regular syntactic phrases. Phrase-like structures are situated near to the syn-
tactic domain.
The various approaches that argue in favor of the existence of a continuum
between the two grammatical components or the interaction among them are
based on the assumption that the two grammatical domains are distinct. Although
they may account for structures like multi-word expressions in Greek displaying
11 On the closeness of compounding to the syntactic domain cf. Koliopoulou (2014b).

mixed morphosyntactic properties, they do not throw any light on the grey zone
between morphology and syntax. In this respect, the question arises whether the
two grammatical domains are actually distinct and if not what kind of demarca-
tion would allow us to differentiate between typical morphological structures,
syntactic phrases and intermediate structures.
In order to distinguish compounds from phrases as well as from the in-be-
tween formations, Gaeta/Ricca (2009: 38 f.) propose another type of demarcation.
They argue in favor of a four-scaled classification based on two criteria: a) ‘mor-
phological’, i. e. the output of a morphological operation and b) ‘lexicalized’, i. e.
attributed to the lexicon taking into consideration not only idiosyncrasy but also
token frequency and/or naming force. In this respect, typical compounds are
characterized as [+ morphological] and [+ lexical], whereas syntactic phrases
have a negative sign in both properties. Multi-word expressions – or phrase-like
units in Gaeta/Ricca’s terminology – are non-morphological but lexical units. In
this view being a lexical unit is independent from being an output of a morpho-
logical operation.
On a similar basis, ten Hacken/Koliopoulou (2016: 134 ff.), dealing with [A N]
multi-word expressions in various languages, argue that the main criterion to
demarcate [A N] intermediate structures from adjective-noun syntactic phrases is
related to the function of these structures. Structures constituting a naming unit
are lexical units, while descriptive phrases belong to the syntactic domain.
With regard to Greek, the different types of multi-word expressions and
phrase-like structures, despite their varying morphosyntactic features, some-
times even within the same type, share the naming function (cf. Anastassiad-
is-Symeonidis 1986: 142 f.). They are lexical units with a rule-based formation
extending the naming device of the lexicon. This extended view of the lexicon is
also supported by approaches such as the Parallel Architecture (cf. Jackendoff
2010) and Construction Morphology (cf. Booij 2010, this volume) on the basis of
comparable multi-word, intermediate structures.
5 C
onclusions
The demarcation between the various types of complex lexical units is primarily
a language specific matter, although most of the criteria used to differentiate mor-
phological from syntactic structures apply at an abstract level to all languages. It
actually depends on the particular characteristics of wordhood and compound-
hood, as displayed in each language. These two basic characteristics determine
the morphological structures and the lexicon. The degree of resemblance between
typical morphological structures and other complex lexical units specifies the
form of the lexicon in a particular language and the possibility of interaction
between the grammatical domains.
Multi-word expressions and phrase-like structures in Greek are clearly dis-
tinct from typical compounds: their constituents are phonologically and morpho-
logically independent words, a linking element is not required, they display head
properties similar to syntactic phrases as well as internal inflection. In Greek, the
degree of syntactic fixedness depends on the type of expression one deals with.
Sometimes, there is variation of the syntactic characteristics even among the dif-
ferent examples of the same type of structure (cf. (26)–(27), (32)). Despite the fact
that multi-word expressions and phrase-like structures in Greek cannot be
assigned to morphology like typical compounds, all three types of complex lexi-
cal units share the same function, i. e. the naming function. They are generated
by different lexical unit formation patterns which extend the naming strategies of
the lexicon. The outcome of this formation process is lexical units stored in the
speakers’ mental lexicon.
Compounding in Greek is a very productive process and thus a main language
naming device. However, new concepts have been introduced to the language in
the last decades through the form of a multi-word expression or a phrase-like
structure mostly found in specialized or newspaper texts. The appearance of such
a lexical unit is an indication for native speakers of the terminological use of the
concept. The emergence of various types of lexical units other than compounds
shows a clear tendency to different types of naming units and indicates a silent
process of language change regarding the naming of concepts, especially those
borrowed from English.
References
Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, Anna (1986): Η Νεολογία στην Κοινή Νεοελληνική [Neology in
standard Modern Greek]. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, Anna (1994): Νεολογικός δανεισμός της Νεοελληνικής [Neological
borrowing in modern Greek]. Thessaloniki: Self publishing.
Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, Anna (1996): Η νεοελληνική σύνθεση [Modern Greek compounding].
In: Katsimali, Georgia/Kavoukopoulos, Fotis (eds.): Ζητήματα νεοελληνικής γλώσσας:
Διδακτική Προσέγγιση [Themes of the Modern Greek language: A didactic approach].
Rethymno: University of Crete. 97–120.
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992): A-morphous morphology. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
62). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bağrıaçık, Metin/Ralli, Angela (2015): Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from
Modern Greek and Turkish. In: Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 68. 323–357.
Bauer, Laurie (2001): Compounding. In: Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.): Language typology
and language universals. An international handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
695–707.
Bauer, Laurie (2008): Dvandva. In: Word Structure 1, 1. 1–20.
Bauer, Laurie (2009): Typology of compounds. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
343–356.
Becker, Thomas (1992): Compounding in German. In: Rivista di Linguistica 4, 1. 5–36.
Bisetto, Antonietta (2010): Relational adjectives crosslinguistically. In: Lingue e Linguaggio 9, 1.
65–85.
Bisetto, Antonietta/Scalise, Sergio (1999): Compounding: Morphology and/or syntax? In:
Mereu, Lunella (ed.): Boundaries of morphology and syntax. (= Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 180). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 31–48.
Bisetto, Antonietta/Scalise, Sergio (2005): The classification of compounds. In: Lingue e
Linguaggio 4, 2. 319–332.
Booij, Geert (2009): Compounding and construction morphology. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer,
Pavol (eds.). 201–216.
Booij, Geert (2010): Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit (1988): On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In:
Booij, Geert/van Marle, Jaap (eds.): Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. 45–65.
Borer, Hagit (2009): Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
491–511.
Bybee, Joan (1985): Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form.
(= Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Christofidou, Anastasia (1997): A textlinguistic approach to the phenomenon of multi-word
compounds. In: Drachman, Gaberell et al. (eds.): Greek linguistics 95. Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Graz: Neugebauer. 67–75.
Donalies, Elke (2004): Grammatik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich. Kombinatorische
Begriffsbildung. Vol. 1: Substantivkomposition. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
Fellbaum, Christiane (2011): Idioms and collocations. In: Maienborn, Claudia/von Heusinger,
Klaus/Portner, Paul (eds.): Semantics. An international handbook of natural language
meaning. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 441–456.
morphological objects? In: Rivista di Linguistica 21, 1. 45–68.
Günther, Ηarmut (1997): Zur grammatischen Basis der Getrennt-/Zusammenschreibung im
Deutschen. In: Dürscheid, Christa/Ramers, Karl-Heinz/Schwarz, Monika (eds.): Sprache
im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 3–16.
Hacken, Pius ten (1994): Defining morphology. A principled approach to determining the
boundaries of compounding, derivation and inflection. Hildesheim: Olms.
Hacken, Pius ten/Koliopoulou, Maria (2016): Adjectival non-heads and the limits of
compounding. In: SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13, 2. 122–139.
(= Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston:
De Gruyter. 450–467.
Jackendoff, Ray (2010): Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford:
Kiparsky, Paul (1982): Lexical morphology and phonology. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea:
Linguistics in the morning calm. Selected papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2006): Περιγραφή και ανάλυση των χαλαρών πολυλεκτικών συνθέτων της
Νέας Ελληνικής [Description and analysis of the loose multi-word compounds of Modern
Greek]. Patras: University of Patras. M.A. Thesis. Internet: http://nemertes.lis.upatras.gr/
jspui/handle/10889/914 (last access: 14.6.2018).
Koliopoulou, Maria (2008): The loose multi-word compounds of Modern Greek under the prism
of construction morphology. In: Lavidas, Nikolaos/Nouchoutidou, Elissavet/Sionti,
Marietta (eds.): New perspectives in Greek linguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing. 213–224.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2009): Loose multi-word compounds and noun constructs. In: Patras
Working Papers in Linguistics 1. Special issue: Morphology. 59–71.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2012): Μεταξύ συνθέτων και φράσεων [Between compounds and phrases].
In: Gavriilidou, Zoe et al. (eds.): Selected papers of the 10th International Conference on
Greek Linguistics. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace. 861–869.
Koliopoulou, Μaria (2013): Θέματα σύνθεσης της Ελληνικής και της Γερμανικής: συγκριτική
προσέγγιση. [Issues of Modern Greek and German compounding: A contrastive approach].
Patras: University of Patras. PhD Dissertation. Internet: http://nemertes.lis.upatras.gr/
jspui/handle/10889/5962?locale=en (last access: 14.6.2018).
Koliopoulou, Maria (2014a): Issues of Modern Greek and German compounding: a contrastive
approach. In: Journal of Greek Linguistics 14, 1. 117–125.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2014b): How close to syntax are compounds? Evidence from the linking
element in German and Modern Greek compounds. In: Rivista di Linguistica 26, 2. 51–70.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2014c): Komposition im Deutschen und Neugriechischen: Eine kontrastive
morphologische Analyse. In: Katsaounis, Nikolaos/Sidiropoulou, Renate M. (eds.):
Sprachen und Kulturen in (Inter)Aktion. Vol. 2: Linguistik, Didaktik, Translationswis-
senschaft. (= Hellenogermanica 2). Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. 43–55.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2015): Possessive/bahuvrīhi compounds in German: An analysis based on
comparable compounds in Modern Greek. In: Languages in Contrast 15, 1. 81–101.
Koliopoulou, Maria (2017): What can word formation offer to translation practice? A case study
of German compounds and their English equivalents. In: Zybatow, Lew N. et al. (eds.):
Übersetzen und Dolmetschen: Berufsbilder, Arbeitsfelder, Ausbildung. Ein- und Ausblick
in ein sich wandelndes Berufsfeld der Zukunft. (= Forum Translationswissenschaft 21).
Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. 117–136.
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) (2009): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford:
Manolessou, Io/Tsolakidis, Symeon (2009): Greek coordinated compounds: Synchrony and
diachrony. In: Patras Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 23–39.
Mukai, Makiko (2013): Recursive compounds and linking morpheme. In: International Journal of
English Linguistics 3, 4. 36–49.
Neef, Martin (2009): IE, Germanic: German. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.).
386–399.
Nespor, Marina/Ralli, Angela (1994): Stress domains in Greek compounds: A case of morpholo-
gy-phonology interaction. In: Philippaki-Warbuton, Irene/Nicolaidis, Katerina/Sifianou,
Maria (eds.): Themes in Greek linguistics I. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 201–208.
Nespor, Marina/Ralli, Angela (1996): Morphology-phonology interface: Phonological domains
in Greek compounds. In: The Linguistic Review 13, 3/4. 357–382.
Olsen, Susan (2001): Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and
morphology. In: Booij, Geert/van Marle, Jaap (eds.): Yearbook of morphology 2000.
Dordrecht: Springer. 279–320.
Rainer, Franz (2016): Blocking. In: Aronoff, Mark (ed.): Oxford research encyclopedia of
linguistics. 1–22. Internet: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.33
(last access: 14.6.2018).
Ralli, Angela (1991): Λεξική φράση: Αντικείμενο μορφολογικού ενδιαφέροντος [Lexical phrase:
A morphological analysis]. In: Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Studies in Greek
Linguistics 1990]. 205–221.
Ralli, Angela (1992): Compounds in Modern Greek. In: Rivista di Linguistica 4, 1. 143–174.
Ralli, Angela (2005): Μορφολογία [Morphology]. Athina: Patakis.
Ralli, Angela (2007): Η σύνθεση λέξεων: διαγλωσσική μορφολογική προσέγγιση [Compounding:
A cross-linguistic morphological approach]. Athina: Patakis.
Ralli, Angela (2013a): Compounding in Modern Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ralli, Angela (2013b): Compounding and its locus of realization: Evidence from Greek and
Turkish. In: Word Structure 6, 2. 181–200.
Ralli, Angela/Stavrou, Melita (1998): Morphology-syntax interface: A-N compounds vs. A-N
constructs in Modern Greek. In: Booij, Gert/van Marle, Jaap (eds.): Yearbook of
morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Springer. 243–263.
Scalise, Sergio (1992): Compounding in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 4, 1. 175–200.
Schlücker, Barbara/Hüning, Matthias (2009): Compounds and phrases: A functional
comparison between German A + N compounds and corresponding phrases. In: Rivista di
Wälchli, Bernhard (2005): Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ingeborg Ohnheiser †
in Russian
Introduction
This chapter deals with the discussion of the relation between multi-word expres-
sions, compounds, and derivations in the description of Russian and other Slavic
languages. Referring to pertinent publications, the aim is to show how these
descriptions have been influenced by particular theoretical conceptions (e. g. the
onomasiological view adopted by Dokulil 1962) and the respective grammatical
tradition (e. g. Russkaja grammatika 1980, generally known as “Grammatika-80”:
Švedova 1980). New approaches to the description of the relation between phrases
and derivatives as well as between phrases and a special type of Russian com-
pounds (the so-called stump compounds) from the viewpoint of Construction
Grammar are presented with reference to works by Benigni/Masini (2010) and
Masini/Benigni (2012). In view of recent linguistic developments, the competi-
tion between multi-word expressions and N+N compounds is discussed, which
persists irrespective of the increasing productivity of this compound type in
Russian.
The chapter does not provide a comprehensive overview of all naming pro-
cesses in Russian, but rather focuses – also from the perspective of research his-
tory – on those types of nominal multi-word expressions and compounds (as well
as one derivational type) that stand in a mutual relation of cooperation and/or
competition. Particular attention will be paid to stylistic and pragmatic aspects.
The chapter is organized as follows: Section 1 gives a brief overview of the
main findings of previous studies on complex lexical units in Russian and other
Slavic languages. Section 2 presents compound and MWE patterns in Russian as
well as their interrelation as discussed in Grammatika-80. Sections 3 and 4 dis-
cuss the co-existence and interaction between MWEs and various morphological
patterns. The chapter ends with a conclusion in Section 5.
1 Some remarks on the current state of research

The interaction of various naming procedures in Slavic languages has been dis-
cussed from different angles.
Open Access. © 2019 Ohnheiser, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-009
252 Ingeborg Ohnheiser
1.1 “Condensation” of complex naming units
Isačenko (1958), for instance, paid special attention to the formal and semantic
condensation of complex naming units, stating that “complex designations
consisting of several lexical units have a clear tendency towards univerbation,
i. e. to the compression of the semantic content into one word” (ibid.: 340;
translated from Russian). This phenomenon manifests itself in different nam-
ing procedures:
a) Certain types of compounding (e. g., Slovak svet-o-názor [world.lv o-view]1
ʻworld view’ < svetový názor [world.ra view] ‘id.’2,3)
b) Mergers (Czech pravdě-podobný [truth.dat-similar] ‘probable’)
c) Ellipsis
1) of the head (Russian prjamaja ʻstraight line’ < prjamaja linija ʻid.’)
2) of the modifier (Russian plastinka ʻrecord’ < grammofonnaja plastinka
‘(grammophone) record’)
d) Affixal derivation (Russian setčat-k-a ʻretina’ < setčataja oboločka [net.a
membrane] ʻid.’)
e) Binominals (appositional compounds), particularly in Russian, e. g., ženšči
na-vrač [woman-doctor] ʻfemale doctor’
f) Different types of compounds with a clipped modifier (“stump compounds”
in the terminology of Comrie/Stone 1978 and Comrie/Stone/Polinsky 1996)
(Russian zarplata ʻsalary’< zarabotnaja plata [for.work.ra payment] ʻid.’), but
also of initialisms and acronyms (Russian IMLI < Institut mirovoj literatury
[institute world.ra.gen literature.gen] ʻInstitute of World Literature’ [of the
Russian Academy of Sciences]). According to Isačenko, the dominance of this
latter type in Russian is not accidental as it provides an important option to
condensate MWEs with modifiers in the genitive case.
g) Formations of the type Russian Glavryba [glav- clipped stem of the adjective
glavnyj ʻmain, principal’ + ryba ʻfish’] < Glavnoe upravlenie rybnoj promyšlen
nosti – the name of the Soviet central administration of the fishing industry.
As has been pointed out by one of the reviewers, from a semantic point of
view, Glavryba reflects a metonymic shift, because the modifier does not
directly modify the noun, but a concept connected to the noun (“central
1 LV: linking vowel

2 RA: relational adjective
3 In Czech, the MWE still exists next to the compound (světový názor and světonázor) as an ob-
vious calque of the German Weltanschauung ‘id.’.
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Russian 253
administration of the fishing industry”).4 In this respect formations like

Glavryba differ from stump compounds like glavvrač < glavnyj vrač ʻhead
physician’.
1.2 M
WEs, compounds, and derivations from an
onomasiological point of view
The relationship between MWEs, compounds, and derivations was dealt with in
Czech linguistics in the description of word formation as part of naming proce-
dures (Dokulil 1962). Thus for example Czech MWEs, compounds, and suffixed
compounds (1a–e) are contrasted with suffixed derivatives (1a’–e’) (with the same
meaning) (ibid.: 31):
(1a) malíř krajin [painter landscape.pl.gen] ‘landscape painter’

(1b) hráč na housle [player on violin] ‘violin player’
(1c) žák první třidy [pupil first.gen grade.gen] ‘first-grader’
(1d) kov-o-dělník ‘metalworker’
(1e) dřev-o-rub-ec ‘woodcutter’
(1a’) krajin-ář
(1b’) housl-ista
(1c’) prvň-ák
(1d’) kov-ák
(1e’) dřev-ař
Dokulil (ibid.) uses examples from terminology and technical language to show
that the formation of multi-word designations is a very common naming proce-
dure, as in (2):
(2a) A+N vysoké napětí ‘high voltage’

(2b) N+NGEN stupnice tvrdosti [scale hardness.gen] ‘hardness scale’
In spite of this, such procedures appear “cumbersome” in an inflectional lan-

guage, which is why single word names are preferred in everyday speech. This
can also be seen from the so-called univerbations which – according to the tradi-
4 This formation type can also be found in more recent designations, e. g., Glavlinza [main lens],
a leader brand for contact lenses. (www.glavlinza.ru, last access: 1.3.2017).
tional interpretation of the term in Slavic studies – means the transformation of

MWEs into suffixed one-word designations. According to Dokulil, an important
criterion of “univerbized” designations is the coexistence of a synonymous mul-
ti-word designation (generally of the structure/form RA+N), which should be a
real, i. e. a fixed (established) naming unit, but not any free combination of words,
e. g.:
(3) čajová růže5 [tea.ra rose] ‘tea rose’ > čajovka tea.ra-stem-suff ‘id.’6
The word stař-ik ‘old man’ should, however, be regarded as a deadjectival suf-
fixed formation < starý ‘old’ and not as univerbation of starý člověk ‘old man’. A
significant extension of the concept of univerbation in Slavic studies has been
proposed in a new monograph on Slovak (Ološtiak (ed.) 2015). In this study, the
criterion of stability of the underlying MWEs is maintained. The results, however,
are not restricted to suffix formations. Some examples are provided by Ološtiak
(ed.) (ibid.: 308 ff.):
(4a) MWEs and “traditional” suffixal univerbations with truncation of the stem
and ellipsis of the head, e. g., Slovak izolač-n-á páska ‘insulating tape’ >
izolač-k-a ‘id.’
(4b) Combination of compounding and univerbation (“kompozičná univerbizá
cia”), e. g., Slovak hráč prvej ligy [player first.gen division.gen] > prv-o-lig-
ist-a ‘first division player’. In Russian grammars, the analog formation
pervoligist < pervaja liga is described as suffixed compound
(4c) Clipping of the modifier of an MWE and formation of a compound, e. g.
Slovak alkoholový test > alkotest ‘alcotest’ (however, this formation might
also be a direct loan from English)
(4d) Phenomena like the following are also included:
Slovak kompaktný fotoapparát > kompakt ‘compact camera’
(4e) The formation of acronyms from MWEs is also often regarded as univerba-
tion:
Slovak Mestská hromadná doprava > MHD; coll. suffixed MHD-čka ‘local
public transport’7
5 In botanical nomenclature N+RA růže čaj-ová [rose tea-ra] ‘tea rose’ with inverted word
order.
6 Another formally identical word can be based on the MWE čajový salám ‘tea sausage (spread)’.
7 The vernacular suffixation of acronyms is more productive in Slovak than in Russian.
For a concise overview of different approaches to univerbation in the Slavic

national philologies cf. Martincová (2015).
Kuchař (1963) took up the question of a possible systematic relation among
different naming processes. His starting point was the following idea: if word for-
mation is considered as name formation with morphological means, then there
might also be similar processes on the syntactic level (i. e. syntactically complex
forms) and on the semantic level (i. e. semantic shifts). The aim would then be to
discover the common as well as the specific characteristics of the three naming
procedures, as for example in Czech hlup-ák (stupid-suff) ‘fool’, hloupý člověk
‘stupid, foolish person’ and osel ‘[neutral donkey], dope, ass’ with the same
meaning.
For instance, in Czech causal relations are not realized as denominal verbs
but as complex namings, e. g. zemřít hladem (die hunger.instr) ‘die of hunger,
starve’, zemřít žizní ‘die of thirst’. Purpose relations are realized as prepositional
word combinations (cf. Czech míchačka na beton [mixer for concrete]) ‘concrete
mixer’ in contrast to compounds such as Russian betonmešalka ‘id.’ and others.8
If metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche are viewed from an onomasiological
perspective, similar types of onomasiological structures (according to Kuchař
1963) can be identified, which can be realized either by word formation, by syn-
tactic means, e. g. conjunctions (Czech jak(o) ‘like’ – jako had ‘like a snake’) or
alternatively by MWEs, expressing for instance similarity as in hadí muž [snake-ra
man] ‘snake man’. Metonymic shifts can be observed in many deverbal abstract
nouns, describing not only the action but also the result. Part-whole relationships
can be expressed in Russian by suffixal singulatives (solom-inka [straw-suff]
‘blade of straw’, pesč-inka [dust-suff] ‘mote of dust’), contrasting with combina-
tions N+Ngen in Czech (stéblo slámy [blade straw.gen], zrnko písku [grain.dim
dust.gen]).
2 Compounds and MWEs in Russian

This section provides a brief overview of compound and MWE patterns in Rus-
sian. We specifically focus on the question if and to what extent the relation
between these two naming procedures is being paid attention to in Russian
grammars.
8 For similar examples in Polish cf. Cetnarowska (this volume).

2.1 Compounds
We start with the classification of nominal compounds as provided by Gramma-

tika-80 (Švedova 1980: 242 ff.). This grammar distinguishes between two groups
(cf. A and B in Table 1).9
Table 1: Patterns of Russian nominal compounds
A. Coordinate nominal compounds
1. N+LV+N
Formations of this group are rather rare, e. g. lesostep’ ʻforest steppe’.
2. N+N (with hyphenated spelling)

In Grammatika-80 (Švedova 1980: 253) some formations of this type are still regarded as
word combinations whose first component is no longer subject to declination, e. g. divan
krovat’ ‘sofa bed’.10
B. Subordinate nominal compounds
1. NSTEM+LV+N11
zvuk-o-režisser ʻsound editor’, sen-o-uborka ʻhayharvest’ (cf. Section 4.2.1)
2. N+N
Focussing on the absence of a linking vowel, Grammatika-80 forms a heterogeneous group
of formations, including loans such as džaz-orkestr ‘jazz orchestra’. On the activation of
the N+N type cf. Section 4.2.2.
9 Attributive compounds are not considered as a group in their own right, cf. however Benigni/
Masini (2009).
10 Some formations of this structure are not considered as compounds, but as appositive con-
structions and thus as syntactic phenomena, cf. car’-ubijca [tsar-murderer] ‘a tsar who was a
murderer’ (in contrast to the determinative compound careubijca [tsar.lv.murderer] ‘regicide’).
Cf. also inžener-fizik [engineer-physicist] ‘engineer and physicist’; sudno-cholodiľnik [ship-refrig-
erator] ‘refrigerator ship’; more recent: komp’juter-tabletka ʻtablet computer’.
The combination of two words is not considered appositive if they designate objects consisting of
a larger number of elements or groups of persons and semantically resemble a single word. In
Russian they are frequently used as a means of stylization, e. g., čaški-bljudca [cups-plates] ‘dish-
es’, ruki-nogi [hands-legs] ‘limbs’, devočki-maľčiki [girls-boys] ‘children’ (cf. also Wälchli 2015,
who uses the term ‟co-compound” for similar, but regular and stylistically neutral formations in
various languages).
11 The lack of compounds with (de-)verbal modifiers is often compensated by phrases of the
structure [A<V]+N (e. g., stiral’naja mašina ‘washing machine’). Compare, however, some types
of exocentric compounds, whose first constituent might be regarded as derived from an impera-
tive, as in sorvigolova [bite-off-head] ‘daredevil’.
3. Frequent first components (modifiers) + N
a. samo- ʻself-’ samoocenka ʻself-assessment’
b. vzaimo- ʻinter-, mutual’ vzaimopomošč’ ʻmutual aid’
c. lže- (< lož’ ʻlie’) ʻpseudo-’ lženauka ʻpseudoscience’
d. polu-/pol- ʻhalf-’ polukrug ʻsemicircle’,

polčasa ʻhalf an hour’
e. Some formations with hyphenated spelling, čudo-bogatyr’ ʻ(epic) hero with magical
also known from folk literature, e. g., čudo- stength’,
ʻmiracle, wonder’ or gore- ʻsorrow, misery’ gore-rukovoditeľ ʻbad leader, manager’
4. Clipped stems of nouns and/or adjectives (mostly internationalisms) as modifier + N
avto1- (referring to avtomobiľ ʻcar’ and RA avtotransport ʻmototransport’, avtovokzal

avtomobiľnyj; avtobus ʻbus’/RA avtobusnyj) ʻbus terminal’
avto2- (referring to avtomatičeskij ʻauto- avtokormuška ʻautomatic feeder’

matic’)
benzo- (referring to benzin ʻpetrol’) benzozapravka ʻfilling station’

(next to the compound without clipped
modifier benzin-o-zapravka ‘id’.)
others: kosmo- ʻcosmic, referring to astro- kosmoplavanie ʻspace flight’, motolodka

nautics’, moto- ʻreferring to motors; motor- ʻmotorboat’, ėnergosnabženie ʻenergy
ized’, ėnergo- ʻenergy-; energetic’, etc. supply’
5. Compounds with bound (mostly neoclassical) modifiers + N
avto3- ʻself-’, aėro- ʻair-’, video-, geo-,

gidro- ʻhydro-’, nevro- ʻneuro-’, poli- ʻpoly-’,
etc.
6. Compounds with bound (mostly neoclassical) heads
-graf ʻ-grapher’, -fil ʻ-phile’, -fob ʻ-phobe’,

-metr ʻ-meter’, etc.
and -logija ʻ-logy’, -fobija ʻ-phobia’,
-fiľstvo ʻ-philia’, etc.
7. Suffixed compound nouns
a. [[N/ASTEM +VSTEM]SUFF ] zakonodateľ [[law.lv.giv]er] ʻlegislator’

lesopiľnja [[wood.lv.saw]suff] ʻsawmill’
čaepitie [[tea.lv.drink]suff] ʻtea drinking’
(N)
b. [[A/NumSTEM +NSTEM]SUFF] vtorogodnik [[second.lv.year]suff]

ʻrepeater’ (a pupil who repeats a grade)
8. Compounds with “zero suffixes”12 ėkskursovod ʻtourist guide’, pticevod

[NSTEM +LV+STEM∅] ʻpoultry farmer’;
-vod ʻ1. guide; 2. breeder, 3. grower’, -mer vlagomer ʻhygrometer’,
ʻmeter’, -provod ʻconduit’, etc. vodoprovod ʻwater conduit’
2.2 M
ulti-word expressions
In Russian linguistics, the description of (non-idiomatic) subordinate word com-

binations of different structures, based on
a) agreement (nov-aja kniga [new.fem book.fem])
b) government (čitať knigu [read book.acc]; urok čtenija [lesson reading.gen]
ʻreading instruction’; kniga dlja detej [book for children.gen ʻchildren’s
book’)
c) adjunction (čitať vsluch ʻto read aloud’)
has traditionally been regarded as a domain of syntax.

Following Vinogradov’s maxims, coordinate word combinations are ignored
in Grammatika-80 (Švedova 1980) while they are taken into consideration in
other contributions (e. g. Belošapkova (ed.) 1989 and others).
Fixed subordinate multi-word expressions are described as an object of phra-
seological research. The distinction of three groups of phrasemes, depending on
the degree of idiomatization, goes also back to Vinogradov (1946):
(5a) Phraseological fusions (Russian frazeologičeskie sraščenija) – demotivated

opaque idioms, e. g.,
biť bakluši [split logs for the production of wooden household utensils]
‘twiddle one’s thumbs’
(5b) Phraseological unities (Russian frazeologičeskie edinstva) – partially met-
aphorically motivated, e. g.,
plyť po tečeniju ‘go [Russian swim] with the flow’
New calques based on metaphorical motivation are also regarded as
phrasemes, e. g.,
12 This type demonstrates once again the wide-spread distribution of compounds with a dever-
bal second component. Further, less productive formation types are not discussed here.
myľnaja opera [soap.ra opera] ‘soap opera’,

promyvanie mozgov [washing brain.gen] ‘brainwash’13
(5c) Phraseological word combinations (Russian frazeologičeskie sočetanija),
e. g.,
skoropostižnaja smerť ‘sudden death’. The adjective is exclusively
combined with designations of death – Russian smerť, končina, but
*skoropostižnyj ot”ezd [sudden departure]
Phrasemes of the type (5a) and (5b) or their constituents can function as the basis
of compounds or derivations, cf., e. g., baklušničat’ as synonymous expression to
bit’ bakluši (5a) or the adjective myl’noopernyi ‘similar to a soap opera’ < myl’naja
opera (5b). Numerous studies are devoted to the relations between phraseology
and word formation, including a dictionary of Russian dephrasemic lexis (Alek-
seenko/Belousova/Litvinnikova (eds.) 2003).
Phrasemes with coordinate relations between the components are generally
disregarded in the literature – as in the case of free word combinations (cf. how-
ever Benigni (2012: 5 f.) on fixed coordinate phrases (binomi coordinativi) with a
varying degree of idiomaticity, e. g. mužčina i ženščina ‘man and woman’, sploš i
rjadom [pretty often and nearby] ‘very often’, ni ryba ni mjaso [neither fish nor
flesh] ‘neither fish nor fowl’).
In continuation of Vinogradov’s classification of phrasemes Šanskij ([1963]
1985) specifies a fourth group which proves to be of special importance for our
topic:
(5d) Phraseological expressions (Russian frazeologičeskie vyraženija)
Just as the phrasemes of the other groups, they display the following characteris-
tics: multi-word structure, reproducibility, fixedness (and thus belonging to the
lexicon). They do not necessarily need to be idiomatic or metaphorical, however,
cf., e. g., medicinskaja sestra [medical sister] ‘nurse’, teplovaja ėnergija [heat.ra
energy] ‘heat energy, thermal energy’, vysšee učebnoe zavedenie [higher educa-
tional institution] ‘institution of higher education’, etc.
In recent Russian studies (cf. Droga 2010, for instance) such expressions are
described as “complex designations” (Russian sostavnye naimenovanija), par-
ticularly those of the structure:
13 Cf. Mokijenko/Walter (2008: 105); the authors do however not adopt the traditional typology
of phraseology.
(6a) A+N
paneľnyj dom [panel.ra house] ‘panel house, prefabricated building’
(6b) N+NGEN (or – more rarely – other oblique cases)
sredstva massovoj informacii [media mass.ra.gen information.gen] ‘mass
media’
(6c) N+Prep+N
kniga dlja čtenija [book for reading] ‘reader’
It should be mentioned here that such word combinations for a large part com-
pensate for non-existent compound patterns in Russian, including the adapta-
tion of compound loanwords (cf. Section 4). Complex designations of this kind
are regarded as “phrasal nouns” by Masini/Benigni (2012: 422): Just like com-
pounds they “generally cannot (a) be interrupted by lexical material, (b) undergo
paradigmatic commutability, (c) be internally modified”.
2.3 T
he interaction between different naming procedures in
Russian academic grammars
According to Grammatika-80 (Švedova 1980), relations between certain word for-

mation procedures (derivation, compounding) and MWEs only exist if an MWE
forms the semantic basis of the word formation (from a formal point of view it is
sufficient if only the stem of one constituent of the MWE is retained), e. g.:
(7a) MWE > suffixed one-word combinations, e. g., večernjaja gazeta

[evening.ra newspaper] ʻevening newspaper’ > večer-ka ʻid.’
(cf. Section 3.1)
(7b) MWE > compounds with clipped modifiers (very often internationalisms)
benzinovaja pila > benzopila ʻpower saw’
(7c) MWE > compounds with neoclassical constituents
ėkologičeskaja sistema ʻecological system’ > ėkosistema ʻid.’
(7d) Suffixed compounds (synthetic compounds)14
[[Nstem+Vstem]-SUFF]
Nouns: kanatochod-ec [[rope.lv.go]-suff] ‘ropedancer; new: tightrope
14 “Complex words that contain at least three morphemes, with neither the combination of the
first two nor of the last two existing as free words” (Neef 2015: 583); other studies use the term
“parasynthetic compound”.
walker’ < chodit’ po kanatu ʻto walk on a wire’ (in a certain way this also
refers to -vod, -mer formations)
[[A+N]-SUFF]
nouns: vodolyž-nik [[water.lv.ski]-suff] ʻwater skier’ < vodnye lyži
ʻwaterski’;
adjectives: daľnevostoč-nyj [[far.lv.east]-suff] ‘Far Eastern’ < Daľnij
vostok ‘Far East’; with alternation k > č; qualitative adjectives < free
word-combinations, e. g., dlinnonogij [[long.lv.leg]-suff] ʻlong-legged’ <
dlinnye nogi ʻlong legs’;
(7e) MWE > abbreviations
In Grammatika-80 formations of clipped components of MWEs are
regarded as abbreviations,15 e. g., prodmag < prodovoľstvennyj magazin
[food.ra store] ʻfood store’, etc. (cf. Section 3.2)
Synonymous word formations in the strict sense are listed systematically only for
derivations in Grammatika-80 (e. g., salat-nik/salat-nica ‘salad dish’, žad-ina/
žad-juga ‘greedy person’, meri-l’nyj/meri-tel’nyj ‘measuring’, akcentovat’/akcen
tovirat’ ‘accent, emphasize’, kratk-o/v-kratc-e ‘briefly in short’). Regarding adjec-
tival compounds, reference is made to synonymous second components express-
ing similarity such as -vidnyj,-obraznyj (šarovidnyj, šaroobraznyj [globe/ball.lv.
shaped] ‘globular, round’). However, Grammatika-80 does not take into account
parallel formations of MWEs and nominal compounds, cf. (8), as they are also
found in Polish (cf. Cetnarowska, this volume, example (25)):
(8a) vlag-o-mer [wetness (in Russian non-derived) measure-∅] ʻhygrometer’

(8b) gigro-metr ʻid.’
(8c) izmeriteľ (sometimes meriteľ ) vlažnosti [measurer wetness.gen] (along-
side rarer forms: izmeriteľ vlagi ʻid.’)
Both in Russian and in Polish (cf. example (26) in the chapter on Polish)
the genitive attribute can in turn be modified by another genitive, e. g.,
izmeriteľ vlažnosti vozducha [meter humidity.gen air.gen) ʻair humidity
meter’
The next section discusses phenomena like those in (7a) and (7e) above in greater
detail.
15 Masini/Benigni (2009) regard them as compounds.

3 I nteraction between different naming

procedures
3.1 MWEs and derivatives
Derivations like the above-mentioned večerka are regarded as “synonyms” of

MWEs in Grammatika-80 (Švedova 1980: 167 ff.).16 (See, however, below for well-
founded objections against this claim.) Formations with the suffix -ka (fem.) and
its variants are the most frequent, as well as masculine suffixes such as -nik, -jak
(masc.), as in (9):
(9a) parusnoe sudno [sail.ra boat] ʻsailing boat’ > parus-nik ʻid.’
(9b) tovarnyj poezd [goods.ra train] ʻfreighttrain’ > tovarn-jak ʻid.’
According to Masini/Benigni (2012: 421), the MWEs the derivations are based on
are “phrasal lexemes which have a naming function”, e. g. kreditnaja karta [cred-
it-ra card] ‘credit card’. This means that the strategy at hand “consists in shorten-
ing a phrasal noun of the [ADJ N] type via ellipsis of the noun plus truncation of
the adjective by means of a set of suffixes” (ibid.: 431).17 They propose the follow-
ing formal representation of the Russian [ADJ N] lexical construction (ibid.: 444,
example (47)):
(10) FORM: [[a]Adj0x [b]N0y]Nˈz

MEANING: < NAME for SEMy with the property SEMx (& SEMw) >z
For phrasal nouns such as Polish telefon komórkowy [phone cellular]18 ‘mobile
phone’, Cetnarowska (this volume, example (31)) proposes the following
representation:
(11) [N0i A0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMi with some relation R to entity E of SEMj ]k
16 Derivations that are not synonymous to MWEs are, for instance, neotlož-ka ‘ambulance’ <
neotložnaja pomošč’ [unpostponable aid] ‘emergency service’, jader-ščik ‘nuclear physicist’ <
jadernaja fizika ‘nuclear physics’, figure-ist ‘figure skater’ < figurnoe katanie [figure-ra skating]
ʻfigure skating’.
17 See above for the definition of the term “univerbation” in Slavic studies that does not explic-
itly mention the ellipsis of the head of the MWE.
18 The postposition of the RA typically applies to phrasal nouns in Polish, i. e. word combina-
tions with a naming function.
As in other Slavic languages, this shortening process is very productive in Russian

and typical of colloquial language. For this reason, such formations are rarely
found in dictionaries (cf. ibid.: 434). This is, however, not quite true in the case of
neologism dictionaries such as Uluchanov/Belentschikow (2007), which con-
tains numerous derivations of phrasal nouns. The dictionary also contains (then
new) MWEs that did not yet include single word formations. Thus, it can be used
as a basis for determining registered single word neologisms. A new source is
provided by the German-Russian dictionary of neologisms by Steffens/Nikitina
(2014).
Most publications address the assignment of the formations to certain the-
matic areas. Traditionally, and constantly extended with neologisms (see our
examples below), these comprise designations of:
(12a) medicines, cosmetics: (new) kompaktka < kompaktnaja gruntovka ‘com-

pact foundation’
(12b) pieces of clothing, etc.: futzalki < futzaľnaja obuv’/futzaľnye tufli ‘shoes for
indoor football’
(12c) means of transport and related items: beskontaktka < beskontaktnaja
mojka ‘touchless car wash’
(12d) public facilities: mnogozalka < mnogozaľnyj [multi.hall.ra], kinoteatr
‘multiplex (cinema)’, etc.
(12e) Numerous neologisms belong to professional and group jargon: in medi-
cine: preimplantacionka < pre-implantacionnaja genetičeskaja dignostika
‘preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD or PIGD)’, or
(12f) in computational language, electronics, e. g., sensorka < sensornyj ėkran
‘touch screen’ and sensornaja igra ‘sensor game’
The wide semantic range of the underlying relational adjective results in the
occurrence of numerous homonyms, which are disambiguated in the context or
the respective communicative situation; ėlektronka, for instance, can refer to
1. ėlektronnaja kniga ‘e-book’ or 2. ėlektronnaja literatura ‘e-literature’, but also to
3. ėlektronnaja sigareta ‘electronic cigarette’.
Ološtiak (2015: 296) summarizes typical features, distinguishing Slovak
MWEs and the results of “univerbation”, as follows:
a) greater vs. lesser degree of formal explicitness and therefore
b) lack of ambiguity vs. greater degree of ambiguity,
c) lack of stylistic markedness vs. markedness,
d) official vs. unofficial character,
e) more pronounced association of MWEs with written language vs. under
representation of univerbation in written language.
Similarly, Masini/Benigni (2012: 441) state that Russian shortened lexemes with
-ka, “despite having the same propositional meaning of corresponding full
forms, have different pragmatic features”. These features are implemented in
the formal representation of the -ka construction in (13) (cf. ibid.: 445, example
48). The features of the -ka lexemes are compared to those described for dimin-
utives with -ka which also display familiar/intimate characteristics. (Diminu-
tives may, however, also imply negative or ironic traits, cf. Nagórko 2014: 784 on
“quasi-diminutives”).
(13) FORM: [[c]N’z -ka]N0k where SYNz = [[a]Adj0x [b]N0y]Nˈz & PHONz
= truncated ADJ
MEANING: < NAME for SEMz & [+ familiar/intimate] (& [+ jargon J]) >k
Thus, although the full forms (the phrasal nouns) and the shortened lexemes in
-ka share the semantics, they differ with the respect to their pragmatic and tex-
tual properties and thus the formal difference between the constructions comes
along with a difference in meaning. For this reason, they are not (fully) synony-
mous and they meet the non-synonymy constraint on constructions as proposed
in Construction Grammar (cf. Masini/Benigni 2012: 446).
With respect to analogous forms in Polish Cetnarowska (this volume) states:
“The interaction between phrasal lexemes and derivatives (or compounds
proper), exemplified by univerbation, can be accounted for in Construction Mor-
phology by means of second order schemas.” The respective representation of
“shortened phrasal nouns” in Polish can be found in (14) (cf. Cetnarowska, this
volume, example (37)):
(14a) Polish Szkoła budowlana [school building.ra] ʻsecondary technical school

of building’ > budowlan-ka
(14b) [N0i A0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMi with some relation R to entity E of
SEMj ]k> ≈ < [ A -ka]Nz ↔ [SEMk [+familiar]]z
3.2 MWEs/phrases and stump compounds
Relations between MWEs and one-word designations do not only exist in the area
of derivation but also with compounding. This includes formations which in Rus-
sian research are frequently described as složnosokraščennye slova (‘stump com-
pounds’) as they represent a combination of compounding and shortening. The
shortening process is not based on morphemes but on syllables, in contrast to
compounds with clipped, mostly “neoclassical” modifiers, cf. Section 2.1. Stump
compounds have become productive since the end of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th century and are frequently associated with Sovietisms, cf.
(15):
(15a) likbez < likvidacija bezgramotnosti (N+Ngen) ‘liquidation of illiteracy’ (in

the 1920s),
komdiv < komandir divizii (Soviet military rank 1935–1940) ‘divisional
commander’
(15b) kolchoz < kollektivnoe chozjajstvo (RA+N) ‘collective farm’.
Numerous formations have now become historical formations but lexical units
based on these models can still be observed. New formations show a tendency to
shorten the modifying components. Formations that contain stumps of both com-
ponents are often proper nouns, e. g. names of Internet domains:
(16) Dobro požalovať na oficiaľnyj sajt sportivnogo magazina (sport.ra.gen

shop.gen) Sportmag.19
‘Welcome to the official site of the sports shop Sportmag’.
3.2.1 N+NGEN / N+NINSTR as underlying MWEs/phrases
Stump compounds consisting of two clipped elements are for instance found in
the case of the semi-official namings/names of ministries (17a). The stump min-
combined with the full form of the genitive is relatively rare (17b). The formation
of the stump obor (from oborony) does obviously not comply with the preferred
number of syllables (for the phonetic idiosyncracies of the first component of
stump compounds cf. Billings 1998). Nevertheless, among the new formations of
the type min-+ Ngen there is a combination with the non-euphonic stump obr
(however not in final position) (17c):
(17a) Minkuľt < ministerstvo kuľtury [ministry culture.gen] ‘ministry of

culture’, etc.
(17b) Minoborony < Ministerstvo oborony ‘ministry of defence’
(17c) Minobrnauki < Ministerstvo obrazovanija i nauki [ministry education.gen
and science.gen] ‘Ministry of education and science’
19 This formation is viewed as an appellative in Acordia/Montermini (2013).

The genitive ending of the nominal modifier is also retained in some designations
of deputies, e. g.:
(18) zampredsedatelja < zamestiteľ predsedatelja ‘deputy chairman’ (alongside

the older form zampred)
A comparatively small group comprises formations consisting of stumps of nom-

inalized participles (19a, 19b) or a deverbal noun (19c) and the instrumental case
of the object (according to the government of the bases – obsolete zavedovať ‘be
in charge of’, and upravljať ‘manage’):
(19a) zavkafedroj < zavedujuščij kafedroj ‘head of the department’

(19b) upravdelami < upravljajuščij delami [manager affairs.instr] ‘executive
officer’20
(19c) upravdelami < upravlenie delami [administration affairs.instr] ‘executive
office (e. g., of the president, a governor)’
All formations with oblique case forms as second components cannot be inflected.
In the adjectival derivation of the type (17b)–(19) which are generally informal,
colloquial or ironically connotated, the case ending is clipped, e. g. minoboron-skij
gambit ‘the gambit of the Ministry of defense’, zamdekan-skij post ‘position of the
vice-dean’, or zavkafedr-al’nyj kabinet ‘office of the head of the department’.
3.2.2 A
djectives (mostly relational adjectives) + nouns as underlying
MWEs/phrases
Masini/Benigni (2012: 430) regard this formation type as another “shortening

strategy associated with phrasal nouns”, cf. (20):
(20) fizkuľtura < fizičeskaja kuľtura [physical culture] ‘physical training,

education’
zarplata < zarabotnaja plata [for.work.ra pay] ‘salary’
20 See, however, the personal designation upravdom < upravljajuščij domom ‘caretaker’ where
dom is the stump of the instrumental case domom. This formation can be inflected and is easier
to use in colloquial language than the formations mentioned above.
The model is also productive in the formation of neologisms (see below). Com-
pared to the corresponding MWEs/phrases, stump compounds may have the
additional advantage of serving as bases for the derivation of relational adjec-
tives, cf.:
(21) sberegateľnyj bank ‘savings bank’ > sberbank ‘id.’ >

sberbankovskij ‘related to a savings bank’
Some stumps such as kom- ‘communist’ and soc- ‘socialist’ are mostly found in
historical expressions of the Soviet era. Others are still productive, also as part of
newly coined formations, such as gos- ‘state.ra’, e. g.:
(22) goskorporacija < gosudarstvennaja korporacija ‘state corporation (a type of

legal entity in Russia introduced in 1999)’
Others are new:
(23) terakt < terrorističeskij akt [terrorist(ic) action] ‘terror(ist) attack’
In addition, certain stumps such as polit- < političeskij ‘political’ which are known
from the notorious designation politbjuro ‘politburo’, can also be found in more
recent forms, such as (24):
(24) politkorrektnosť ‘political correctness’, politjumor ‘political humor’
These stump compounds which are common in politics, administration, press

etc., contrast with formations that have become part of the general language.
Most of these compounds are more frequent than the underlying phrases (num-
ber of hits of formations in the nominative according to Yandex21):
(25a) roddom (7 m.) < rodiľnyj dom (2 m.) [give birth/bear.a house]
‘maternity clinic’; no corresponding stump compound (*rodklinika) of the
less frequent and more prestigious naming rodil’naja klinika ‘id.’ is found,
however.
(25b) zapčasti (212 m.) < zapasnye časti (15 m.) ‘spare parts’
21 Yandex is the most frequently used Internet search engine in Russia.

Numerous new formations contain the stump Ros- < rossijskij ‘related to Russia,
Russian governmental institutions, enterprises with state participation etc.’, e. g.
Rostelekom ‘Rostelecom’. Ros- is, however, predominantly found in proper names
that are based only on parts of multi-word names. In the following example Ros-
can be said to replace Federal’nyj ‘federal’:
(26) Rospotrebnadzor [Russ(ian) Consum(er) Supervision] = Federaľnaja služba

po nadzoru v sfere zaščity prav potrebitelej i blagopolučija čeloveka
‘Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and
Human wellbeing.’22
A similar formation principle is used for naming organizations or enterprises

without an established multi-word designation to which the components might
be related, cf. (27):
(27) Rosėnergoatom (also RosĖnergoAtom)

a corporation running nuclear power stations in Russia
As proper names such coinings provide more “convenient” constructions, even

when complex multi-word terms exist in parallel.
ragmatic and textual differences between phrasal nouns and

3.2.3 P
corresponding shortened formations
The differences between stump compounds and suffix formations with -ka can be
summarized as follows: Stumped compounds are generally used in the area of
politics, administration and business. The underlying phrasal nouns, however,
indicate a higher level of official status. A higher level of transparency is obtained
with currently used stump compounds by not clipping the head. The clipped
modifiers are less transparent than the respective word stem (which is retained in
the deadjectival -ka formations), but they relate to a thematically more clearly
restricted range of designation. Frequency specification of stump compounds in
Russian newspapers from the year 2014 can be found in Milan Albertin (2013/14:
22 Compounds such as Rostrud [Russ(ian) labor], Federal’naja služba po trudu i zanjatosti ‘Fed-
eral Labor and Employment Service’ are reminiscent of the old type Glavryba (cf. the examples
cited by Isačenko 1958 in Section 1.1).
76): state matters 35 %, military 15 %, occupations and functions 12 %, business

7 %, medicine 4 % and other 14 %.
Stump compounds are generally formed “top down”, i. e. as planned designa-
tions. They are characterized by serial formation and – at least in present-day
Russian – the clipped elements are only rarely homonymous.23 Stump compound-
ing as a semi-official type of word formation is sometimes also used in ironic
occasionalisms, cf. litnomenklatura ‘literary nomenklatura’ (from the 1990s)
(Uluchanov/Belentschikow 2007: 290) or the name of the Russian heavy metal
band Tjažmet < tjaželyj metall ‘heavy metal’, consciously aiming at a contrast, as
in the past and sometimes even today this stump compound is found in the mean-
ing ‘heavy metallurgy’ as part of the official name of respective companies.
Derivations with -ka based on phrasal nouns are in general formed spontane-
ously and “from below”, i. e. in oral communication. The preferred thematic areas
are to be distinguished from those of stump compounds, cf. coll. kožanka ‘leather
jacket’ < kožanaja kurtka, but not *kožkurtka (in contrast to the common stump
compound kožizdelija < kožanye izdelija ‘leather ware, leather goods’).
The following example may summarize the above said. A Russian passport
can be referred to as follows:
a) in official use with a multi-word expression and a corresponding acronym:
obščegraždanskij zagraničnyj pasport (OZP) [civil international passport],
b) in semi-official use with a stump compound: zagranpasport,
c) everyday use prefers derivatives like zagranka or zagrannik,
d) a further variant – the clipped stem zagran as noun – is found in social
slang.
Masini/Benigni (2012: 447) regard the formation of such shortened lexemes also
as a strategy of a highly inflectional language “to ‘morphologize’ lexical items
that are larger than a word”.
23 There are, however, older formations where the stump kom refers to kommunističeskij ‘com-
munist (A)’, komandir ‘commander’ and komitet ‘committee’, for instance.
4 O
n the relation between MWEs of the type
“relational adjective + noun” and compounds
4.1 R
A+N combinations compensating a lack of nominal
compound types
The preceding section has discussed the tendency of “morphologizing” word
combinations. However, it is obvious that in Russian everyday speech there are
also numerous relatively fixed designations of the type [RA<N]+N without short-
ened variants on -ka. These MWEs contrast with N+N compounds in English and
German (leaving calques out of consideration), e. g.
a) polevaja myš’ ʻfield mouse’ (but see suffixal polёvka ʻvole’), vodjanaja ptica
‘water bird’,
b) utrennjaja smena ʻmorning shift’ (but see suffixal utrennik ʻmorning perfor-
mance’), nočnoj polet ʻnightflight’,
c) jabločnyj pirog ‘apple pie’, rapsovoe maslo24 ʻrape oil’ (see also parallel forma-
tions of the type N+Prep+N, e. g. with the preposition s ʻwith’, iz ʻof, from’),
d) bannoe polotence ‘bath towel’, komp’juternye igry ‘computer games’
(see also parallel formations of the type N+Prep+N, e. g. with the preposition
dlja ʻfor’).
The reservations that have been expressed about the listing of possible meaning
relations between modifiers and non-deverbal heads of compounds (cf., e. g., Plag
2009: 150 with respect to English), may also hold for RA+N combinations.25 How-
ever, it is obvious that there are certain typical relations, depending on the seman-
tics of the modifier and the head of the MWE, i. e. local and temporal (a, b), purpose
(c) or reference to the source or origin of what is referred to by the head (d).
Even if compounds can be formed, MWEs may be perceived as more canoni-
cal. This becomes evident from the persistence of RA+N combinations alongside
older compound calques as well as from the different ways of adapting of new
English N+N compounds and compound patterns.
24 Only occasionally the otherwise unknown/rare compound rapsomaslo [raps.lv.oil] is found

in Internet forums.
25 Plag, for example, provides two interpretations of marble museum – ‘a museum built with
marble’ and ‘a museum in which marble objects are exihibited’. These can potentially also be
found in the Russian mramornyj muzej (RA+N). Admittedly a search for muzej on the Internet
typically renders associations with what is exhibited, cf. Mramornyj muzej v Mramornom dvorce
‘The Marble museum in the Marble Palace (of Catherine the Great in Petersburg)’.
4.2 C
ompounds
4.2.1 “Classical” patterns (N+LV+N) and parallel patterns (RA+N, N+NGEN)
When dealing with Russian determinative compounds with NSTEM as modifier and
non-derived head, it becomes obvious that their number is restricted. Compounds
of the type NSTEM + [N<V] are much more productive. Although Grammatika-80
(Švedova 1980: 242) does not make such a distinction, examples such as zvuko
režisser [sound.lv.director] ‘sound producer’, pticefabrika ‘poultry plant’, chlebo
zavod [bread.lv.plant] ‘bakery plant’ (next to RA+N chlebnyj zavod), gazoballon
‘gas bottle’ (more frequently RA+N gazovyj ballon), kino-teatr [cinema-theatre]
‘cinema’ can be assigned to the first group, expressing primarily purpose rela-
tions. The second group includes compounds like sen-o-uborka ‘hay harvest’,
dač-e-vladelec ‘dacha-owner’, ovošč-e-chranilišče ‘vegetable store’, reflecting the
argument structure of the verb that underlies the head.
These differences become also apparent in the form of Russian equivalents of
English compounds. Russian equivalents of English formations with deverbal
heads are more frequently compounds of the form NSTEM+LV+N (or N+NGEN) and
less frequently RA+N patterns. Russian equivalents of other English compounds
are, however, for the most part of the type RA+N, cf. Table 2:
Table 2: Compounds and multi-word expressions in Russian
English Russian
Compound N+N Compound N+LV+N Relational adjective + N or N+NGEN
(1) ship building sudostroenie (38 m.)26 sudovoe stroenie (267)

stroenie sudov (3,000)
(2) ship repair sudoremont (13 m.) sudovoj remont (940)

remont sudov (19 m.)
(3) ship owner sudovladelec (5 m.) sudovoj vladelec (sporadically)

vladelec sudna (3 m.)
(4) ship mechanic sudomechanik (132,000) sudovoj mechanik (5 m.)

mechanik sudov (2,000)
26 Here and subsequently: occurrences in the nominative/accusative in Yandex (January and

November 2017).
English Russian
Compound N+N Compound N+LV+N Relational adjective + N or N+NGEN
(5) ship-broker sudobroker (14) sudovoj broker (28 m.)

broker sudov (108)
(6) shipboard – sudovoj bort (368)

bort sudna (7 m.)
(7) ship anchor chain – jakornaja cep’ sudna

[RA+N] + NGEN
Besides, we also have to consider that numerous English MWEs and compounds
correspond to regular suffixal expressions in Russian, as in the case of a) denom-
inal personal nouns: parket-čik ‘parquet-layer’ < parket ‘parquet’, ryb-ak ‘fisher-
man’ < ryba ‘fish’, splet-nik ‘scandalmonger’ < spletni ‘rumors’, šachmat-ist ‘chess
player’ < šachmaty ‘chess’, and b) place nouns: vinograd-nik ‘wine yard’ < vinograd
‘grapes; vine’, cvet-nik ‘flower garden‘ < cvet(y) ‘flower(s)’, spaľnja ‘sleeping-room’
< spať ‘sleep’, etc.
4.2.2 N+N compounds without linking vowel
Numerous older borrowed N+N compounds (without linking vowel) as a rule have
RA+N equivalents, which sometimes are more frequent than the compound, cf.:
(28) dizeľ-motor (15,000) ‘diesel engine’ vs. dizeľnyj motor (13 m.) ‘id.’; note,
however, the use of the compound in names of business and the formation
of a new common noun according to the structure N+N: dizeľ-servis
“Dizeľ-Motor” ʻdiesel-service “Diesel-Engine”’ (cf. Section 4.2.3), vakuum-
kamera (45,000) ‘vacuum chamber’ vs. vakuumnaja kamera (25 m.) ‘id.’
A similar relationship exists between some recent compounds (partial calques

based on the English N+N model) and formations consisting of RA+N. In the
case of
(29) demping ceny ‘dumping prices’ vs. dempingovye ceny [dumping.ra prices]
the reasons for the preference of RA+N are to be found in the enhanced syntactic
availability or, more precisely, transparency. The ratio of the borrowed compound
is considerably lower than the phrase in oblique cases, cf. Russian dative pl. po
demping cenam ʻgoods at dumping prices’ (1,240) vs. po dempingovym [RA] cenam
ʻid.’ (181,000), prepositive case pl. o demping cenach (not attested) ʻabout dump-
ing prices’ vs. o dempingovych cenach ʻid.’ (900). The genitive plural demping cen
is obviously entirely avoided due to its homonymy with N+Ngen [dumping prices.
gen] ‘price dumping’.
In addition to parallel formations of the patterns N+N (marketing direktor
‘marketing director’) and RA+N (marketingovyj direktor) alternative patterns of
the form N+Ngen (director martekinga) and N+Prep+N (direktor po marketingu
‘director of marketing’) occur frequently, in particular with respect to professional
titles and functional descriptions.
There are, however, numerous new N+N compounds, including compounds
with abbreviated modifiers, that do not or only occasionally have RA+N
“competitors”:27
(30a) biznes-vstreča ‘business meeting’, biznes-pravo ‘business law’‚

internet-opros ‘internet survey’, internet-magazin ‘internet shop’
(30b) IT-specialist, IT-uslugi ‘IT services’ (IT can be spelled in latin script, but it
is more frequently rendered in Cyrillic.)
According to Benigni/Masini (2009: 179), a criterion for the productivity of N+N

patterns in contemporary Russian is the fact that “not only loan words, but also
native words occur in this pattern, especially in head position”. N+N compounds
are also the topic of an article by Kapatsinski/Vakareliyska (2013). According to
the authors these new N+N compounds can be found in certain thematic areas,
such as business (cholding kompanija ʻholding company’), politics and media
(press-diskussija ʻpress discussion’), music and entertainment (lajting chudožnik
ʻlighting artist’28), commerce, technology, computers and the Internet (see above),
medicine and health, fashion and sexuality (ibid.: 71).
N+N compounds are also commonly used as names for businesses and
events, e. g., Nogti-Servis ʻNail Service’ (name of a manicure salon), etc. Kapatsin-
ski/Vakareliyska (ibid.: 78) emphasize that this formation type “appears to have
developed a distinct connotation: that is, it is not pragmatically synonymous
27 The preference for another compound pattern over MWEs with RA has been evident for some
time in the formation of compounds with neo-classical modifiers, or, more generally, interna-
tionalisms, e. g., tele- (< televizionnyj) ‘TV-, television-’, cf. telezriteľ (nom.sg 50 m.) ‘TV-viewer’
vs. televizionnyj zriteľ (nom.sg 1,000).
28 Cf. also the direct, only grammatically adapted borrowing (here: nom.pl) lajting & šejding
supervajzery ‘lighting and shading supervisors’.
with some other Russian constructions” (in accordance with the No Synonymy
Principle as postulated in Construction Grammar). Whereas a possible stump
compound like gorzal from gorodskoj zal [city.ra hall] ʻcivic hall’ would have the
connotation of a “Soviet holdover”, the new N+N compound Krokus Siti Choll
ʻCrocus City Hall’ (opened in 2009 near Moscow) “has a cosmopolitan, western
association” (p. 81). In the case of other patterns that were already used in the
Soviet era such as Ntoponym+N (e. g. Tulaugoľ ʻTulacoal’, name of a coal trust in the
district of Tula), the pattern is retained but newly filled, e. g. Tulabar. Here, the
“difference in connotations can be plausibly attributed to the interaction between
the structure of the expression and the individual words that enter the structure,
rather than to the structure per se” (Kapatsinski/Vakareliyska 2013: 81). By means
of the new filling the pattern itself gains “a new prestige”.
4.2.3 N+N compounds as proper names
As has been shown by some of the examples above, the idea that N+N compounds
(without linking vowel) are on the increase is also suggested by their frequent
occurrence in proper nouns, such as company names (e. g. Ivent-Ėkspert ‘event
expert’ as the name of an agency for marketing solutions). Such names often
adopt English patterns, which are also used for common nouns in English every-
day speech. This is however not the case in Russian:
(31) Proprial formations Non-proprial formations

(arranged by the frequency of occurrence of the
respective formation type: N+Ngen, RA+N, N+N
with linking vowel o or e)
Gazėksport ėksport gaza, gazovyj ėksport, gazoėksport
‘Gas export’
Mebel’import import mebeli, mebel’nyj import; a non
Mebel’Import29 proprial compound *mebeleimport is not
Mebel’ Import evidenced
‘Furniture import’
Similar observations apply to names of Internet domains, e. g. Vodosport (with

linking vowel) ‘water sports (equipment)’ which has not (yet) been established as
29 It is striking that in many of these newly coined formations the second component is
capitalized.
part of the general vocabulary, in contrast to the common appellative construc-

tion vodnyj sport (water.ra+N). As a common noun vodosport occurs only sporad-
ically in Yandex,30 as in the following example, possibly in analogy to other types
of sports which are mentioned in the context, with international clipped initial
components:
(32) Nado vernuťsja v motosport, velosport. Vodosport vsegda byl v Murome

populjaren.31
‘We have to return to motor sports, to cycle sports. Watersports were always
popular in Murom.’
Vodopolo (in standard language RA+N vodnoe pole) ‘water polo’ and vodolyži (in
standard language vodnye lyži ‘water ski’) are also found as common nouns in
Internet texts, however with a linking vowel (!), i. e. not *Voda sport. (In standard
language the stem vod- ‘water’ is found only in compounds with a deverbal head,
e. g. vod-o-snabženie ‘water supply’.) It remains to be seen whether – under the
influence of certain text types – the pattern Nstem+LV+N will also occur with those
implicit meaning relations that have only been used in RA+N combinations so far
(cf. Section 4.1).
5 C
onclusion
After a short overview of contributions of Slavic studies on the topic of the present
volume this chapter explored some of the relations between non-idiomatic deter-
minative MWEs/phrasal nouns and one-word designations in Russian, viz.:
a) MWEs and a (specific Slavic) type of condensed one-word designations,
b) MWEs/phrasal nouns und stump compounds,
c) MWEs/phrasal nouns and nominal compounds.
Particular emphasis was placed on functional-stylistic and pragmatic differences

of referentially identical formations with different structures (cf. Section 3.2 on
the relationship of MWEs/phrases and one-word designations, based on several
shortening strategies). While suffixal derivations from MWEs/phrases can also be
30 There we also find vodopolo (in standard language RA+N vodnoe pole) ‘water polo’, vodolyži
(in standard language vodnye lyži) ‘water ski’.
31 https://kachevan.livejournal.com/tag/ %D1 %81 %D0 %BF %D0 %BE %D1 %80 %D1 %82
found in other Slavic languages, stump compounds – as common names – are

largely a specific characteristic of Russian.
With respect to nominal compounding, the chapter has focused on determi-
native compounds of the type NSTEM +LV+N-Type and the N+N type (without link-
ing vowel) and parallel MWEs with the structure N+Ngen or RA+N. (Relational
adjectives are today still essential for the integration of numerous borrowed com-
pounds as MWEs). In case of frequently occurring modifiers of N+N compounds a
decrease of parallel RA+N formations can be observed. The Russian N+N type
was already determined by borrowings in earlier times. In present-day language
it is spreading due to the influence of English, since these compounds are no
longer restricted to certain thematic areas. An increasing tendency to use the pat-
tern also with non-borrowed words (particularly as head) can be observed. In
addition, the spread of the N+N pattern is supported by the frequent use as proper
names (cf. Mebel’Import ‘furniture import’) which is however still competing with
appellative MWEs (import mebeli ‘import of furniture’).
Analyses of recent developments in the vocabulary of Russian often point to
two opposing tendencies (cf. also Masini/Benigni 2012: 447): on the one hand,
the increasing tendency towards analyticity (cf. the productive formation of
MWEs/phrasal nouns), and, on the other, the persisting tendency towards syn-
thesis (cf. the -ka formations derived from MWEs as well as the “condensation of
complex nominals” in Slavic languages as mentioned in the introduction.)
The joint reflection on various naming procedures in consideration of their
functional differences was determined especially by the onomasiologically orien-
tated research of Slovak and Czech linguists and adopted in Russian research in
the 1970s (cf. Serebrennikov (ed.) 1977a, 1977b). However, the interaction between
different naming procedures has been considered in the Russian grammars only
in the case of MWEs that form the basis of derivations or compounds and are
being clipped or shortened. An appropriate theoretical framework for the com-
mon consideration of the various procedures is provided by Construction Gram-
mar, and in particular Construction Morphology (Booij 2010), which is based on
the fundamental assumption that there is no strict distinction between word for-
mation and/or the lexicon on the one hand and syntax on the other hand. It
seems that, for this reason, the simultaneous and in principle equal occurrence of
morphological and syntactic naming procedures, as evidenced in this chapter for
Russian, can be captured adequately by constructional frameworks. We therefore
conclude by referring to Construction Grammar based analyses of compounds
and MWEs in Russian and other Slavic languages in Benigni/Masini (2009), Mas-
ini/Benigni (2012), Cetnarowska (in this volume) as well as analyses on other lan-
guages in the volume at hand (amongst others Booij, this volume, Masini, this
volume, Van Goethem and Amiot, this volume, and Schlücker, this volume).
References
Alekseenko, Michail A./Belousova, Taťjana P./Litvinnikova, Oľga I. (eds.) (2003): Slovar’
otfrazeologičeskoj leksiki sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Azbukovnik.
Arcordia, Giogio Francesco/Montermini, Fabio (2013): Are reduced compounds compounds?
Morphological and prosodic properties of reduced compounds in Russian and Mandarin
Chinese. In: Renner, Vincent/Maniez, François/Arnaud, Pierre (eds.): Cross-disciplinary
perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 93–114.
Belošapkova, Vera A. (ed.) (1989): Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. 2nd ed. Moskva: Vysš. Škola.
Benigni, Valentina (2012): I binomi coordinativi in russo: un’analisi costruzionista. In:
mediAzioni 13. Internet: www.mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it/images/stories/PDF_folder/
document-pdf/slavistica2012/01_benigni.pdf (last access: 1.9.2017).
Benigni, Valentina/Masini, Francesca (2009): Compounds in Russian. Lingue e Linguaggio
VIII, 2. 171–193.
Benigni, Valentina/Masini, Francesca (2010): Nomi sintagmatici in russo. In: Studii Slavistici
VII. 145–172.
Billings, Loren A. (1998): Morphology and Syntax. Delimiting stump compounds in Russian. In:
Booij, Gert/Ralli, Angelij/Scalise, Sergio (eds.): Proceedings of the First Mediterranean
Morphology Meeting. Patras: University of Patras. 99–110.
Booij, Geert E. (2010): Construction morphology. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Comrie, Bernhard/Stone, Gerald (1978): The Russian language since the revolution. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Comrie, Bernhard/Stone, Gerald/Polinsky, Maria (1996): The Russian language in the twentieth
century. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dokulil, Miloš (1962): Tvoření slov v češtině. Vol. 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakl.
Československé Akad. Věd.
Droga, Marina A. (2010): Sostavnye naimenovanija v russkom jazyke. Belgorod: Belgorodskij
Gosudarstvennyj Universitet. Internet: http://cheloveknauka.com/v/332425/d#?page=1
Isačenko, Aleksandr V. (1958): K voprosu o strukturnoj tipologii slovarnogo sostava slavjanskich
literaturnych jazykov. In: Slavia 27. 334–352.
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod/Vakareliyska, Cynthia M. (2013): [N[N]] compounds in Russian. A growing
family of constructions. In: Constructions and Frames 5, 1. 69–87.
Kuchař, Jaroslav (1963): Základní rysy struktur pojmenování (Basic features of naming
structures). In: Slovo a slovesnost 24, 2. 105–114. Internet: http://sas.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.
php?art=1230 (last access: 11.9.2018).
Martincová, Olga (2015): Multi-word expressions and univerbation in Slavic. In: Müller, Peter O.
et al. (eds.). 742–757.
Russian. The case for constructions. In: Morphology 22. 417–451.
Milan Albertin, Isabella (2013/14): Analisi linguistica dei composti troncati in russo e del loro
utilizzo nel linguaggio giornalistico. (MA thesis). Università Ca’Foscari Venezia. Internet:
http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/6112/987901-1193458.pdf?sequence=2
Mokijenko, Walerij/Walter, Harry (2008): Leksičeskie i frazeologičeskie neologizmy: obščee i
različnoe. In: Mokijenko, Walerij/Walter, Harry (eds.): Komparacja systemów i
funkcjonowania współczesnych języków słowiańskich. Vol. 3: Frazeologia. Opole: Wydawn.

Uniw. Opolskiego. 101–108.
languages of Europe. Vol. 1. (= Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science
(HSK) 40.1). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Nagórko, Alicja (2014): Diminutiva/Augmentativa. In: Kempgen, Sebastian et al. (eds.): Die
slawischen Sprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte
und ihrer Erforschung. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 782–792.
Neef, Martin (2015): Synthetic compounds in German. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 582–593.
Ološtiak, Martin (ed.) (2015): Viacslovné pomenovania v slovenčine. Prešov: FF PU v Prešove.
Plag, Ingo (2009): Word-formation in English. 5th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Šanskij, Nikolaj M. ([1963] 1985): Frazeologija sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka.
Moskva.
Serebrennikov, Boris A. (ed.) (1977a): Jazykovaja nominacija. Obščie voprosy. Moskva: Izd.
Nauka.
Serebrennikov, Boris A. (ed.) (1977b): Jazykovaja nominacija. Vidy naimenovanija. Moskva: Izd.
Nauka.
Steffens, Doris/Nikitina, Olga (2014): Deutsch-russisches Neologismenwörterbuch. Neuer
Wortschatz im Deutschen 1991–2010. Mannheim: Inst. für Deutsche Sprache.
Švedova, Nataľja Ju. (ed.) (1980): Russkaja grammatika. Moskva: Izd. Nauka.
Uluchanov, Igor’ S./Belentschikow, Renate (2007): Russko-nemeckij slovar’ novych slov.
Moskva: Izdat. Centr Azbukovnik.
Vinogradov, Viktor V. (1946): Osnovnye ponjatija russkoj frazeologii kak naučnoj discipliny.
Leningrad.
Wälchli, Bernhard (2015): Co-compounds. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 707–727.
Bożena Cetnarowska
in Polish
1 I ntroductory: An overview of basic types of

MWEs in Polish
The aim of this chapter is to discuss multi-word units in Polish, focusing on com-
plex nominals (so-called juxtapositions), and to consider their interaction with
compounds proper.1
Multi-word expressions (MWEs) are defined by Sprenger (2003: 4), Masini
(2009: 245) and Hüning/Schlücker (2015: 450) as combinations of two or more
words which are used as names for specific concepts. MWEs are intermediate
between syntactic units and word-formation units. They show phrase-like syntac-
tic complexity yet they resemble morphologically complex words (such as affixal
derivatives and compounds) in exhibiting the naming function. Consequently,
some scholars (e. g. Masini 2009; Booij 2010; Masini/Benigni 2012) refer to MWEs
as “phrasal lexemes”.
The layout of this chapter is as follows. A short overview of MWEs in Polish is
given in the remainder of this section. Section 2 mentions basic types of Polish
compounds proper and illustrates the occurrence of so-called “solid compounds”.
Section 3 offers a brief description of phrasal nouns (referred to as “juxtaposi-
tions” by Polish linguists). Section 4 discusses some criteria used in distinguish-
ing between compounds proper, solid compounds and juxtapositions. The crite-
ria in question involve prosodic pattern, orthographic form and inflectional
properties of compounds. Section 5 examines syntactic fixedness and the inter-
nal complexity of juxtapositions. In Section 6 the issue of competition and com-
plementariness between compounds proper and juxtapositions is explored.
Section 7 demonstrates that a felicitous account of the interaction between mor-
phological compounds and phrasal lexemes can be offered within the frame-
work of Construction Morphology (as developed by Masini 2009; Booij 2010;
Masini/Benigni 2012, among many others). A summary of conclusions is given in
Section 8.
1 I would like to thank the editor of the volume and the anonymous reviewers for their useful
comments on the previous version of this chapter.
Open Access. © 2019 Cetnarowska, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-010
280 Bożena Cetnarowska
Before presenting some examples of MWEs in Polish, we can add that instead
of the term “multi-word unit” (Pol. jednostka wielowyrazowa), Polish linguists
often use the term “phraseological unit” or “phraseme”2 (Pol. związek frazeolo
giczny, frazem). According to the traditional classification3 proposed by Stanisław
Skorupka (e. g. Skorupka 1967), three types of phraseological units are distin-
guished on the basis of their formal structure: units which are nominal expres-
sions (Pol. wyrażenia), such as pies ogrodnika (dog.nom gardener.gen) ‘dog in the
manger’, verb-phrases (Pol. zwroty), e. g. gryźć ziemię (bite.inf earth.acc) ‘to bite
the dust’, and units which exhibit the structure of a sentence (Pol. frazy), e. g. Do
wesela się zagoi (until wedding.gen refl heal.fut.3sg) ‘It will heal in no time’.
Furthermore, phraseological units are divided into three types, depending on
their degree of semantic non-compositionality and syntactic fixedness, into fixed
idiomatic phraseological units (Pol. związki stałe), collocable phraseological
units (Pol. związki łączliwe), and free syntactic combinations (Pol. związki luźne,
lit. loose phraseological units). Fixed phraseological units, such as biały kruk (lit.
white raven) ‘rare specimen’, resemble non-derived words in that their meaning
does not follow from the meaning of individual components. In the case of collo-
cable phraseological units, such as dobry humor ‘good mood’ and pobudzić do
działania (wake.inf to action.gen) ‘to incite, to invigorate’, their constituents
retain literal meaning but show a preference to occur together. Loose phraseo
logical units correspond to free syntactic strings, such as młoda kobieta ‘young
woman’ or zjeść jabłko ‘to eat (an/the) apple’.
Cross-linguistic typologies of phraseological units are discussed by, among
others, Granger/Paquot (2008), Fellbaum (2011) and Hüning/Schlücker (2015:
45). I will follow the latter classification in a very brief presentation of types of
multi-word expressions in Polish below.
Proverbs in Polish can be exemplified by such sentences as Ręka rękę myje
(hand.nom hand.acc wash.pres.3sg) ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’.
Commonplaces can be illustrated by truisms and tautologies based on everyday
experience, e. g. Żyje się raz ‘You only live once’. Quotations come from popular
literary works, songs and films, e. g. Kobieto, puchu marny (woman.voc flu ff.voc
feeble.voc) ‘Woman, you wretched fluff’.
2 As is stated in the entry for “idiom” in Polański (ed.) (1999: 244), the term “phraseme” (Pol.
frazem) in the narrow sense is employed to refer to multi-word expressions in which at least one
item shows a literal meaning, e. g. ślepa uliczka ‘blind alley’, in contrast to idiomatic expressions
whose meaning shows no relatedness to the meaning of particular constituents, e. g. drzeć koty
(tear.inf cat.acc.pl) ‘to quarrel’.
3 For discussion of other classifications of phraseological units used in the Polish phraseologi-
cal literature, cf. Lewicki (1976: 9–23), Żmigrodzki (2009: 100) and Szerszunowicz (2012).
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Polish 281
Fossilised forms4 include complex prepositions, such as w związku z (lit. in

connection with) ‘due to’ and naprzeciw (lit. on opposite) ‘opposite, across from’.
Routine formulas in Polish can be exemplified by such expressions as na
zdrowie (lit. on health.acc) ‘Cheers!’ and do widzenia (until seeing.gen) ‘good
bye’.
Collocations are “prefabricated” semantically transparent combinations of
words which show affinity, e. g. zjełczałe masło ‘rancid butter’ and myć zęby (wash
teeth.acc) ‘to brush teeth’.
Among verbal idioms one can mention such phrases as kopnąć w kalendarz
(kick.inf in calendar.acc) ‘to die’. Some verbal idioms (e. g. those given above)
are based on metaphors. Metaphorical expressions include also prepositional
phrases, adjectival phrases and noun phrases (or phrasal nouns), such as
pomiędzy młotem a kowadłem (between hammer.ins and anvil.ins) ‘between a
rock and a hard place’ and pies ogrodnika (dog.nom gardener.gen) ‘dog in the
manger’.
There are no phrasal verbs proper in Polish. However, the range of meanings
exhibited by phrasal (or particle) verbs in Germanic languages corresponds
largely to the meanings of prefixed verbs in Polish (and in other Slavonic lan-
guages). This is shown by the comparison of the prefixless verb rzucić ‘to throw’
and its prefixal derivatives, e. g. narzucić ‘to throw (sth) on’, rozrzucić ‘to throw
around’, wyrzucić ‘to throw away’.
Among fixed expressions in Polish, there occur combinations of nouns with
verbs of general meaning,5 such as oddać ‘to give back’, zrobić ‘to do, to make’,
wykonać ‘to perform’, e. g. oddać skok ‘to do a jump’, zrobić salto ‘to do a somer-
sault’, wykonać przelew bankowy ‘to make a bank transfer’.
There are stereotyped comparisons among phraseological units in Polish,
such as silny jak byk (strong as bull) ‘as strong as an ox’ and pić jak szewc (lit.
drink like shoemaker) ‘to drink like a fish’.
Binomial expressions can be illustrated by combinations of nouns, verbs,
adjectives or adverbs linked by a conjunction, such as mąż i żona (lit. husband
and wife) ‘man and wife’, żyć i umierać ‘live and die’. They also include combina-
4 Solid compounds, such as wniebowzięcie ‘assumption (of Virgin Mary)’, can also be interpret-
ed as frozen forms (cf. Section 2).
5 As pointed out to me by an anonymous reviewer, Buttler (1976) observes the expansion of
analytic constructions in Polish. She (ibid.: 70) mentions the occurrence of verbo-nominal
constructions, such as ulec zepsuciu (lit. undergo deterioration) ‘deteriorate, go bad’, and noun-
adjective combinations such as akcja szkoleniowa (lit. action training.ra), which replace
synonymous verbs or nouns, i. e. zepsuć się ‘to deteriorate, go bad’, and szkolenie ‘training
course’.
tions of nouns linked by a preposition, e. g. ramię w ramię (lit. shoulder in shoul-

der) ‘shoulder to shoulder’.
Complex nominals, i. e. multi-word expressions with a naming function and
with the internal structure of noun phrases, will be discussed in Section 3 (as
juxtapositions).
First, however, in Section 2 some types of Polish compounds proper will be
described.
2 T
ypes of compounds proper and solid
compounds in Polish
Polish composites are usually divided into three types (Grzegorczykowa/Puzynina
1984; Szymanek 2010; Nagórko 2016): compounds proper (which meet the criteria
of morphological compounds, as shown in Section 4), solid compounds (Pol.
zrosty), and juxtapositions (Pol. zestawienia).
Solid compounds originate from the coalescence (i. e. merging) of syntactic
phrases (Długosz-Kurczabowa/Dubisz 1999: 60; Szymanek 2010: 224). They are
written as one orthographic word, e. g. Wielkanoc ‘Easter’, which comes from
Wielka Noc (lit. great night), czcigodny ‘respectful’, from czci godny (lit. respect-de-
serving), and zmartwychwstały ‘resurrected’, originating from the phrase z mar
twych wstały (lit. from dead arisen). According to Grzegorczykowa/Puzynina
(1984: 396), solid compounds characteristically lack interfixes6 or suffixes but
they retain (compound-internal) inflectional elements.7
Compounds proper consist of two stems which are characteristically linked
with a vocalic interfix (abbreviated here as LV, i. e. linking vowel), e. g. drobn-o-
ustrój (small+lv+organism)8 ‘microorganism, microbe’ and słodk-o-gorzk-i (lit.
sweet+lv+bitter+nom.sg) ‘bittersweet’. In the case of compounds consisting of
a verb stem followed by a nominal stem, the interfix is the vowel -i-/-y-, as in gol-
i-brod-a (shave+lv+beard+nom.sg) ‘barber’, and mocz-y-mord-a (soak+lv+trap+
nom.sg) ‘sponge, drunkard’. When the left-hand constituent is the numeral
6 Consequently, Jadacka (2005: 121) regards other composites which lack a vocalic interfix as
solid compounds, even if they do not originate from the “freezing” of syntactic phrases, e. g.
seksmasaż ‘sex massage’, biznespartner ‘business partner’.
7 Cf. Section 4 for more discussion of inflectional endings in solid compounds.
8 The compound nouns in question are normally written without hyphens. I use hyphens here
to show the internal structure of the composites under discussion.
dw(u)- ‘two’, the interfix appears as the vowel -u-, e. g. dw-u-znak (two+lv+sign)
‘digraph’. Some types of compounds proper, e. g. those with the numeral trój-
‘three’, or the element pół- ‘half’ contain no linking vowel, e. g. trójskok (three+
jump) ‘triple jump’, północ (half+night) ‘midnight, north’.
Compounds such as drobnoustrój ‘microorganism’ and północ ‘midnight,
north’ can be compared to primary (root) compounds in English, in which two
stems are combined without any intervention of derivational suffixes. The only
formative that functions as the marker of composition is the vocalic interfix (if
present).
On the other hand, in the case of compound nouns such as król-o-bój-stw-o
(king+lv+kill+suff+nom.sg) ‘regicide’, and krwi-o-daw-c-a (blood+lv+give+
suff+nom.sg) ‘blood donor’ both the linking vowel and the final derivational
suffix act as co-formatives. Such Polish compounds, referred to as “interfix-
al-suffixal formations”, are analogous to synthetic compounds in English, such
as proof-reading or truck-driver (as observed by Szymanek 2010: 221). The right-
hand verb stem with the nominalising suffix can either form an independently
occurring word, e. g. dawca ‘giver’, or be unattested as a free form, e. g. *bójstwo
‘killing’.
There is yet another (formal) type of compounds proper, namely “interfix-
al-paradigmatic formations” (Grzegorczykowa/Puzynina 1984: 398; Szymanek
2010: 222), in which two elements act as co-formatives (signalling the operation
of compounding): the linking vowel and the so-called paradigmatic formative
(i. e. a change of the inflectional paradigm). The right-hand stems of the interfixal-
paradigmatic compounds paliw-o-mierz (fuel+lv+measure+ø)9 ‘fuel indicator’
and dług-o-pis (long+lv+write+ø) ‘ballpen’ are nominalised verb roots, which
undergo conversion (i. e. paradigmatic derivation) into nouns. The resulting nom-
inalised elements -mierz and -pis do not occur as nouns in isolation. Another type
of interfixal-suffixal formations is exemplified by the compound noun żmij-o-
głów (adder+lv+head+ø) ‘snakehead fish’, in which the right-hand stem does not
show a category change but undergoes a shift of the paradigm (from feminine
declension, as in głow-a (head+nom.sg), to masculine declension).
If Polish compounds proper are divided into structural types (according to
the cross-linguistic classification proposed by Scalise/Bisetto 2009), the com-
pounds in (1) are recognised as subordinate compounds, in which one constitu-
ent is subordinated semantically and syntactically to the other so that a comple-
ment-head relation can be established between them. The left-hand constituent
9 The element ø represents here a paradigmatic formative (i. e. a zero morpheme), as in Szyma-
nek (2010: 222) and Kolbusz-Buda (2014: 121).
in (1a–c) can be regarded as the object of the action of picking or indicating, and
the result of the action of writing. In (1d) the left-hand constituent, i. e. the verb
stem wyrw-, is syntactically superordinate to the following nominal stem dąb.
The compound nouns in (1a) and (1b) are endocentric since they are hyponyms
of their heads, e. g. bajkopisarz ‘fabulist, writer of fables’ is a kind of a writer.
The compounds in (1c) and (1d) are regarded as exocentric by Grzegorczykowa/
Puzynina (1984) and Szymanek (2010).10
grzyb-o-bra-ni-e (mushroom+lv+take+suff+nom.sg) ‘mushroom picking’

(1a)
(1b) bajk-o-pis-arz (fable+lv+write+suff) ‘fabulist, writer of fables’
(1c) drog-o-wskaz (road+lv+indicate+ø) ‘signpost’
(1d) wyrw-i-dąb (pull_out+lv+oak) ‘strong man, athlete’
In attributive compound nouns, such as those in (2), the modifying element

expresses some property of the head noun. The compound in (2a) is endocentric,
whereas those in (2b) and (2c) are exocentric.
(2a) żyw-o-płot (live+lv+fence) ‘hedge’

(2b) biał-o-głow-a (white+lv+head+nom.sg) ‘(obs.) woman’
zielon-o-nóż-k-a (green+lv+leg+dim+nom.sg) ‘green-legged partridge’
(2c)
Coordinate compounds in (3) consist of constituents whose status is equal. They

can either be treated as endocentric formations which contain two heads, or as
exocentric formations, in which the head is missing.11
(3a)
barman-o-kelner (bartender+lv+waiter) ‘waiter and bartender’
(3b) gad-o-ptak (reptile+lv+bird) ‘archaeopteryx’
(3c) spódnic-o-spodni-e (skirt+lv+trouser+nom.pl) ‘skort, cullotes’
10 Grzegorczykowa/Puzynina (1984: 399) regard as exocentric formations those compound

nouns which represent (mainly) the interfixal-paradigmatic type (e. g. drog-o-wskaz ‘signpost’)
or the interfixal-suffixal type (cudz-o-ziemi-ec ‘foreigner’) and in which the right-hand (root+ø
or root+suff) constituents do not occur as independent nouns, e. g. *wskaz and *ziemiec. The
anonymous reviewer observes, however, that drogowskaz ‘signpost’ can be interpreted as an
endocentric formation. Cf., among others, Grzegorczykowa/Puzynina (1984: 399–403) and
Kolbusz-Buda (2014: 58–61, 133–162) for more discussion of the issue.
11 The endocentric/exocentric status of a coordinate compound depends to some extent on a
particular semantic paraphrase (one of several available ones) which is employed (cf. Grzegor-
czykowa/Puzynina 1984: 399; Cetnarowska 2016).
Compound adjectives can be similarly divided into subordinate (e. g. (4a)), attrib-
utive (4b) and coordinate ones (4c).
(4a) złot-o-daj-n-y (gold+lv+give+suff+nom.sg.m) ‘gold-giving’

(4b) zielon-o-ok-i (green+lv+eye+nom.sg.m) ‘green-eyed’
słodk-o-kwaś-n-y (sweet+lv+acid+suff+nom.sg.m) ‘sweet and sour’
(4c)
Compound verbs are rare in Polish. Nagórko (2016: 2838) suggests that many of
them result from loan translation, e. g. lekceważyć ‘to disrespect, to neglect’ (from
German gering schätzen12).
Długosz-Kurczabowa/Dubisz (1999: 50 f.) point out that many compound
nouns proper, solid compounds, and compound adjectives in Polish can be
treated as calques. Some religious terms are translations of Latin compounds,
e. g. wszech-mogąc-y (all+able+nom.sg) ‘almighty’ (from Latin omnipotens).
Polish compounds which are imitations of German compound lexemes include,
among others, list-o-nosz (letter+lv+carry+ø) ‘postman’ (from Briefträger) and
ogni-o-trwał-y (fire+lv+durable+nom.sg) ‘fireproof’ (from feuerfest). The influ-
ence of Russian, on the other hand, can be observed in the case of such com-
pounds as brak-o-rób-stw-o (dud+lv+do+suff+nom.sg) ‘wastage’ (from brako
dielstvo). Nevertheless, Długosz-Kurczabowa/Dubisz (ibid.: 75) argue for the
recognition of compound formation in Polish as a native pattern (which can be
traced back to Proto-Slavonic forms or the Old Polish period).
3 Juxtapositions (“phrasal nouns”)

Juxtapositions show phrasal structure. The following syntactic types of juxtapo-
sitions, i. e. phrasal nouns, can be identified in Polish.
(5) N+N.gen
dom studenta (house.nom student.gen.sg) ‘dormitory, student hall of
(5a)
residence’
(5b) mąż stanu (man.nom state.gen.sg) ‘statesman’
12 As is pointed out to me by the editor of the volume, the expression gering schätzen is not
normally regarded as a compound in German.
(6) N+PP
(6a) chustka do nosa (kerchie f.dim.nom for nose.gen) ‘handkerchief’
(6b) dziurka od klucza (hole.dim.nom from key.gen) ‘keyhole’
(7) N+A
(7a) panna młoda (maid young) ‘bride’
(7b) drukarka laserowa (printer laser.adj) ‘laser printer’
(7c) krem odżywczy (cream nourishing) ‘nourishing cream’
(8) A+N
(8a) biały kruk (white raven) ‘rare specimen’
(8b) nocna zmiana (night.adj shift) ‘night shift’
(8c) wieczne pióro (eternal pen) ‘fountain pen’
(9) N+N
(9a) poeta-tłumacz (poet translator) ‘poet-translator’
(9b) kobieta-guma (woman rubber) ‘female contortionist’
(9c) wywiad-rzeka (interview river) ‘extended interview’
The constituents of juxtapositions exhibit the relation of government (as in N+N.

gen phrasal nouns) or agreement (as in N+A or A+N juxtapositions and in N+N
juxtapositions). The adjective in N+A and A+N phrasal nouns is often a denomi-
nal one, i. e. a relational adjective such as laserowy (laser.ra) from the noun laser
‘laser’, and then the whole combination is a possible translation equivalent in
Polish for a noun+noun compound in English or in other Germanic languages.13 It
needs to be added, though, that some N+A or A+N juxtapositions contain nonde-
rived adjectives, e. g. młoda ‘young’ in panna młoda ‘bride’, or deverbal adjec-
tives, e. g. odżywczy ‘nourishing’ from the verb odżywiać ‘to nourish’.
When the tripartite structural typology of compounds proper is applied to
juxtapositions, it can be noted that Polish juxtapositions behave similarly to
those in Russian, discussed by Masini/Benigni (2012). N+N.gen and N+PP phrasal
nouns are often subordinate composites (as in 10), N+A and A+N combinations
tend to be attributive (as in 11) while N+N combinations (in 12) are coordinate
juxtapositions.
13 On the basis of translation equivalence between Germanic N+N compounds and Polish N+RA
(or RA+N) units, ten Hacken (2013) argues that multi-word expressions in Polish consisting of
nouns and relational adjectives should be treated as compounds.
(10a) maszyna do szycia (machine for sewing) ‘sewing machine’

(10b) dawca organów (donor.nom organ.gen.pl) ‘organ donor’
(11a) stara panna (old maid) ‘old maid’

(11b) panda wielka (panda great) ‘giant panda’
(12a) torba-worek (bag sack) ‘large bag’

(12b) kierowca-dostawca (driver deliverer) ‘delivery driver’
The relationship between the syntactic type and the structural classification of
juxtapositions is not complete, though. N+N combinations (whose constituents
show agreement) and N+N.gen phrasal nouns in (13) require attributive
interpretation.
(13a) ryba-piła (fish saw) ‘sawfish’

(13b) kobieta-guma (woman rubber) ‘female contortionist’
(13c) człowiek honoru (man.nom honour.gen) ‘man of honour’
Damborský (1966) remarks that some N+N juxtapositions may have entered the
Polish language as calques of French formations (e. g. zegarek-bransoletka
‘watch-bracelet’) or as calques of Russian complex lexemes (e. g. miasto-bohater
‘hero city’). Nevertheless, he concludes that N+N juxtapositions represent mostly
a native pattern of composite formation (as is also observed by Długosz-Kurcza-
bowa/Dubisz 1999).
In the next section criteria which can be employed in distinguishing between
compounds proper and juxtapositions will be presented.
4 D
ifferences between compounds proper, solid
compounds and juxtapositions
Polish compounds proper exhibit features expected of morphological compounds
cross-linguistically (cf. Lieber/Štekauer 2009; Booij 2010). They are written as one
orthographic word, though some compounds are hyphenated, e. g. słodko-kwaśny
‘sweet and sour’.14
14 The hyphen is employed in the case of coordinate compound adjectives (e. g. przemysłowo
-rolniczy ‘industrial and agricultural’) while attributive and subordinate compound adjectives
A compound proper constitutes one prosodic unit with respect to stress

assignment. As is indicated here (for clarity) by the capitalization of the appropri-
ate vowel, the main lexical stress falls on the penultimate syllable in compound
nouns such as długOpis ‘ballpen’, and in compound adjectives, e. g. ciemnonie
biEski ‘dark blue’ (cf. Szymanek 2010: 225).15
Constituents of compounds proper in Polish form one morphological word,
with the morphological head located on the right. The inflectional ending is
attached to the right-hand stem, e. g. -a (nom.sg) in (14a). In the case of exocentric
compound nouns (as in 14b), the inflectional ending appears to attach to the
whole compound stem, rather than to the right-hand stem, since the inflectional
characteristics of those compound nouns often diverge from the inflectional
properties of their right-hand constituents.16
(14a) mebl-o-ścian-k-a
furniture+lv+wall+dim+nom.sg
‘wall unit’
(14b) staw-o-nog-a
joint+lv+foot+gen.sg
‘arthropod’ (gen.sg)
Solid compounds exhibit most of the properties of morphological compounds.

They are written as one orthographic word and constitute one prosodic domain
(with respect to stress assignment), as is shown by WielkAnoc ‘Easter’, as opposed
to the free syntactic combination wiElka nOc ‘great night’. The inflectional end-
ings in solid compounds are usually attached only to the right-hand stems, e. g.
czcigodn-emu (venerable.dat.sg), and duszpasterz-a (priest.gen.sg). The inflec-
tional ending of the left-hand constituent (if present)17 is ‘frozen’ inside the solid
compound and it takes the function of the vocalic interfix, e. g. -i (gen.sg) in czci
godny ‘venerable’. In selected solid compound nouns both stems obligatorily
are written as single orthographic words (e. g. roponośny ‘oil-bearing’, ciemnozielony ‘dark
green’).
15 In the case of polysyllabic compounds, apart from the main stress on the penultimate sylla-
ble, there may occur secondary stresses on the first constituent, e. g. prAlkosuszArka ‘washer
dryer’, ciEmnoniebiEski ‘dark blue’.
16 The compound noun stawonóg ‘arthropod’ is masculine, while its right-hand constituent
noga ‘foot’ is feminine (cf. nog-i ‘foot+gen.sg’).
17 There is no vocalic element linking the constituents dusz (soul.gen.pl) and pasterz (shep-
herd.nom.sg) since the marker of genitive plural in the first constituent is a morphological zero.
decline as independent morphological words,18 in spite of constituting a single

prosodic and orthographic unit, e. g. Biał-y-stok (white+nom.sg+slope+nom.sg)
‘Białystok.nom.sg’ (a city in north-eastern Poland) and Biał-ego-stok-u (white+
gen.sg+slope+gen.sg) ‘Białystok.gen.sg’.
Juxtapositions consist of constituents which are written as separate
orthographic words, e. g. maszyna do pisania (machine for writing) ‘typewriter’,
kobieta pilot (woman pilot) ‘female pilot’ and prawa człowieka (law.nom.pl man.
gen.sg) ‘human rights’. However, some attributive N+N compounds, e. g. kobie
ta-guma (woman rubber) ‘female contortionist’, and coordinate N+N compounds,
e. g. malarz-tapeciarz ‘painter-decorator’, are hyphenated,19 in which they resem-
ble morphological compounds in other languages (cf. Lieber/Štekauer 2009) and
coordinate adjectival compounds proper in Polish.
Each element of a juxtaposition takes its own inflectional endings. They can
stand in either the relation of agreement (as in the case of N+A, A+N and N+N
juxtapositions), or the relation of government (in the case of N+N.gen or N+PP
phrasal nouns). Constituents of juxtapositions also behave as independent units
for the purpose of lexical stress assignment, as is shown by the stress pattern of
mAlarz-tapEciarz ‘painter-decorator’, and chUstka do nOsa (lit. kerchief for nose)
‘handkerchief’.
5 Syntactic fixedness
The Lexical Integrity Principle, postulated by Anderson (1992), does not allow
rules of syntax to manipulate or have access to parts of words. Booij (2010: 177)
points out that this principle can be split into two subparts (i. e. two subcon-
straints).
One subconstraint prohibits the operation of syntactic rules of case assign-
ment and agreement on constituents of morphologically complex words. Inflec-
tional endings do not occur inside affixal derivatives or inside compounds proper,
cf. czarn-o-biał-ego (black+lv+white+gen.sg) ‘black-and-white.gen.sg’ and not
*czarn-ego-biał-ego (black+gen.sg+white+gen.sg). This subconstraint is vio-
18 There occur also solid compounds which allow alternative word-forms, e. g. Wielk-a-noc
(great+nom.sg/lv+night) ‘Easter.nom.sg’, Wielk-a-noc-y (great+lv+night+gen.sg) or Wielki-ej-
noc-y (great+gen.sg+night+gen.sg) ‘Easter.gen.sg’.
19 According to current prescriptive recommendations, Polish coordinate compounds should be
hyphenated while attributive compounds should not.
lated in the case of juxtapositions and some solid compounds, as was illustrated
in the previous section.
The second subpart of the Lexical Integrity Principle predicts that words can
be neither split by intervening constituents nor reordered. This subconstraint is
met in the case of the majority of compounds proper and solid compounds in
Polish. The left-hand modifiers of the compound nouns dług-o-pis (long+
lv+write+ø) ‘ballpen’ and grzyb-o-bra-ni-e (mushroom+lv+take+suff+nom.sg)
‘mushroom picking’ cannot be shifted to the right-hand position, as is shown by
the ill-formedness of *pis-o-dług and *brani-o-grzyb. Moreover, those left-hand
(modifier) stems cannot be modified themselves, as indicated by the unaccepta-
bility of *bardzo-dług-o-pis (very+long+lv+write+ø) in the intended meaning
‘ballpen which can write for a long time’. Constituents of coordinate compounds
proper show some possibility of reordering, e. g. czerwono-biały ‘red and white’
and biało-czerwony ‘white and red’.20 However, one potential order of elements
tends to be conventionalised, hence ?suszark-o-pralk-a (dryer+lv+washer+nom.
sg) and ?robotnik-o-chłop (worker+lv+peasant) sound decidedly odd when com-
pared to the institutionalised forms pralk-o-suszark-a (washer+lv+dryer+nom.
sg) ‘washer and dryer’ and chłop-o-robotnik (peasant+lv+worker) ‘a peasant
farmer who also works in a factory’.
Juxtapositions resemble compounds proper in Polish in that their internal
constituents cannot be modified (cf. Cetnarowska/Trugman 2012; Cetnarowska
2018).21 If an adverbial modifier is inserted in front of the adjective in the N+A
juxtaposition foka szara (seal grey) ‘grey seal’, the resulting string stops function-
ing as a naming unit and can be interpreted as a free syntactic combination, i. e.
foka bardzo szara (seal very grey) ‘seal whose fur is very grey’. Similarly, the addi-
tion of the demonstrative tego (this.gen.sg) in front of the noun człowieka (man.
gen.sg) in the N+N.gen phrasal noun prawa człowieka (law.nom.pl man.gen.sg)
‘human rights’ results in the reanalysis of the juxtaposition as a freely composed
noun phrase, i. e. prawa tego człowieka (law.nom.pl this.gen.sg man.gen.sg)
‘this man’s rights’. Some instances of phrasal nouns that contain internal pre- or
post-modifiers (and complements) can be encountered, as shown in (15). It can be
argued, though, that these are cases of complex phrasal nouns which contain
20 Nagórko (2016: 2837) remarks that there is a difference in meaning between biało-czerwony
(white-red), which can be used to describe the flag of Poland, and czerwono-biały (red-white),
which describes the colours of the flag of Monaco.
21 Consequently, adjectives and nouns are regarded as non-projecting categories (A0 and N0) in
multi-word units in Polish by Cetnarowska (2018), as is suggested for MWEs in other languages
by Booij (2010).
phrasal nouns as their subconstituents, e. g. małe dziecko ‘small child’ functions

as a naming unit, hence it can become a part of another naming unit.
(15a) dom dzieck-a

house.nom.sg child+gen.sg
‘orphanage, children’s home’
(15b) dom mał-ego dzieck-a
house.nom.sg small+gen.sg child+gen.sg
‘orphanage for small children’
(15c) wod-a mineral-n-a
water+nom.sg mineral+ra+nom.sg
‘mineral water’
(15d) gazowan-a wod-a mineral-n-a
aerated+nom.sg water+nom.sg mineral+ra+nom.sg
‘sparkling mineral water’
The issue of changes in the internal order of elements of juxtapositions is more

complex. Constituents of coordinate N+N juxtapositions show a considerable
degree of mobility,22 e. g. aktor-tancerz (actor-dancer) and tancerz-aktor (danc-
er-actor), or kobieta pilot (woman pilot) and pilot kobieta (pilot woman).
N+N.gen juxtapositions and N+PP juxtapositions resist internal reordering
(except in poetry, artistic prose or journalese). Shifts in the order of their constit-
uents result in the infelicity of the resulting phrasal noun, e. g. ??honoru słowo
(honour.gen.sg word.nom.sg) vs. słowo honoru (word.nom.sg honour.gen.sg)
‘word of honour’, or ??do szycia maszyna (for sewing.gen.sg machine.nom.sg)
vs. maszyna do szycia (machine.nom.sg for sewing.gen.sg) ‘sewing machine’.
Alternatively, such shifts may lead to the reinterpretation of the juxtaposition as
a regular syntactic phrase, e. g. małego dziecka dom (small.gen.sg child.gen.sg
house.nom.sg) ‘house of (a particular) small child’.
The mobility of constituents of A+N and N+A phrasal nouns depends on their
semantic compositionality and the range of polysemy exhibited by a given
adjective.
Cetnarowska/Pysz/Trugman (2011) and Cetnarowska/Trugman (2012) divide
combinations of classifying adjectives and nouns (in any order) in Polish into
22 The internal word order is fixed in the case of some types of coordinate and quasi-coordinate
juxtapositions, e. g. those that consist of a superordinate term followed by a hyponym, such as
lekarz ginekolog (physician+gynecologist) ‘gynecologist’ or Kinship+Property coordinate juxta-
positions, e. g. syn prawnik (son+lawyer) ‘lawyer son’.
three groups: idiomatic A+N combinations, N+A ‘tight units’ and A+N/N+A com-
binations in which the classifying adjective is regarded as ‘migrating’.
A+N juxtapositions which are regarded by Cetnarowska/Pysz/Trugman
(2011) as lexicalised idiomatic phrases, such as koński ogon (horse.ra tail) ‘pony-
tail’, lwia paszcza (lion.ra jaw) ‘snapdragon’, and boża krówka (god.ra cow.dim)
‘ladybird’, show syntactic fixedness. Their consitutents cannot be shifted, since
the postposing of the adjective changes their meaning to non-idiomatic combina-
tions, as shown in (16).
(16a) koń-sk-i ogon

horse+ra+nom.sg tail.nom.sg
‘ponytail’
(16b) ogon koń-sk-i
tail.nom.sg horse+ra+nom.sg
‘tail of (a/the) horse’
The elements of N+A ‘tight units’ are not (normally) reversible, either. Post-head
classifying adjectives in tight units, such as kurier dyplomatyczny (courier diplo-
matic) ‘diplomatic courier’, pancernik olbrzymi (armadillo giant) ‘giant armadillo’
and foka szara (seal grey) ‘grey seal’, change their interpretation to those of qual-
ifying adjectives, as indicated in (17) and (18).
(17a) kurier dyplomat-yczn-y

courier.nom.sg diplomat+ra+nom.sg
‘diplomatic courier’
(17b) dyplomat-yczn-y kurier
diplomat+ra+nom.sg courier.nom.sg
‘tactful courier’
(18a) pancernik olbrzym-i

armadillo.nom.sg giant.a+nom.sg
‘giant armadillo’
(18b) olbrzym-i pancernik
giant.a+nom.sg armadillo.nom.sg
‘very large armadillo’
‘Migrating’ classifying adjectives are felicitous in phrasal nouns both pre-nomi-

nally and post-nominally, without incurring any serious change in their interpre-
tation (as in (19) and (20)). They can be analysed as intersective modifiers (as
observed by Cetnarowska/Trugman 2012). The choice between placing a migrat-
ing classifying adjective in the pre- or post-head position is determined by a num-

ber of various syntactic and stylistic factors, one of them being the occurrence of
additional classifying adjectives or genitive complements in a phrasal noun (cf.
Szumska 2006; Cetnarowska/Pysz/Trugman 2011; Linde-Usiekniewicz 2013;
Cetnarowska 2014 for more discussion).
(19a) noc-n-y sklep

night+ra+nom.sg shop.nom.sg
‘night shop’
(19b) sklep noc-n-y
shop.nom.sg night+ra+nom.sg
‘night shop’
(20a) kurtk-a męsk-a

jacket+nom.sg male.nom.sg
‘men’s jacket’
(20b) męsk-a kurtk-a zim-ow-a
male+nom.sg jacket+nom.sg winter+ra+nom.sg
‘men’s winter jacket’
Syntactic flexibility in idioms can be regarded (cross-linguistically) as a conse-

quence of their semantic transparency, as is argued by Nunberg/Sag/Wasow
(1994). The behaviour of A+N and N+A phrasal nouns in Polish provides further
evidence for such a conclusion, since idiomatic A+N juxtapositions are ‘syntacti-
cally frozen’. Fellbaum (2011: 448) shows, however, on the basis of data from Ger-
man and English, that even (more) opaque idioms may allow for morphological
and syntactic variation, depending on their larger sentential context and on the
presence of stylistic (or humorous) colouring. Some instances of the word-order
modification in N+A ‘tight units’, to facilitate word play or contrast, are men-
tioned by Cetnarowska (2015).
6 C
ompetition between compounds and
juxtapositions
The conventionalisation of a given concept by means of a compound or a phrasal
unit in Polish is to some extent arbitrary. For instance, while there exist the syn-
thetic compounds proper koni-o-krad (horse+lv+steal+ø) ‘horse thief’ and (used
rather rarely) kur-o-krad (hen+lv+steal+ø) ‘chicken thief’, N+N.gen phrasal lex-
emes are used to denote a person who steals cars or bicycles, i. e. złodziej samo
chodów (thie f.nom.sg car.gen.pl) ‘car thief’ and złodziej rowerów (thie f.nom.sg
bicycle.gen.pl) ‘bicycle thief’.
Nevertheless, it is possible to come across synonymous compounds proper
and juxtapositions in Polish. Let us look at the competition between (and coexist-
ence of) subordinate synthetic compounds proper and N+N.gen combinations
(or N+A units).
There exist several institutionalised synthetic compounds which end in
the constituent -dawca ‘giver’, e. g. kredyt-o-daw-c-a ‘lender’, prac-o-daw-c-a
‘employer’, ustaw-o-daw-c-a ‘lawmaker, legislator’, spadk-o-daw-c-a ‘testator’.
Jadacka (2001: 96, 99) observes that compounds terminating in -dawca repre-
sent a fairly numerous group of neologisms in the Polish vocabulary at the end
of the twentieth century (i. e. after 1989).23
As shown in (21)–(22) below, the existence of synthetic compounds proper
terminating in -dawca, such as licencj-o-daw-c-a ‘licensor’, does not block the
formation (and use of) a synonymous N+N.gen juxtaposition, i. e. dawc-a licencj-i
‘licensor (lit. giver of licence)’.
(21) licencj-o-daw-c-a
licence+lv+give+suff+nom.sg
‘licensor’
(22) daw-c-a licencj-i

give+suff+nom.sg licence+gen.sg
‘licensor’
(23a) krwi-o-daw-c-a
blood+lv+give+suff+nom.sg
‘blood donor’
(23b) daw-c-a krw-i
give+suff+nom.sg blood+gen.sg
‘blood donor’
23 Nevertheless, the pattern of synthetic compounds with the constituent -dawca ‘giver’ shows
many gaps. There are no attestations (in the National Corpus of Polish) of the potentially well-
formed compounds ?organodawca (organ+lv+giver) ‘organ donor’, ?szpikodawca (mar-
row+lv+giver) ‘(bone) marrow donor’ or ?sercodawca (heart+lv+giver) ‘heart donor’. However,
the anonymous reviewer points out that Google searches result in 17 hits for ?organodawca ‘or-
gan donor’ (including some metaphorical uses of the word) and 9 hits for ?szpikodawca ‘marrow
donor’.
The comparison of the occurrence of the (various inflectional forms of the) lex-
emes in (21)–(23) in the National Corpus of Polish (NKJP) shows that the synthetic
compound licencjodawca ‘licensor’ is more common in the corpus than the
phrasal noun dawca licencji (giver.nom.sg licence.gen.sg) ‘licensor’: it occurs
167 times, while the equivalent phrasal noun is attested 9 times. In the case of the
items in (23), both the synthetic compound krwiodawca ‘blood donor’ and the
N+N.gen phrasal noun dawca krwi ‘blood donor’ are fairly frequent.24
Jadacka (2001: 98) also points out the productivity of the pattern of interfix-
al-paradigmatic derivation of compounds, represented by such novel compounds
as diet-o-mierz (diet+lv+measure+ø) ‘dietometer’, where the right-hand constitu-
ent is the verb stem mierz- (as in mierzyć ‘measure.inf’) and the nominalizing
morpheme is the paradigmatic formative (i. e. the zero morpheme ø). There exist
doublets or even triplets consisting of synonymous compounds terminating in
-mierz or -metr and phrasal nouns consisting of the head miernik ‘meter, gauge’
followed by a noun in the genitive.
(24a) głośn-ości-o-mierz
loud+suff+lv+measure+ø
‘volume unit meter’
(24b) audio-metr
audio+meter
‘audiometer’
(24c) mier-nik głośn-ośc-i
measure+suff loud+suff+gen.sg
‘volume unit meter, volume indicator’
(25a) wilgotn-ości-o-mierz
wet+suff+lv+measure+ø
‘moisture meter’
(25b) higro-metr
hygro+meter
‘hygrometer’
(25c) mier-nik wilgotn-ośc-i
measure+suff wet+suff+gen.sg
‘hygrometer, moisture meter’
24 There is a difference in the occurrence of the nominative singular forms of both competing
lexemes: the compound occurs 345 times and the phrasal noun 57 times, mainly in the expres-
sion honorowy dawca krwi ‘honorary blood donor’.
The usage of N+N.gen pattern allows the speaker to reach greater precision in
denoting the kind of instrument. The genitive attribute can in turn be modified by
another genitive, as is shown in (26)–(27).
(26) mier-nik wilgotn-ośc-i powietrz-a

measure+suff wet+suff+gen.sg air+gen.sg
‘air humidity meter’
(27) mier-nik wilgotn-ośc-i drewn-a
measure+suff wet+suff+gen.sg wood+gen.sg
‘wood moisture meter’
The N+N.gen nouns in (26)–(27) above have no corresponding morphological

compounds, since there is no pattern which would allow the name of the object
(whose moisture is to be tested) to be included in a compound proper. The hypo-
thetical lexemes *powietrz-o-wilgotności-o-mierz (air+lv+moisture+lv+meas-
ure+ø) and *drewn-o-wilgotności-o-mierz (wood+lv+moisture+lv+measure+ø)
are ill-formed.
Another area where juxtapositions compete with compounds proper is the
formation of coordinate composites. Jadacka (2001: 145) observes that juxtaposi-
tions, not morphological compounds proper, constituted previously (until the
middle of the twentieth century) the recommended pattern employed in creating
names of coordinate entities. On the other hand, coordinate juxtapositions (of
the multifunctional type)25 may evolve into compounds proper. While the N+N
phrasal lexemes given in (28a) and (28c) are quoted in the literature (e. g. by Dam-
borský 1966; Kallas 1980; Szymanek 2010), they have few (or no) attestations in
the NKJP corpus. They were replaced by the corresponding coordinate com-
pounds proper in (28b) and (28c).
(28a) chłop-robotnik
peasant+worker
‘peasant farmer who works in a factory’
(28b) chłop-o-robotnik
peasant+lv+worker
‘peasant farmer who works in a factory’
25 According to Renner/Fernández-Domínguez (2011: 876 f.), a multifunctional coordinate com-

pound denotes an entity which belongs to two categories simultaneously and can be para-
phrased as ‘an X + Y is an X who/which is also a Y’.
(28c) klub-kawiarni-a
club+café+nom.sg
‘café that hosts cultural events’
(28d) klub-o-kawiarni-a
club+lv+café+nom.sg
‘café that hosts cultural events’
In the case of the pairs of multifunctional coordinate phrasal nouns and com-
pounds proper given in (29), both formations coexist (and compete).
(29a) krem-żel
cream+gel
‘gel cream’
(29b) krem-o-żel
cream+lv+gel
‘gel cream’
(29c) barman-kelner
bartender+waiter
‘waiter-bartender’
(29d) barman-o-kelner
bartender+lv+waiter
‘waiter-bartender’
Certain types of coordinate composites allow for one pattern only, i. e. either the
creation of N+N juxtapositions or compounds proper. Multifunctional coordinate
composites representing (among others) the following semantic types26 cannot be
expressed by synthetic compounds:
(30a) Sex+Profession: kobieta tłumacz

(woman translator) ‘female translator’,
not *kobiet-o-tłumacz
(30b) Profession+Characteristic Activity: tancerka szpieg
(dancer spy) ‘both female dancer and spy’,
not *tancerk-o-szpieg
(30c) Kinship+Profession: żona aktorka
(wife actress) ‘actress wife’,
not *żon-o-aktorka
26 The semantic typology is based on that postulated for English by Olsen (2001).
Attributive juxtapositions, such as wywiad-rzeka (interview+river) ‘extended

interview’, kobieta anioł (woman angel) ‘angel of a woman’, cannot be replaced
by morphological compounds (with an interfix), i. e. *wywiad-o-rzeka (inter-
view+lv+river) or *kobiet-o-anioł (woman+lv+angel).
On the other hand, hybrid coordinate compounds proper, which can be
paraphrased as ‘X is a blend of X and Y’ (Renner/Fernández-Domínguez 2011),
have no corresponding N+N juxtapositions, cf. las-o-step (forest+lv+steppe)
‘forest-steppe’, gad-o-ptak (reptile+lv+bird) ‘archaeopteryx’ and not *las-step
or *gad-ptak.
Thus, juxtapositions not only compete with but also complement compounds
proper in Polish.
7 T
he treatment of phrasal nouns in Construction
Morphology
As noted by Grzegorczykowa (1982: 59) and Długosz-Kurczabowa/Dubisz (1999)
and as mentioned in Section 2, in traditional accounts of Polish word-formation
(e. g. Klemensiewicz 1939) phrasal nouns were treated as a subtype of composites
(i. e. compounds in the broad sense of the term), namely as juxtapositions. In
more rigorous descriptive grammars of Polish (e. g. those written in the structur-
alist paradigm), juxtapositions are excluded from the domain of morphology.
Puzynina (1974) argues that multi-word expressions, such as maszyna do szycia
(machine for sewing) ‘sewing machine’ and szkoła podstawowa (school elemen-
tary) ‘primary school’, should fall within the domain of phraseological research,
and not morphological enquiry.27 In their chapter on compound nouns in Polish,
Grzegorczykowa/Puzynina (1984: 396) recognise only two types of compounds,
i. e. compounds proper and solid compounds. They do not devote any attention to
juxtapositions. Kallas (1980) treats coordinate multi-word units, such as kobieta
pilot ‘woman pilot’ and lalka-niemowlak (doll baby) ‘baby doll’, as free syntactic
combinations and analyses them in the same way as (regular) noun phrases in
apposition, such as mleko – cenny pokarm ‘milk – precious food’.
Nagórko (1997), in her brief but insightful account of Polish grammar, postu-
lates a strict division between syntax, phraseology and the lexicon. Consequently,
27 Grzegorczykowa (1982: 59) mentions the existence of juxtapositions, such as czarna jagoda
(black berry) ‘bilberry’ and maszyna do pisania (machine for typing) ‘typewriter’, yet she notes
that they do not constitute the subject matter of word-formation proper.
in her chapter on Polish syntax (Chapter V), she notes the occurrence of conven-
tionalised phraseological units but concludes that from the point of view of syn-
tax such strings of words are indivisible (Nagórko 1997: 189).28 Her conclusion
refers both to idiomatic multi-word units, such as kocie łby (cat.ra head.nom.pl)
‘cobblestones’ or pies ogrodnika (dog.nom.sg gardener.gen.sg) ‘dog in the man-
ger’, as well as semantically regular juxtapositions, e. g. kosz na śmieci (bin for
rubbish) ‘rubbish bin’ and gwiazda polarna (star polar) ‘pole star, Polaris’. In a
modular framework (such as the one assumed by Nagórko 1997) it is difficult to
draw a rigid and uncontroversial border between lexical multi-word units and
freely composed phrases. While such N+N combinations as człowiek instytucja
(man institution) ‘one-man-institution’ or kobieta szef (woman boss) ‘female
boss’ are regarded by Nagórko (1997: 190 f.) as syntactic units (consisting of a
head noun and a nominal attribute), other N+N juxtapositions, such as lekarz
pediatra (physician pediatrician) ‘pediatrician’ and szpital-pomnik (hospital
monument) ‘memorial hospital’, are recognised as lexical units.
Such a strict separation of modules of grammar, i. e. morphology, syntax and
the lexicon, is characteristic both of structuralist linguistics and of generative
framework.29 Syntax and morphology do not interact, and the lexicon is treated
as a collection of irregularities (Bloomfield 1933; Di Sciullo/Williams 1987), i. e. a
list of items which carry unpredictable semantic information and/or exhibit other
idiosyncratic properties.
A markedly different view of the lexicon and the architecture of grammar is
postulated in Construction Grammar (Goldberg 2006), Parallel Architecture and
Construction Morphology (Masini 2009; Booij 2010; Masini/Benigni 2012; Booij/
Audring 2015; Booij/Masini 2015). The lexicon, referred to as the constructicon, is
viewed as a network of construction schemas of varying degrees of abstractness.
Schemas are instantiated by fully specified constructions, which are also stored
in the lexicon. Such constructions can take the form of syntactic strings, words or
units with an intermediate (i. e. both lexical and syntactic) status.
28 Phraseological units are treated as indivisible from the point of view of syntax as well as se-
mantics also by Grochowski (1982). Cf., however, Lewicki (1976) and Węgrzynek (1998) for some
discussion of the internal syntax of idioms in Polish.
29 N+A phrasal nouns are recognised as free syntactic combinations by, among others, Rut-
kowski/Progovac (2005), who are proponents of the Minimalist Program, and by Szymanek
(2010), who advocates the lexicalist approach. Willim (2001) regards N+A and N+N multi-word
units, such as ogród zoologiczny (garden zoological) ‘zoo’ and kobieta-anioł (lit. woman angel)
‘angel of a woman’ as syntactic constructs, basing her analysis on the discussion of Greek A+N
combinations by Ralli/Stavrou (1998). Syntactic constructs are treated as syntactic compounds
(i. e. phrasal lexemes) by Booij (2010).
In their cross-linguistic accounts of phrasal nouns, Booij (2010), Masini/

Benigni (2012), Booij/Masini (2015), Booij/Audring (2015) formulate phrasal sche-
mas which act both as redundancy statements, which are able to analyse the
internal structure of conventionalised multi-word units, and as templates for
forming novel multi-word expressions. Similar schemas, postulated for Polish
phrasal nouns below, show that phrasal lexemes have the properties of both lex-
ical and syntactic items. On the one hand, phrasal nouns show a complex inter-
nal structure analysable by means of phrasal schemas (which may be also
employed in analysing the structure of freely composed syntactic units). On the
other hand, they have a naming function, which is signalled by the element
NAME in the statement of their meaning.
The phrasal schema in (31) can be employed to form novel N+A phrasal
nouns, and analyse the structure of such conventionalised units as kurier dyplo
matyczny (courier diplomatic) ‘diplomatic courier’ and telefon komórkowy (phone
cellular) ‘mobile phone’. The symbol “E” in (31) stands for the entity denoted by
the nominal base of the relational adjective in a given multi-word unit, e. g. dyplo
mata ‘diplomat’ or dyplomacja ‘diplomacy’ (as the base of dyplomatyczny ‘diplo-
matic’), and komórka ‘cell’ (as the base of komórkowy ‘cellular’).
(31) [N0i A0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMi with some relation R to entity E of SEMj ]k
Since some N+A strings contain classifying adjectives which are not denominal,
e. g. panda wielka (panda great) ‘giant panda’, the schema in (32) can account for
their structure.
(32) [N0i A0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMi with property SEMj ]k
A classifying adjective (be it relational or a non-derived one) can stand in the pre-
head position in a phrasal noun in Polish. Consequently, two more schemas are
necessary, to account for the structure of RA+N phrasal nouns, e. g. nocny dyżur
‘night shift’ (where the relational adjective nocny is derived from noc ‘night’) and
A+N units which contain a non-derived or deverbal adjective, e. g. głuchy telefon
(deaf phone) ‘Chinese whispers’, odżywczy krem na noc (nourishing cream for
night) ‘nourishing night cream’.
(33) [A0i N0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMj with some relation R to entity E of SEMi ]k
(34) [A0i N0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMj with property SEMi ]k

Another phrasal schema, given in (35) below, can be postulated for N+N.gen
phrasal nouns, both transparent semantically and idiomatic ones, e. g. prawa
człowieka (right.nom.pl man.gen.sg) ‘human rights’, and pies ogrodnika (dog.
nom.sg gardener.gen.sg) ‘dog in the manger’.
(35) [N0i N-GENj ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMi with some relation R to SEMj ]k
The schema for coordinate N+N juxtapositions, such as kelner-barman ‘wait-

er-bartender’, is shown below:
(36) [N0i N0j ]k ↔ [NAME for an entity which is both SEMi and SEMj ]k
In the non-modular model of grammar, characteristic of Construction Morphol-

ogy, the strict lexicon-syntax divide is abandoned. Syntax and morphology
closely interact and compete with each other. Consequently, multi-word units
which are lexical items “are an expected phenomenon within the constructionist
view of the language architecture rather than an exception or a marginal case”
(Masini/Benigni 2012: 448).
Another phenomenon which is expected within the model of Construction
Morphology is the competition between phrasal patterns, which motivate phrasal
lexemes, and morphological schemas, which motivate compounds proper or
derivatives. The competition was illustrated above (in Section 6) for coordinate
juxtapositions and coordinate compounds proper (with a linking vowel), such as
chłop-robotnik and chłoporobotnik, both paraphrasable as ‘peasant farmer who
works in a factory’.
In Polish, as in other Slavonic languages (cf. Masini/Benigni 2012, Ohnheiser
2015 and the chapter on Russian, this volume), phrasal lexemes can undergo
morphological condensation (i. e. univerbation) and act as (semantic) bases for
suffixal derivatives. The derivative budowlanka (which contains the denominal
adjective budowlany ‘relating to building’ and the nominalizing suffix -ka) is
(roughly)30 synonymous to the phrasal noun szkoła budowlana (school building.
ra) ‘secondary technical school of building’.
Interaction between phrasal lexemes and derivatives (or compounds proper),
exemplified by univerbation, can be accounted for in Construction Morphology
by means of second order schemas (as in Booij/Masini 2015, see also the chapter
30 Suffixal derivatives resulting from morphological condensation, such as budowlanka ‘sec-

ondary technical school of building’, are additionally marked as belonging to colloquial Polish
(cf. Ohnheiser 2015).
on Dutch, this volume). Such schemas state paradigmatic relations between

word-formation schemas and phrasal schemas.
(37) <[N0i A0j ]k ↔ [NAME for SEMi with some relation R to entity E of SEMj ]k>
≈ <[ A -ka]Nz ↔ [SEMk [+familiar]]z>
The second order schema given above states that deadjectival nouns terminating
in the suffix -ka can be motivated by (i. e. semantically related to) phrasal N+RA
lexemes.
8 C
onclusion
This chapter offered a brief overview of multi-word expressions in Polish, focus-
ing on phrasal nouns (which are often referred to as “juxtapositions”) and their
interaction with compound nouns. The following subtypes of juxtapositions were
discussed at greater length: N+N.gen, N+A, A+N, and coordinate N+N phrasal
lexemes. Juxtapositions do not meet the majority of the criteria for morphological
compounds (as stated by Lieber/Štekauer 2009). A morphological compound in
Polish, i. e. a compound proper, is written as one orthographic word and inflected
like one morphological word (with the inflectional endings attached to the right-
hand constituent). It carries one primary lexical stress (typically on the penulti-
mate syllable). A juxtaposition, in contrast, consists of two or more orthographic
words, each of which is inflected. Constituents of a juxtaposition can carry inde-
pendent lexical stresses, e. g. mĄż stAnu (man.nom state.gen) ‘statesman’. On the
other hand, juxtapositions act as naming units, therefore they can be regarded as
multi-word lexical items. It is important to emphasise here that phrasal nouns in
Polish are far from being exclusively idiomatic and unanalysable multi-word
expressions. While selected multi-word units are semantically non-composi-
tional (and can be treated as figurative idioms), e. g. biały kruk (white raven) ‘rare
specimen’, the majority of phrasal nouns in Polish show varying degrees of
semantic transparency. They are also analysable syntactically, which results in
some degree of their syntactic mobility, as is shown above for coordinate N+N
juxtapositions and for phrasal nouns consisting of a head noun and a relational
adjective. The syntactic analysability of phrasal nouns also tallies with the fact
that their constituents are inflected as independent morphological words.
The approach of Construction Morphology allows the researcher to provide a
proper account of the above-mentioned properties of phrasal nouns in Polish.
Multi-word units inherit their syntactic structure from construction schemas. In
other words, phrasal construction schemas can be employed to analyse the inter-
nal structure of existing phrasal nouns. The construction schemas state that
phrasal nouns are generally interpreted as “names of kinds” (i. e. as subtypes of
entities), e. g. droga dojazdowa (road access.ra) ‘access road’, miernik promienio
wania (meter.nom radiation.gen) ‘radiation meter’, kierowca-dostawca (driver.
nom supplier.nom) ‘delivery driver’. Phrasal schemas can be used not only as
redundacy statements (to license conventionalised phrasal nouns), but also as
patterns for creating novel multi-word units. The latter function of schemas is
particularly important in Polish since the patterns for phrasal nouns discussed
above are very productive. Novel phrasal lexemes abound in Polish, e. g. in the
vocabulary associated with the Internet technology, as is illustrated by such mul-
ti-word units as dostawca usług internetowych (provider.nom.sg service.gen.pl
Internet.ra.gen.pl) ‘Internet service provider’, pióro świetlne (pen light.ra) ‘light
pen’, ekran dotykowy (screen touch.ra) ‘touch screen’, telefon z klapką (phone
with flip) ‘clamshell phone’. Schemas for multi-word units in Polish both com-
pete with and complement patterns of compounding. As was shown in Section 6,
fairly numerous examples can be found of co-existence of synonymous com-
pound nouns and phrasal nouns in Polish, such licencjodawca (licence+lv+giver)
and dawca licencji (giver.nom licence.gen) ‘licensor’. However, the formation of
synthetic compounds appears to be more restricted than the coinage of N+N.gen
or N+A multi-word units. Moreover, some types of naming units can be formed
only by using phrasal schemas, e. g. attributive N+N compounds, such as czło
wiek-zagadka (man mystery) ‘mystery man’, and coordinate phrasal nouns con-
sisting of units denoting Kinship+Profession, e. g. mąż prawnik (husband lawyer)
‘lawyer husband’. Finally, it was shown that multi-word units need to be accessi-
ble to affixation and compounding processes (i. e. to morphological construction
schemas), as they undergo morphological condensation. Such evidence indicates
that the study of both morphologically complex words (such as compounds
proper) and multi-word units should be of interest to morphologists. Researchers
should pay greater attention to the interaction between phrasal lexemes and mor-
phologically complex words in Polish, which is the kind of phenomenon that can
find an appropriate account within the framework of Construction Morphology.
References
Anderson, Stephen (1992): A-morphous morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933): Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Booij, Geert (2010): Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert/Audring, Jenny (2015): Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of
grammar. In: Cognitive Science 41, 2. 277–302.
Booij, Geert/Masini, Francesca (2015): The role of second order schemas in the construction of
complex words. In: Bauer, Laurie/Körtvélyessy, Livia/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.): Semantics of
complex words. Cham etc.: Springer. 47–66.
Buttler, Danuta (1976): Innowacje składniowe współczesnej polszczyzny. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Cetnarowska, Bożena (2014): On pre-nominal classifying adjectives in Polish. In: Bondaruk,
Anna/Dalmi, Gréte/Grosu, Alexander (eds): Topics in the syntax of DPs and agreement.
Cetnarowska, Bożena (2015): The linearization of adjectives in Polish noun phrases: Selected
semantic and pragmatic factors. In: Bondaruk, Anna/Prażmowska, Anna (eds.): Within
language, beyond theories. Vol. 1: Studies in theoretical linguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 188–205.
Cetnarowska, Bożena (2016): Identifying (heads of) copulative appositional compounds in
Polish and English. In: Körtvélyessy, Lívia/Štekauer, Pavol/Valera, Salvador (eds.):
Word-formation across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
51–71.
Cetnarowska, Bożena (2018): Phrasal names in Polish: A+N, N+A and N+N units. In: Booij, Geert
(ed.): The construction of words. Advances in construction morphology. Cham: Springer
International Publishing AG. 287–313.
Cetnarowska, Bożena/Pysz, Agnieszka/Trugman, Helen (2011): Distribution of classificatory
adjectives and genitives in Polish NPs. In: Dębowska-Kozłowska, Kamila/Dziubalska-
Kołaczyk, Katarzyna (eds.): On words and sounds: A selection of papers from the 40th PLM,
2009. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 273–303.
Cetnarowska, Bożena/Trugman, Helen (2012): Falling between the chairs: Are classifying
adjective+noun complexes lexical or syntactic formations? In: Błaszczak, Joanna/
Rozwadowska, Bożena/Witkowski, Wojciech (eds.): Current issues in generative
linguistics: Syntax, semantics and phonology. Wrocław: University of Wroclaw. 138–154.
Damborský, Jiří (1966): Apozycyjne zestawienia we współczesnej polszczyźnie. In: Język Polski
46, 4. 255–268.
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria/Williams, Edwin (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Długosz-Kurczabowa, Krystyna/Dubisz, Stanisław (1999): Gramatyka historyczna języka
polskiego: Słowotwórstwo. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Fellbaum, Christiane (2011): Idioms and collocations. In: Maienborn, Claudia/von Heusinger,
Klaus/Portner, Paul (eds.): Semantics. An international handbook of natural language
meaning. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 441–456.
Goldberg, Adele (2006): Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language.
Granger, Sylviane/Paquot, Magali (2008): Disentangling the phraseological web. In: Granger,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 27−49.
Grochowski, Maciej (1982): Zarys leksykologii i leksykografii. Toruń: Wydawnictwa
Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Grzegorczykowa, Renata (1982): Zarys słowotwórstwa polskiego. Słowotwórstwo opisowe.
5th edn. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Grzegorczykowa, Renata/Puzynina, Jadwiga (1984): Słowotwórstwo rzeczowników. In:

Grzegorczykowa, Renata/Laskowski, Roman/Wróbel, Henryk (eds.): Gramatyka
współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe. 332–407.
Hacken, Pius ten (2013): Compounds in English, in French, in Polish, and in general. In: SKASE
Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10. 97–113.
(eds.). 450–467.
Jadacka, Hanna (2001): System słowotwórczy polszczyzny (1945–2000). Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Jadacka, Hanna (2005): Kultura języka polskiego. Fleksja, słowotwórstwo, składnia. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kallas, Krystyna (1980): Grupy apozycyjne we współczesnym języku polskim. Toruń:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Milkołaja Kopernika.
Klemensiewicz, Zenon (1939): Gramatyka współczesnej polszczyzny kulturalnej w zarysie.
Lwów/Warszawa: Książnica-Atlas.
Kolbusz-Buda, Joanna (2014): Compounding. A morphosemantic analysis of synthetic deverbal
compound nouns in Polish in the light of parallel constructions in English. Lublin:
Wydawnictwo KUL.
Lewicki, Andrzej Maria (1976): Wprowadzenie do frazeologii syntaktycznej. Katowice:
Uniwersytet Śląski.
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (2009): Introduction: Status and definition of compounding.
Lieber, Rochelle/Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) (2009): The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford/
New York: Oxford University Press.
Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga (2013): A position on classificatory adjectives in Polish. In: Studies
in Polish Linguistics 8. 103–125.
Russian: The case for constructions. In: Morphology 22, 3. 417–451.
Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.) (2015–2016): Word-formation: An international handbook of the
Nagórko, Alicja (1997): Zarys gramatyki polskiej. 2nd edn. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Nagórko, Alicja (2016): Polish. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 2831–2852.
NKJP = National Corpus of Polish. Internet: http://nkjp.pl. (last access: 2.7.2018).
Nunberg, Geoffrey/Sag, Ivan A./Wasow, Thomas (1994): Idioms. In: Language 70. 491–538.
Ohnheiser, Ingeborg (2015): Compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic. In: Müller, Peter
O. et al. (eds). 757–779.
Olsen, Susan (2001): Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and
morphology. In: Yearbook of Morphology 2000. 279–320.
Polański, Kazimierz (ed.) (1999): Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego. 2nd edn. Wrocław:
Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Puzynina, Jadwiga (1974): Związki frazeologiczne a derywaty (na materiale języka polskiego).
In: Prace Filologiczne 25. 441–446.
Ralli, Angela/Stavrou, Melita (1998): Morphology-syntax interface: A+N compounds and A+N
constructs in modern Greek. In: Booij, Geert/van Marle, Jaap (eds.): Yearbook of
morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Springer. 243–264.
Renner, Vincent/Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús (2011): Coordinate compounding in English and
Spanish. In: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47. 873–883.
Rutkowski, Paweł/Progovac, Ljiljana (2005): Classification projection in Polish and Serbian: The
position and shape of classifying adjectives. In: Franks, Steven/Gladney, Frank Y./
Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila (eds.): Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The South
Carolina Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 289–299.
Scalise, Sergio/Bisetto, Antonietta (2009): Classification of compounds. In: Lieber, Rochelle/
Štekauer, Pavol (eds). 49–82.
Skorupka, Stanisław (1967): Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego. (2 Vols.). Warszawa:
Wiedza Powszechna.
Sprenger, Simone (2003): Fixed expressions and the production of idioms. [Ph. D. dissertation,
Max Planck Instituut voor Psycholinguïstiek]. Nijmegen: Max-Planck Institut fur
Psycholinguistik.
Szerszunowicz, Joanna (2012): English-Polish contrastive phraseology. In: Rozumko, Agata/
Szymaniuk, Dorota (eds.): Directions in English-Polish contrastive research. Białystok:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Białostockiego. 139–162.
Szumska, Dorota (2006): Przymiotnik jako przyłączone wyrażenie predykatywne. Analiza
formalizacji struktur propozycjonalnych w warunkach predykacji niezdaniotwórczej.
Kraków: UNIVERSITAS.
Szymanek, Bogdan (2010): A panorama of Polish word-formation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Węgrzynek, Katarzyna (1998): Składnia wyrażeń frazeologicznych w modelu gramatyki
generatywno-transformacyjnej. In: Polonica 19. 67–74.
Willim, Ewa (2001): On NP-internal agreement: A study of some adjectival and nominal
modifiers in Polish. In: Zybatow, Gerhild et al. (eds.): Current issues in formal Slavic
linguistics. Frankfurt a. M. i. a.: Lang. 80–95.
Żmigrodzki, Piotr (2009): Wprowadzenie do leksykografii polskiej. Katowice: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Irma Hyvärinen
in Finnish
1 I ntroduction
Most of the processes to expand the vocabulary of a language are based on a recy-
cling principle: Instead of creating not yet occupied arbitrary sound sequences
for new concepts, existing lexemes or morphemes are reused as material for new
words. This can happen by borrowing a word from some other language or by
altering the meaning and thus shifting the extension of an existing word. Yet,
these means are fairly unsystematic. Instead, a system of word-formation offers
productive models for expanding the lexicon in an economic way, and it is actu-
ally the most common way it happens.1
Word-formation types such as (1a–f) are usually regarded as a domain of
morphology:
(1a) Composition (combining lexemes into a new lexical item):

kesä ‘summer’ + yö ‘night’ > kesäyö ‘summer night’
(1b) Derivation (adding an affix):
kesä ‘summer’ + -inen (adjectival suffix) > kesäinen ‘summery’
(1c) Backformation (removing an actual or supposed affix):
tarrata ‘grab, stick’ > tarra ‘sticker’
(1d) Conversion, also called zero derivation (functional shift of a word or a stem2
without adding morphological material):
minä ‘I’ (Pron) > minä ‘ego’ (N); painia ‘wrestle’: paini- (verb stem) > paini
(N) ‘wrestling’
1 Foreign influence can manifest itself in word formation, too, as calques of singular formations
or by taking over a formation model from another language. Many Finnish compounds are loan
translations from (or via) Swedish or German. Nowadays loan translations come increasingly
from English, cf. jakamis+talous < sharing economy, palvelu+muotoilu < service design. In termi-
nology, neoclassical compounds (with elements from Greek or Latin) as internationalisms play
an important role.
2 The word stem is the form to which affixes can be attached. As for word stems in Finnish,
cf. ISK (2004: 86–89).
Open Access. © 2019 Hyvärinen, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-011
308 Irma Hyvärinen
(1e) Blending (merging parts of existing lexemes combining their semantic

features):
kamraati ‘comrade’ + toveri ‘companion, friend’ > kaveri ‘friend, mate’
(1 f) Clipping (shortening a lexeme without changing the meaning):
akkumulaattori > akku ‘accumulator’; informaatioteknologia > IT ‘informa-
tion technology’; sosiaaliturva > sotu ‘social security’
However, also syntactic (phrasal) sequences can be lexicalized as nominations of

specific concepts. Such multi-word expressions (MWEs) can be included in a dis-
cussion of word formation in a broad sense. MWEs are fixed word-groups with
lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and/or statistical idiosyncrasies (Sag et al.
2002; Baldwin/Kim 2010; Hüning/Schlücker 2015). The term “multi-word expres-
sion” is established above all in computational linguistics; traditionally MWEs
are called “phrasemes” or “idioms”.3 In this chapter, the term “idiom” is used for
semantically idiosyncratic MWEs only, i. e. for cases where the meaning of an MWE
cannot be concluded from the meanings of its components. MWEs can be fully
idiomatic (2a–b), semi-idiomatic (2c) or non-idiomatic but statistically significant
(institutionalized) (2d–e):4
(2a) mennä mönkään (lit. go unique component) ‘go wrong’5

(2b) musta hevonen (lit. black horse) ‘dark horse’ (a little known candidate or
competitor who unexpectedly wins or succeeds)
(2c) valkoinen valhe ‘white lie’ (a harmless lie)
(2d) rauhanomainen rinnakkaiselo ‘peaceful coexistence’ (theory of the Soviet
Union about relations between socialist and capitalist states during the
Cold War)
(2e) neoliittinen kausi (altering with the compound neoliitti+kausi) ‘Neolithic
Period’
3 An overview of phraseology with examples from several European languages, e. g. German,

English, French, Swedish and Finnish, is given by Korhonen (2018).
4 In Finnish, non-idiomatic MWEs have been studied primarily in terminology with a focus on
nominal terms. It can be assumed that ongoing studies in computational linguistics will shed
more light on the proportion of non-idiomatic MWEs in standard language, too.
5 In the examples, the compound constituent boundaries are marked with “+”, if needed. Occa-
sionally Finnish case form abbreviations are used as subscripts: all = allative, elat = elative,
gen = genitive, ill = illative, iness = inessive, part = partitive.
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Finnish 309
The boundaries between different formation types are not always clear-cut: Com-
pound nouns often compete with MWEs, for example as constructional synonyms
in terminology, cf. (2e) above. Some Finnish compounds have internal inflec-
tional elements, which is a syntactic feature (cf. Section 2.1). Moreover, there are
hybrid formations, like the so-called “derived compounds” (Section 2.3.1.1,
group 2). And finally, scholars have divergent views of certain structures, such as
Finnish particle verbs that have been classified either as compounds, prefix deri-
vations or MWEs (Section 3).
Compounds and MWEs share some characteristics: Both are complex lexical
units and thus secondary signs for a specific concept, their constituents are
words, and they can bear an idiomatic (figurative or opaque) or non-idiomatic
(transparent) meaning. One instance of opaqueness is presented by unique com-
ponents (isolates, cranberry morphemes), compare the MWE in (2a) with the
cranberry-compound puna+tulkku (lit. red+unique component) ‘bullfinch’ (cf.
Nenonen 2002: 13, 15, 21 f., 37–40; Stein 2012: 227 f.). Both compounds and MWEs
can express determinative, appositive and coordinative relations. The compound
constituents occur in a fixed order; regarding MWEs this applies mainly to nomi-
nal, adjectival and adverbial expressions, whereas verbal MWEs are more flexi-
ble. In Finnish, the great majority of compounds are nouns (N), while among idi-
omatic MWEs verb idioms (V) are the predominant class.
In this chapter, the focus is on the characteristics of compounds, with remarks
on differences and overlap in the structure and syntactic distribution of com-
pounds and (fixed or free) phrasal units. Section 2 gives an overview of com-
pounding in Finnish, mostly using examples of nouns and adjectives:6 In Sec-
tion 2.1 characteristics of prototypical compounds and their absence, making a
compound less prototypical and bringing it nearer to an MWE, are discussed.
Section 2.2 deals with the complexity of compounds, and in Section 2.3 the main
semantic-hierarchical and morphosyntactic types of compounds are presented.
Section 3 focuses on a word class that has been regarded as rather peripheral
from the perspective of compounding in Finnish, namely complex verbs. They are
interesting for two reasons: They are on the increase in modern Finnish, and they
lie at the intersection of compounds (3.1), prefix derivatives (3.2) and MWEs (3.3).
In the closing remarks (Section 4) observations on the blurred border between
Finnish compounds and MWEs are gathered and suggestions for future research
are presented.
6 Due to lack of space, a thorough description of all word classes is impossible.

310 Irma Hyvärinen
2 Compounding in Finnish
2.1 P
rototypical compounds
Finnish has an extensive system of word-formation: Both derivation and com-

pounding are highly productive. In particular the diversity and productivity of
suffix derivation is often regarded as a special characteristic of Finnish, but, actu-
ally, the majority of new words in modern Finnish are compounds (cf. Tyysteri
2015: 13, 223). Verbs, however, show a different profile: There is a rich and produc-
tive suffixation system, whereas compounding plays a marginal role. Yet, in the
last decades the number of compound verbs has increased.
A compound is a combination of two or more lexemes constituting a new,
complex word with a new lexical-conceptual meaning that is generally more spe-
cific than the additive meaning of its parts, e. g. märkä+puku ‘wetsuit’ (water
sports garment) vs. märkä puku ‘wet suit’. The constituents can be simplex lex-
emes, derivatives or even compounds, i. e. compounding is potentially recursive.
In contrast to derivatives, vowel harmony (cf. Karlsson 2015: 16 ff.) does not extent
over the constituent boundary (Koivisto 2013: 170), i. e. the integration grade of
compounds is lower, compare the suffix derivatives with vowel harmony in (3a)
with the compounds in (3b):
(3a) Verb stem + suffix -jA → juoja ‘drinker’ vs. syöjä ‘eater’
yö+juna (*yö+jynä) ‘night train’, varpus+pöllö (*varpus+pollo)
(3b)
(lit. sparrow+owl) ‘pygmy owl’
The main characteristics of prototypical compounds in Finnish are: 1) The con-

stituents occur also as autonomous lexemes, 2) the boundary between the con-
stituents corresponds to a syntactic boundary, 3) the compound has only one
main stress that – just as in simplex words – is on the first syllable, 4) a formally
identical phrasal unit is not possible, 5) semantically, the compound has become
estranged from the meanings of its constituents and lexicalized into a nomina-
tion of a concept of its own, 6) morphologically, the compound is internally invar-
iable. Among new compounds in present-day Finnish the proportion of prototyp-
ical compounds is increasing, whereas non-prototypical features accumulate on
one and the same words. However, counter to the trend towards prototypicality,
formations with a non-autonomous pre-element (cf. criterion 1) are on the
advance. Further, deriving new verbs and adjectives from already existing com-
pounds, which leads to secondary “derived compounds” where the constituent
boundary deviates from the logical syntactic-semantic structure (cf. criterion 2
and Section 2.3.1.1, group 2), has become more common than earlier (Tyysteri
2015).
As a general rule, Finnish compounds are written without space between the
constituents, cf. (4) below. Hyphenation is obligatory in case of hiatus (5a) and to
indicate the constituent boundary after a special sign (letter, number, acronym
etc.) (5b). A compound differs also prosodically from a phrase: The main stress is
on the first compound constituent (cf. criterion 3), while in a corresponding
phrase both words have a stress of their own (Pääkkönen 1989: 371; Vesikansa
1989: 213; ISK 2004: 388), cf. (6). Yet, stress is not a reliable criterion: Adverbial
and conjunctional units (7) bear only one main stress on the first part and show a
strong tendency towards univerbation. Until the 1960s they could be written
together or apart, today the orthographical norm requires separation and thus an
MWE status for them, which is in contradiction with the stress pattern (Niinimäki
1992).
(4) metsäyhtiö (lit. forest+company) ‘forestry company’
(5a) öljy-yhtiö ‘oil company’

(5b) A-vitamiini ‘vitamin A’
(6) músta+rastas (lit. black+thrush) ‘blackbird’ vs. músta rástas ‘black thrush’
(7) sítä vastoin (lit. itpart against) ‘by contrast’

níin ollen (lit. so being) ‘thus, hence’
níin kuin (lit. so as) ‘as, as if’
Generally, adjectival compounds can have descriptive, graduating or evaluative

modifiers in the genitive; semantically relative adjectives like kokoinen ‘of the size
of’, näköinen ‘looking like’ etc. even require a complement in the genitive. Here
compounds and phrasal units of identical parts are often interchangeable (cf. cri-
teria 4 and 5), as illustrated in (8). Generally, conventionalized (especially idiom-
atized) combinations and those with short components undergo univerbation,
but a grey zone remains, cf. (9a) and (10a) vs. (9b) and (10b).
(8) sydämen+muotoinen ⁓ sydämen muotoinen ‘heart-shaped’

vaalean+vihreä ⁓ vaalean vihreä ‘light green’
hassun+kirjava ⁓ hassun kirjava ‘kooky colorful’
(9a) ruohon+vihreä ‘grass-green’ (conventional)

(9b) pinaatin+vihreä ⁓ pinaatin vihreä ‘spinach green’ (occasional)
312 Irma Hyvärinen
(10a)
kissan+kokoisin kirjaimin ‘in letters big as a cat, in huge letters’ (conven-
tional idiom)
(10b)
kissan kokoinen rotta ‘rat having the size of a cat’ (concrete compositional
meaning)
In contrast, the first constituent of similative adjectives that expresses an entity

for which the property denoted by the head is typical, is – regardless of its nomi-
native or genitive form – always unified with the head, cf. (11a–b). Here, alterna-
tion with multi-word similes depends on syntactic distribution: Similative com-
pounds can be replaced by phrasal similes in predicative (12a) and adverbial
function but not in attributive function (12b). They cannot always be exchanged,
though: While similative compounds are mostly lexicalized stereotypes and the
first constituent cannot have its own qualifiers, the expression potential of
phrasal similes is broader: They are based on a productive phraseosyntactic pat-
tern that is filled with conventionalized (lexicalized) or occasional word combi-
nations, and the component that denotes point of comparison can have supple-
mentary expansions, cf. (13a–b). Thus similative adjectives and phrasal similes
– both typically used for intensification – are partly in a competitive, partly in a
complementary relation to each other (ISK 2004: 411; Heinonen 2010).
(11a) jää+kylmä ‘ice-cold’

(11b) langan+laiha (lit. threadgen+thin) ‘sceletous’
Koira oli salaman+nopea (lit. lightninggen+quick) ⁓ Koira oli nopea kuin

(12a)
salama (lit. quick as lightning). ‘The dog was as quick as a lightning.’
(12b) salamannopea koira ⁓ *nopea kuin salama koira
(13a) hidas kuin etana ‘slow as a snail’ (conventional idiom) ⁓ etanan+hidas

(lit. snailgen+slow)
(13b) hidas kuin halvaantunut etana ‘slow as a paralyzed snail’ (occasional
expansion) ⁓ *halvaantuneen+etanan+hidas (lit. paralyzedgen+snailgen
+slow)
Morphological integrity of prototypical compounds means that they are inter-

nally invariable (cf. criterion 6); the morphological head bears the inflectional
elements. However, in some compounds the adjectival first constituent can (14a)
or must (14b) agree in case and number with the nominal head, which indicates
their phrasal origin (cf. Niemi 2009: 239 f.):
(14a) iso+sisko ‘big sister’ – allative: isolle+siskolle ~ iso+siskolle

nuori+pari (lit. young+couple) ‘newlyweds’ – allative: nuorelle+parille
(14b)
Internal congruence is a recessive property. Of the 587 A+N compounds in “Suomen

kielen perussanakirja” (Basic dictionary of Finnish, 1990–1994) 84 % do not allow
congruence, while the remaining 16 % are distributed fairly equally among com-
pounds with obligatory vs. optional congruence. In neologisms and occasional
compounds non-congruent first constituents are almost exclusive (ISK 2004: 392,
406; Tyysteri 2015: 141–148). A compound without internal inflection underlines the
term character: oma+lääkäri is a personal doctor nominated for a certain patient by
public health care (15a). In contrast, the corresponding (congruent) attributive NP
refers to a non-administrative private choice made by the patient (15b):
(15a) oma+lääkäri (lit. own+doctor) – allative: oma+lääkärille

(15b) oma lääkäri ‘own doctor’ – allative: omalle lääkärille
However, a special class of compounds with internal inflection remains: com-

pound numerals (16a). To avoid overlong compounds, numerals with hundreds,
thousands etc. are “cut” into groups (ISK 2004: 756 f.) so that they combine fea-
tures of MWEs and compounds (16b).
(16a) kolmelle+kymmenelle+neljälle ‘34all’

(16b)
kahdelle+kymmenelle+tuhannelle seitsemälle+sadalle kolmelle+kymme
nelle+neljälle ‘20734all’
2.2 Complexity of compounds
The majority of Finnish compounds consist of nominal compounds. The most

common type is a combination of two base (i. e. non-derived) nouns (N+N), the
largest group being determinative compounds (cf. Section 2.3.1.1) with the first
constituent in the (endingless) nominative case (Karlsson 2015: 282; Pitkä-
nen-Heikkilä 2016: 3213). The typical base word structure in Finnish is bisyllabic,7
so even compounds with two base words have mostly at least four syllables (17a),
and since derivatives and compounds can function as compound constituents as
well, Finnish compounds tend to be long (Karlsson 2004: 1329), cf. (17b). In prin-
ciple, there is no upper limit on the complexity, but increasing complexity dimin-
ishes intelligibility. As a consequence of recursiveness, compounds with four or
five components are not rare in languages for special purposes (e. g. administra-
7 There are less than 100 monosyllabic word roots in Finnish, whereas English has at least 7.000
(Karlsson 2004: 1329).
314 Irma Hyvärinen
tion, medicine etc.), yet, (mostly occasional) polymorphemic compounds appear

also in everyday language (17c). In Tyysteri’s corpus8 two-constituent compounds
dominated with 83,6 %, whereas the ratio of three-constituent compounds ran
into 15,5 % and that one of four-constituent compounds into 0,9 %; longer forma-
tions occurred only sporadically (Tyysteri 2015: 100–104; as for letter number in
compounds, cf. ibid.: 104–108).
(17a) vesi+pullo ‘water bottle’

työ+ehto+sopimus+neuvottelut (lit. work+condition+contract+negotia-
(17b)
tions) ‘negotiations for collective bargaining’
peruna+sose+hiutale+pakkaus (lit. potato+mash+flake+package) ‘pack-
(17c)
age of mashed-potato flakes’
2.3 Main types of compounds

2.3.1 Semantic-hierarchical structure
Like in many other languages, Finnish compounds can be categorized as either

determinative (subordinate) or copulative (co-ordinate) compounds.
2.3.1.1 Determinative compounds

In determinative compounds the final constituent is the morphosyntactic and
semantic head: It bears the inflectional elements and expresses a general concept
that is modified by the initial constituent so that the compound denotes a subor-
dinate concept (hyponym) to the head (18a). Such compounds are called endo-
centric (Olsen 2015: 365 f., 370). The modifier is not referential but has a general
meaning, which makes the compound semantically different from a correspond-
ing phrase (ISK 2004: 390), cf. (18b). Whether the first constituent is morpholog-
ically underspecified (18a) or has a case ending explicating the syntactic relation
between head and modifier, cf. (18b), varies from compound to compound.
(18a) kivi+talo ‘stone house’ (a special kind of house: ‘house made of stone’)
kirkon+kello (lit. churchgen+bell) ‘church bell’ vs. (läheisen) kirkon kello
(18b)
‘bell of the (nearby) church’
8 Tyysteri’s material consists of more than 28.000 new compounds (types) in Finnish print me-
dia in the period 2000–2009, collected from Nykysuomen sanastotietokanta (Lexical database of
modern Finnish) of Kotimaisten kielten keskus (Institute for the Languages of Finland) (Tyysteri
2015: 79–84).
In Finnish grammar, the following special types are regarded as subclasses of

determinative compounds:
1) In synthetic compounds the first constituent is comparable with the subject

(19a), object (19b) or some other argument (19c) of the verb from which the head
is derived (cf. ISK 2004: 400 f.; Olsen 2015: 370 f.). The first constituent typically
has a case ending, which is a syntactic feature transmitted by the verb. Nomi-
nalizations with -minen are not univerbated with the verb arguments (20a),
while deverbal nouns with other suffixes form compounds as well as phrasal
NPs (20b).
(19a) auringon+nousu (lit. sungen+rise) ‘sunrise’

(19b) kirjan+sitoja (lit. bookgen+binder) ‘bookbinder’
(19c) kirkossa+kävijä (lit. churchiness+goer) ‘churchgoer’
pyykin peseminen (lit. laundrygen washing) ‘washing laundry’ vs.

(20a)
*pyykin+peseminen
(20b) pyykin+pesu (lit. laundrygen+wash) ⁓ pyykin pesu
2) Words with characteristics of both compounds and derivatives are regarded as

secondary “derived compounds” (Vesikansa 1989, 213; ISK 2004, 388; Koivisto
2013, 334 f.; Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016, 3211). They can be analyzed as derivatives
from complex bases, i. e. compound nouns (21a), adjectives (21b) or phrasal items
(21c). Yet, language users tend to reanalyze them, setting the morphological main
boundary intuitively as if they were “normal” compounds, even if this does not
correspond to the logical syntactic-semantic boundary. In (21a), perus ‘base’ does
not modify the word koululainen ‘pupil’ (e. g. in the sense of ‘typical pupil’). Here,
the reanalysis from analogical derivation into analogical compounding (i) gives a
kind of short cut to build compounds directly (ii). By generalization the right half
of the equation in (ii) becomes model character also in cases where one member
is missing in the left half, cf. (21b–c) where *mukaistaa or *pukuinen do not occur
as autonomous words.
perus+koululainen ‘comprehensive school pupil’ < perus+koulu

(21a)
(lit. base+school) ‘comprehensive school’
(i) koulu (simplex) : > koulu + -lainen (suffixation)
perus+koulu (compound) > (perus+koulu) + -lainen (suffixation)
> perus+koululainen (reanalysis into a
compound)
(ii) koulu : koululainen = perus+koulu : perus+koululainen
316 Irma Hyvärinen
(21b)
ajan+mukaistaa ‘modernize, update’< ajan+mukainen (lit. timegen+in
accordance with) ‘up to date’
(21c) musta+pukuinen ‘dressed in black’ < musta puku ‘black dress’
3) Possessive compounds (bahuvrῑhi) such as (22a–b) show a semantic modifi-

cation similar to determinative compounds, but, due to a metonymic shift, instead
of expressing a subcategory of the concept expressed by the final constituent they
“identif[y] the intended referent as the possessor of the particularly salient prop-
erty” they express; i. e. they are exocentric (Olsen 2015: 367; cf. Vesikansa 1989:
250–254; ISK 2004: 409).
(22a) kalju+pää ‘boldhead’

(22b) puna+rinta (lit. red+chest) ‘robin’
Schellbach-Kopra (1964) assumed that bahuvrīhis are decreasing in modern

Finnish, but Heinonen (2001) and Malmivaara (2004) demonstrate their produc-
tivity: They are used creatively for example in journalistic texts and colloquial
speech.
4) Confix compounds. It is disputable if Finnish has prefixes at all. That is why

formations with “prefix-like elements” are subsumed under compounding and
not treated as a subclass of affixation or as a word-formation type of its own
(cf. Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016: 3212).9 The indigenous negation pre-elements epä-
‘un-’ and ei- ‘non-’, cf. (23a), are often called prefixes, but as they consist of a
lexical stem (cf. derivatives like evätä ‘refuse, deny’, epäillä ‘doubt, mistrust’;
eittämätön ‘undeniable’), the result is very compound-like (ISK 2004: 192). There
are many further indigenous “prefix-like elements” that do not occur as
autonomous lexemes but have a more or less lexical meaning (ISK 2004: 192 f.,
393, 402, 415), cf. (23b). Consequently, they can be classified as confixes
(cf. Fleischer/Barz 2012: 63 f., 107 f., 172 ff.). As for verbs with confixes, cf.
Section 3.1.
(23a) epä+onni ‘bad luck’

epä+suomalainen ‘un-Finnish’
ei-eurooppalainen ‘non-European’
9 As for the theoretical status of prefixation in the history of linguistics, cf. Olsen (2015: 364 f.).
(23b) etä+työ ‘remote work’

pika+ateria ‘quick meal’
täsmä+ase ‘smart weapon’
vähä+arvoinen ‘of little value’
Similarly to epä-, ei-, foreign negation prefixes, such as dis-, in-, are treated as
compound components in Finnish, as well as other foreign prefixes and confixes,
e. g. ex-/eks-, pre-, hyper-, mikro-, poly-, neo-, audio-, anglo-, bio-, geo-, psyko-
which occur in neoclassical compounds (see Olsen 2015: 374 f.), cf. (24a). Some
foreign pre-elements can also be combined with indigenous heads (24b) (cf. Saja-
vaara 1989: 76 ff.10; ISK 2004: 192, 394, 402; Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016: 3214).
(24a) dis+harmonia ‘disharmony’

neo+nataalinen (med.) ‘neonatal’
(24b) anti+sankari ‘anti-hero’
ex-vaimo ‘ex-wife’
5) Appositive compounds describe one particular referent from different per-

spectives. In contrast to additive (copulative) compounds (cf. Section 2.3.1.2), the
constituents do not belong to the same conceptual category, cf. (25a). Even if the
constituents are in an appositive relation to each other, a determinative interpre-
tation is possible (ISK 2004, 407 f.). In (25b) it is actually the second constituent
that modifies semantically the first one, thus having the same function as a post-
poned apposition (Vesikansa 1989: 223). Further appositive compounds include
subsumptive (explicative) compounds (25c) where the second constituent
expresses the hyperonym of the first constituent (ISK 2004: 408).
(25a) prinssi+puoliso ‘prince consort’

(25b) puu+vanhus (lit. tree+oldster) ‘old tree’
(25c) veli+mies (lit. brother+man) ‘brother’
perjantai+päivä (lit. Friday+day) ‘(the weekday) Friday’
6) Iterative compounds repeating the same lexeme are productive primarily in

informal, playful style of young people; in standard language they are a marginal
class. Their main function is emphasis. In N+N reduplications the first constitu-
ent expresses the real, prototypical or ideal character of the concept denoted by
10 Sajavaara (1989: 79 f.) also gives an overview of bound second constituents of neoclassical
compounds in Finnish.
318 Irma Hyvärinen
the head and implies a contrast (26). As for adjectives, cf. (27), the first constitu-
ent is mostly in the genitive (Agen+A) and functions as an intensifier; the compo-
nents can be combined as a compound or a phrase without an essential differ-
ence in meaning (ISK 2004: 410; Tyysteri 2015: 66 f.), similar to (8) above.
(26) ruoka+ruoka (lit. food+food) ‘real food’ (in contrast to fast food or
unhealthy food)
kirja+kirja (lit. book+book) ‘printed book’ (in contrast to e-book).
(27) pienen+pieni (lit. smallgen+small) ~ pienen pieni ‘tiny, minuscule, itsy-

bitsy’
2.3.1.2 Copulative compounds

Copulative compounds consist of two or more parallel (coordinate) parts belong-
ing to the same word class and the same conceptual category; the rightmost con-
stituent is the morphological head.
Historically, co-compound (dvandva) is the oldest compound type in the
Finno-Ugric languages (Vesikansa 1989: 214; Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016: 3213).
“Co-compounds denote a hyperonym of their constituents, or a superordinate
concept” (Olsen 2015: 368); hence, they are exocentric. In Finnish, only maa+ilma
(lit. earth+air) ‘world’ has remained until our days.
Additive compounds make up a productive subclass of copulative com-
pounds. Their constituents represent the same conceptual category and stand
semantically in an additive relation, similar to members in a syntactic coordina-
tion (ISK 2004: 416 f.; Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016: 3213). In Finnish, appositive com-
pounds are dissociated from additive ones orthographically: The former are writ-
ten as one word, cf. (25a–c) above; the latter are generally written with a hyphen,
cf. (28).
(28) laulaja-näyttelijä ‘actor-singer’

jääkaappi-pakastin ‘fridge-freezer’
musta-puna-keltainen ‘black-red-yellow’
2.3.2 Morphosyntactic classification
The primary morphosyntactic classification criterion of Finnish compounds is

the word class of the head which determines the word class of the compound.
There are no head-based categorical restrictions for the non-head constituent; it
can be a stem, case form or a specific combining form.11 The first component is
usually classified on grounds of its word class (if identifiable) and/or its form
(nominative, genitive, other case form, combining form, indeclinable element or
element with deficient paradigm). Subclasses that arise from the cross classifica-
tion of the morphosyntactic types of both constituents are described semantically
in detail in the research literature, but no hard and fast rules can be given.
It is a controversial question to what extent the meaning of a compound is
influenced by the form of the first constituent. The most frequent first constituent
form in Finnish is the nominative which is the base form without any inflectional
elements. This base form, as well as the combining forms, leaves the constituent
relation underspecified so that several interpretations are possible. Inherently
ambiguous compounds can be interpreted semantically and pragmatically, such
as world knowledge of prototypical (e. g. local, temporal, causal, instrumental,
possessive etc.) relations, common ground and contextual inference (cf. Olsen
2015: 365 f., 376 ff., 382; Pitkänen-Heikkilä 2016: 3213). Lexicalized and frequently
used compounds can be understood holistically, without analytic compositional
processing, but there is psycholinguistic evidence that some form of analysis
is co-present (Mäkisalo 2000). Räisänen (1986) points out that lexicalized
compounds can be reinterpreted on contextual grounds: In a football report,
maa+pallo (lit. earth+ball) and ilma+pallo (lit. air+ball) with the lexicalized
meaning ‘globe’ resp. ‘balloon’ are interpreted in a context-adequate way as occa-
sionalisms describing the motion of the ball either along the ground or through
the air.
If the first constituent is in the genitive or some other non-nominative case,
the interpretation is more restricted. In such cases the head is usually a deverbal
noun and the first component corresponds to an argument of the underlying verb
(synthetic compounds, cf. Section 2.3.1.1, group 1). A first constituent in the geni-
tive can indicate a (in a broad sense) subjective-possessive (29a) or objective rela-
tion (29b); the latter is more common (Saukkonen 1973: 338; cf. ISK 2004: 400).
Locative cases are also current (29c). It is noteworthy, however, that case marking
is not obligatory: Similar relations can also be expressed by compounds with
morphologically unspecified modifiers (30a–c).
11 A combining form (casus componens) is a form of the non-head constituent that as such does
not occur as an autonomous word form. Besides non-autonomous stem forms, such as nais- <
nainen ‘woman’ (nais+ryhmä ‘women’s group’) or pien- < pieni ‘small’ (pien+teollisuus ‘small in-
dustries’), there are specific combining forms with additional morphological material. For exam-
ple, verbal first constituents appear mostly in a combining form with -ma- or -in- (istuma+paikka
(lit. sitting+place) ‘seat’, leivin+uuni ‘baking oven’ (cf. also Tyysteri 2015: 121, 131, 134 f.).
320 Irma Hyvärinen
(29a) ilmaston+muutos ‘climate change’

tien+vieri ‘roadside’
(29b) puun+hakkaaja ‘woodcutter’
ilman+suodatin ‘air filter’
(29c) maasta+muutto (lit. countryelat+moving) ‘emigration’
tilille+pano (lit. accountall+put) ‘deposit, payment into an account’
(30a) terroristi+hyökkäys ‘terrorist attack’ (subjective)

(30b) oppilas+valinta ‘student selection, selection of pupils’ (objective)
(30c) koti+matka ‘home journey’ (adverbial: goal)
There are pairs of compounds with a nominative vs. genitive first constituent
where the case choice seems more or less arbitrary (31a–b), and others where the
difference in meaning is minimal (32a–b). Yet, sometimes there is a clear seman-
tic opposition: (33a) is a specific house, whereas in (33b) the head describes an
action and the first constituent in the genitive is the object argument of the under-
lying verb (cf. Vesikansa 1989, 230–237; ISK 2004, 398–400).
(31a) kulta+keräys ‘gold collection, collecting gold’

(31b) paperin+keräys (lit. papergen+collection) ‘(waste) paper collection’
(32a) juusto+pala ‘cheese piece’ (the first component focuses on material)

juuston+pala (lit. cheesegen+piece) ‘piece of cheese’ (whole to part
(32b)
relation)
(33a) sauna+rakennus ‘sauna building’ (a special type of building)

saunan+rakennus (lit. saunagen+building) ‘building of a sauna/saunas’
(33b)
Case marking on the constituent boundary does not contradict the principle of
world-knowledge and context-based interpretation, but in giving further infor-
mation on the relation between the constituents it can exclude alternatives that
are possible when the first constituent is unmarked: While the underspecified
form pöytä+tarjoilu (lit. table+service) can be used in the meaning ‘buffet ser-
vice, self-service from the table’ (source), the marked form pöytiin+tarjoilu (lit.
tablesillat+service) precludes this interpretation because the illative ending
makes the opposite direction (goal) explicit.
3 C
omplex verbs in Finnish at the intersection of
compounds, prefix derivatives and MWEs
In Finnish, compound verbs are rare.12 They belong to the category of determina-
tive compounds;13 the first constituent is a noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun,
non-autonomous stem or particle (adverb/adposition) (Rahtu 1984: 409–412; ISK
2004: 414 f.). Verbs with a particle as first constituent are often replaced by MWEs
with the same elements. On the other hand, some first constituents come near to
prefixes. Thus, complex verbs can be explored on a scale MWE – compound –
prefix derivative.
Modern Finnish has about 250 lexicalized compound verbs with a full para-
digm, but the number is increasing (ISK 2004: 414). Additionally, formations with
a deficient paradigm (mostly participle forms) are in use, and occasionalisms
occur. Compound verbs were banned by Finnish language planning as loan
translations for a long time. In the last decades the norm has become more per-
missive, which can explain the increasing occurrence (cf. Rahtu 1984: 409; Vesi-
kansa 1989: 254–258; Vaittinen 2003: 50; Tyysteri 2015: 40, 154, 220 f.).
There are three historical layers of compound verbs in Finnish: The oldest
compound verbs, with an adverb as first constituent, are loan translations from
the time of the Reformation. In the end of the 19th century a new type, derived
from compound nouns, appeared. In the beginning of the 20th century also adjec-
tive compounds became derivation bases of verbs (Häkkinen 1987: 10–19; Vaitti-
nen 2003: 47). Also in modern Finnish most of the compound verbs are secondary
“derived compounds”, i. e. derivatives or backformations from compound adjec-
tives or nouns, such as (34a–c) (Vesikansa 1989, 256 ff.; Tyysteri 2015: 153; cf. also
Section 2.3.1.1, group 2). According to ISK (2004: 414 f.), most present-day com-
pound verbs are derived from complex adjectives ending on the suffix -inen,
cf. (34a). According to Tyysteri (2015: 158, 213), however, the majority of the new-
est compound verbs go back to compound nouns (34b–c). For the most part new
compound verbs have a noun (N) as first component (Tyysteri 2015: 173), which is
12 According to Saukkonen (1973: 337 f.), the proportion of verbs among all compounds in “Ny-
kysuomen sanakirja” (1951–1961) remains at 0,3 %. In Tyysteri’s (2015: 113) corpus their ratio
(types) is 1,2 %.
13 Copulative compound verbs do not exist in Finnish. Compounds with a verb stem as first
constituent are possible, cf. riippu+liitää ‘hang-glide’, but the constituent relation is determina-
tive, not additive. In itku+naurattaa ‘make cry and laugh’ (Vesikansa 1989: 258) the semantic re-
lation is similar to an additive compound, but the first constituent is a deverbal noun, i. e. the
morphological structure is asymmetric.
322 Irma Hyvärinen
unsurprising since compound nouns are the most common derivation base, and
among these, the structure N+N is predominant.
(34a) kaksi+kielistyä ‘become bilingual’ < kaksi+kielinen (lit. two+lingual)

‘bilingual’
(34b) valo+kuvata ‘photograph’ (V) < valo+kuva (lit. light+picture) ‘photograph’
(N)
(34c) koe+lentää (backformation) ‘test fly’ < koe+lento ‘test flight’
Adverbs, particles and non-autonomous elements can combine directly with ver-
bal heads (Vesikansa 1989: 254 ff.). Such preverbs are often called “prefix-like
elements” because they are in many respects similar to prefixes in other
languages. In Finnish, however, prefixation is untypical (Häkkinen 1994: 488;
Kolehmainen 2006: 111, 113). This is why word formation with bound “prefix-like
elements” is subsumed under compounding in the Finnish grammar tradition,
even if the notion of “prefix-likeness” varies (cf. Tyysteri 2015: 127 ff.). In the fol-
lowing, the focus is on verbs with such prefix-like elements.
Kolehmainen (2006) makes a distinction between position fixed bound pre-
verbs, divided into (a) confixes and (b) prefixes, and in contrast to them (c) sepa-
rable particles in phrasal verbs. Consequently, in each group the word formation
status of the verbs is different: in (a) compound (3.1), in (b) prefix derivative (3.2),
and in (c) MWE (3.3). In the following, these groups are examined in detail in
order to estimate their structural status and productivity.
3.1 C
onfix compounds
Complex words with a prefix-like first constituent that does not occur as an auton-
omous lexical unit (and thus has an unspecific word class status) are relatively
common in modern Finnish. In Tyysteri’s material, including all word classes,
they make up 9,3 % of all two-constituent compounds; indigenous and foreign
pre-elements are roughly equally common. Yet, the word class distribution (e. g.
the ratio of verbs) of such formations is not given (cf. Tyysteri 2015, 118 ff., 125,
128). The examples in (35a) are lexicalized compounds (cf. Kolehmainen 2006:
115); neologisms and occasionalisms such as (35b) are being used more and more
frequently.
(35a) edes+auttaa (lit. forth+help) ‘help, assist, further’

jälki+kiillottaa (lit. after+polish) ‘polish bright’
etä+seurustella (lit. distance+go together) ‘have a long-distance

(35b)
relationship’
pika+syödä (lit. quick+eat), ‘eat quickly, eat fast food’
täsmä+leikata (lit. precise+operate) ‘operate/remove precisely’
The “prefix-likeness” of such elements is debatable. The term confix seems more
suitable here because in contrast to semantically abstract prefixes, the pre-ele-
ments in question still have a more or less clear lexical-conceptual meaning. His-
torically, they go back to autonomous lexemes; some of them occur today only as
bound elements (e. g. epä- ‘un-, non-’; esi- ‘pre-’; etä- ‘long-distance, remote’),
some are obsolete or archaic as autonomous words (e. g. lähi- ‘near’; taka- ‘back,
rear’; tasa- ‘even, equal’). Others have an autonomous homonym, but the seman-
tic difference is so big that the common origin is not transparent (e. g. edes- ‘fur-
ther, forth’; etu- ‘fore, forward, front’; jälki- ‘post-, after-’)14 (Kolehmainen 2006:
113 f., 128). Karlsson (1983: 192 f.) points out that these elements are semantically
similar to nouns and adjectives and calls them lexical “relic morphemes”.15
Moreover, these elements differ from prefixes in their ability to function as
derivation bases (cf. esi- ‘pre-’ in the derivate esittää ‘present, put forth, perform’
vs. esi+katsella ‘preview’; more examples in Kolehmainen 2006, 119). They are
somewhere between prototypical compound constituents and affixes (ibid.: 118–
124). Confix verbs meet the prototypicality criterion 4) (cf. Section 2.1) according
to which a form-identical phrase is not possible (*esi katsella, *katsella esi), but
since the first constituent is not an autonomous lexeme (criterion 1), they count
as non-prototypical compounds.
In spite of the fact that non-autonomous elements can in principle be com-
bined regularly with verbal heads, many of the complex verbs in this group are
actually secondary compounds, i. e. derivatives (36a) or backformations (36b)
from already existing compounds (see above).16 Many confix verbs have an incom-
plete paradigm: They are preferably used in infinite forms, especially as adjec-
14 In affirmative expressions the autonomous word edes means ‘at least’ in modern Finnish,
with negation it has the meaning ‘[not] even’. The noun etu means ‘advantage, benefit’ and the
noun jälki ’track, trace’. In spite of the common etymology, native speakers hardly associate
these words with the corresponding pre-elements (Kolehmainen 2006: 114, 126).
15 ISK (2004: 192, 393, 414 f.) and Rahtu (1984: 409) characterize them as “prefix-like nominal
stems”.
16 In Tyysteri’s random sample of 300 two-constituent-compounds (100 nouns, 100 adjectives
and 100 verbs), 75 % of the compound verbs (including all kinds of first constituents) were
formed by derivation or backformation and only 25 % by regular compounding. The ratio of reg-
ular compounding is much lower than in previous studies (Tyysteri 2015: 154 f., 158).
324 Irma Hyvärinen
tive-like participles, which is a transitional phase on the way towards a full para-
digm via analogy and generalization. Analogy plays a role in producing new
verbs as well: When verbs with a given initial element, e. g. ala- ‘sub-’, become
more frequent (e. g. alaotsikoida ‘subtitle’, alaluokitella ‘subclassify’ etc.), the
word structure is reanalyzed such that the main constituent boundary is after the
pre-element, and not after the complex nominal base, thus as if the verbs were
formed regularly via combining ala- directly with the verb. In this way, an origi-
nally prenominal confix can develop into a preverbal confix, cf. (i), which leads
to a symmetric compounding model (ii) that can be generalized, cf. (iii):
(36a) ala+otsikoida ‘subtitle’ (V) < ala+otsikko ‘subtitle’ (N)

(i) otsikko ‘title’ (N) > otsik- + -oida (suffixation) ‘title’ (V)
ala+otsikko ‘subtitle’ (compound N) > (ala+otsik-) + -oida (suffixa-
tion) ‘subtitle’ (V) > ala+otsikoida (reanalysis into a compound V)
(ii) otsikko : otsikoida = ala+otsikko : ala+otsikoida
(iii) N : V = x+N : x+V
(36b) esi+pestä ‘prewash’ (V) < esi+pesu ‘prewash’ (N)
In Kolehmainen’s assessment (2006: 116 f.), given the limited lexical variation in
her research material (76 different verbs with 22 indigenous confixes)17 the struc-
ture confix+verb plays a minimal role in modern Finnish, i. e. it is not productive.
Yet, according to ISK (2004: 414 f.), the number of different verbs with epä- ‘un-’,
esi- ‘pre-’, jälki- ‘post-’, pika- ‘quick, instant’ is increasing, which means that at
least these elements are productive. Among the new compounds from the first
decade of the 21st century many more than the above-mentioned bound preverbs
are in frequent use – to an extent that proves the productivity of this formation
model (Tyysteri 2015: 130). Confix verbs are, however, often stylistically marked:
They occur as terms in languages for special purposes; in everyday language
and print media occasionalisms are often used playfully (Vesikansa 1989: 257 f.;
Kolehmainen 2006: 116; Tyysteri 2015: 88, 113, 213). Nevertheless, it is evident
that the number of lexicalized confix verbs in standard language is increasing.
The currently most popular indigenous and foreign verb confixes have a high
communicative and cultural relevance: They reflect modern life with its hectic
pace (pika-), green values (bio-, eko-) and technological innovations (digi-, nano-,
etä-, täsmä-).
17 Kolehmainen collected her research material from dictionaries and authentic texts from the
1990es in SKTP (Suomen kielen tekstipankki / Language Bank of Finland).
3.2 P
refix verbs?
The question is whether adpositional and adverbial elements that are used as
bound preverbs in Finnish can be regarded as prefixes. Kolehmainen (2006: 130–
137) cautiously refers to them as “prefix-like elements” and underlines that they
differ in some aspects from prefixes in Germanic languages. Firstly, they are not
unstressed: The main word stress in Finnish is generally on the initial syllable,
i. e. word stress does not apply as prefix criterion in Finnish. Secondly, the Finn-
ish adpositions are mainly postpositions.18 Thirdly, many of them are secondary
adpositions, having developed from inflected forms of relative nouns,19 and have
therefore (fossilized) case endings; some of them have a restricted nominal para-
digm in several (still existing or historical), mostly locative, especially directional
cases. The same holds for adverbs: Many elements occur both as adpositions and
as adverbs (ISK 2004: 664 f.; Tyysteri 2015: 121). Consequently, there are hundreds
of different adposition and adverb forms in Finnish, but not all of them function
as preverbs.
Kolehmainen’s research material from grammars, previous studies and dic-
tionaries contains 70 of such elements (Kolehmainen 2006: 134–137). “Nyky-
suomen sanakirja” (Dictionary of modern Finnish, 1951–1961) mentions 251
complex verbs with these elements, but many of them are marked as archaic,
e. g. alas+astua ‘step down’, and almost a half of them occur in univerbated form
only as participles, cf. yhteen+laskettu (lit. together+counted) ‘combined’. In both
cases separated alternatives are recommended, cf. astua alas, yhteen laskettu (cf.
Section 3.3). Thus the number of inseparable verbs in active use is much lower.
Most of the elements combine only with one or two verbs (ibid.: 138). About ten
elements show a somewhat broader spectrum, e. g. irti- ‘loose, off’, läpi- ‘through,
throughout’, sisään- ‘in, inside’, ulos- ‘out, outside’, yli- ‘over’ (ibid.: 137 ff.). All in
all, Kolehmainen regards the model prefix+verb as unproductive.
Finnish inseparable verbs of this group are historical relics that go back to
old loan translations from Germanic and classical languages resp. to an interfer-
ence-based formation model (cf. Öhmann 1957: 33 ff.; Vaittinen 2003; Toropainen
2017: 72). In Old Literary Finnish (1540–1810) the majority of printed texts were
18 In principle, postpositions (and adverbs) can develop into prefixes in SOV-languages where
complements precede the verb. SOV is supposed to be the basic word order in Uralic languages;
in Finnish, however, the order has changed into SVO. This is one possible explanation for the
weak affinity to prefixes. As for typological theories of linearization in connection with prefixes,
see the overview in Kolehmainen (2006: 149–156).
19 This is the first step of a gradual grammaticalization called “noun-to-affix-cline”, cf. Leh-
mann (1985: 304); Hopper/Traugott (2003: 110); as for Finnish Jaakola (1997: 126 f., 134).
326 Irma Hyvärinen
translations of religious texts, following faithfully the formulations in the original

(Häkkinen 1994: 11 f.). For example Mikael Agricola (about 1510–1557), the “Fin-
nish Luther”, used 810 different compound verbs (including all first element cat-
egories)20 in his texts, which makes up 32,5 % of all his compounds on type level
(Toropainen 2017: 53, 55, 66, 74). In about 80 % of Agricola’s verb compounds the
first constituent was an adverb (Häkkinen 1987: 10). In the 17th century such com-
pounds were often replaced with MWEs consisting of a verb and an adverb by
Agricola’s successors. In the 19th and 20th centuries compound verbs were com-
bated by purist language planners as un-Finnish or ungrammatical (Häkkinen
1987: 7), resulting in a radical decline of use.
In modern Finnish, most combinations of adverb and verb, such as pois
‘away’ + sulkea ‘close’, are generally recommended to be formed as two separate
words, i. e. as MWEs (e. g. by “Kielitoimiston sanakirja” (2006), a dictionary of
Standard Finnish), where the adverb is postponed in case of neutral word order,
cf. (37a). Yet, in attributive participles the only possible position for the adverb is
before the verb. Although such a word order usually promotes univerbation, the
norm of writing separately holds for most participles, cf. (37b), even if language
users tend to write the parts together. However, when pois precedes an infinitive,
the components are written together, in contrast to the reversed order, cf. (37c).
The verb irti+sanoa (lit. off+say) ‘discharge, fire; cancel, (fig.) break off’ behaves
in some details differently. As for the infinitive, the alternatives are the same
(38a),21 but in passive past participle, the preceding adverb is not separable (38b).
In other words, the rules differ from verb to verb. Some lexicalized verbs cannot
be separated at all (39). In some cases separation is combined with semantic dif-
ference: In a concrete meaning the adverb is separated (40a), whereas univerba-
tion is preferred in an abstract meaning (40b) (as for orthographical norm,
cf. Pääkkönen 1989: 375; Eronen 1996; Tyysteri 2015: 38).
(37a) pois+sulkea, better sulkea pois ‘exclude, rule out’

(37b) pois suljettu vaihtoehto ‘excluded alternative’
Mitään vaihtoehtoa ei pitäisi pois+sulkea ~ *pois sulkea ~ sulkea pois
(37c)
‘None of the alternatives should be excluded.’
20 According to Jussila (1988), about 61 % of Agricola’s vocabulary has remained in use up to

date, but as for compounds, the proportion is only 15,9 %; the strongest decline concerns com-
pound verbs.
21 Although infinitive forms preceded by an adverb are normally written together (cf. *pois
sulkea, *irti sanoa), the components must be separated, if an enclitic particle, e. g. -kAAn ‘[not]
even, anyway, after all’, is appended to the adverb, cf. Ei sitä voi poiskaan sulkea ‘After all, it
cannot be excluded’; Ei heitä voi irtikään sanoa ‘Anyway, they cannot be fired’.
irti+sanoa ~ *irti sanoa ~ sanoa irti ‘discharge, fire; cancel, (fig.) break off’
(38a)
(38b) irti+sanottu vs. *irti sanottu
(39) jälleen+rakentaa ‘reconstruct, rebuild’

läpi+valaista (lit. through+lighten) ‘scan, X-ray’
myötä+elää (lit. with+live) ‘empathize’
perään+kuuluttaa (lit. after+announce) ‘demand, claim, try to find’
ympäri+leikata (lit. round+cut) ‘circumcise’
(40a) ohi kiitävä auto ‘car speeding past’

(40b) ohi+kiitävä hetki ‘fleeting moment’
In my opinion, these pre-elements are not prefixes. One reason is their obvious
unproductivity, i. e. the restricted verb variation per pre-element – for affixes a far
wider use is expected. The still existing bound forms are sporadic historical rel-
ics, based on calques from foreign languages with systematic prefixation, yet, in
Finnish, a generalization never took place. The initial word stress protects the
elements from phonological erosion typical of affixes. Above all, the fact that
there are parallel phrasal forms, cf. (37a) and (38a), is a proof of the lexical auton-
omy of the elements in question – in that respect they show a higher autonomy
than confixes (cf. Section 3.1). It follows that the univerbated forms are com-
pounds. Here I agree with Tyysteri (2015: 119, 121) who, in contrast to Kolehmainen
(2006), does not classify the above-mentioned elements as prefixes or “prefix-like
elements” but as “indeclinable elements or elements with incomplete declina-
tion (adverbs, adpositions and particles)” in ordinary compounds. The advantage
of this analysis is that the coexistence of occurrences with and without separa-
tion, i. e. MWEs vs. compounds, can be compared with similar cases in other word
classes where both alternatives have (nearly) the same meaning, cf. (8) and (20b)
above.
Whether the one-word and the two-word combination represent one and the
same verb lexeme or two synonymous lexemes and whether the phrasal alterna-
tives should be regarded as regular (“free”) syntactic constructions or rather as
phrasal verbs, i. e. MWEs, is discussed in the next section.
3.3 P
hrasal verbs
In the linguistic literature the terms “phrasal verb” and “particle verb” are often
used as synonyms. The former implies that the components are separate, while
the latter refers to the functional category of the component the verb is connected
328 Irma Hyvärinen
with. In English, for example, particle verbs are always phrasal verbs. In Finnish
this need not be the case.
In traditional Finnish grammar phrasal verbs are not recognized as an estab-
lished category, but several scholars refer to fixed sayings or idiomatic figures of
speech in the form of MWEs, similar to separable particle verbs in Germanic lan-
guages (cf. Häkkinen 1997: 44; Nenonen 2002: 55), cf. (41a). They are semantically
and structurally similar to verb idioms consisting of a verb and a non-particle
component, for example a unique component (41b) or a nominal component in a
locative case (41c) (cf. Nenonen 2002: 55 f.; Kolehmainen 2006: 164).
(41a) panna vastaan (lit. put against) ‘resist, struggle against’

(41b) lyödä laimin (lit. hit/beat unique component) ‘neglect, abdicate’
(41c) ottaa huomioon (lit. take accountill) ‘take into account’
According also to ISK (2004: 447), particle verbs are “idiomatic predicates”. Here
“particle” refers to the functional category of the element co-occurring with the
verb, regardless of univerbation or separation. In some cases “Kielitoimiston
sanakirja” (2006) lemmatizes the univerbated form but refers to the phrasal one.
From entries like (42a) it can be inferred that both forms are regarded as
representations of the same lexeme; remarks such as ‘mostly’ or ‘better’ (42b)
indicate that the MWE is generally the dominant form. Occasionally only the
univerbated form is given although separated forms occur commonly, cf. (42c).
However, as mentioned above, some verbs are used only in the univerbated
form, cf. (39).
(42a) irti+sanoa = sanoa irti, cf. (38a)

laimin+lyödä = lyödä laimin, cf. (41b)
(42b) ylen+antaa, mostly antaa ylen ‘throw up, vomit’
pois+sulkea, better sulkea pois, cf. (37a)
(42c) ulos+liputtaa ‘flag out’ vs.
Viking Line liputtaa ulos kaksi alusta. ‘Viking Line is going to flag out two
ships.’
Kolehmainen (2006: 170 f.) sees the separation (i. e. the MWE structure) and the
idiomaticity or metaphoricity of the combination to be key criteria; in her assess-
ment particle verbs are either singular idioms or go back to phraseological pat-
terns. This means that transparent (non-idiomatic) combinations, such as (43),
are excluded from the class of particle verbs and regarded as products of free
syntax; according to Kolehmainen (ibid.) native speakers do not perceive them as
single semantic units.
(43) muuttaa pois ‘move away’

kulkea edellä ‘walk ahead’
Yet, it is not always easy to draw the line between idiomatic and free combina-
tions because idiomaticity is a continuum. Kolehmainen (ibid.: 172–183) distin-
guishes between four grades of idiomaticity and compositionality:
(A) Fully idiomatic combinations that do not permit any component variation are
obvious verb idioms, e. g. lyödä laimin, cf. (41b) above, where laimin is a unique
(adverb-like) component and the verb lyödä does not bear its regular meaning
‘hit, beat’, cf. (44a) vs. (44b).
(44a) He lyövät laimin lapsiaan. ‘They neglect their children.’ (idiomatic mean-
ing) vs.
(44b) He lyövät lapsiaan. ‘They are beating their children.’ (regular meaning)
Also a combination of verb and autonomous adverb can in principle become

fixed as a single idiomatic MWE without component variation, e. g. (45a), where,
however, the figurative meaning is compositional to some degree, as far as ampua
is understood as a destructive action; the directionality of the adverb underlines
telicity (‘once for all’), and in up-down-metaphors ‘down’ means negative things,
here (a change into) non-existence. A similar compositionality can be recognized
also behind some other figurative expressions for resistance or undoing, consist-
ing of a verb of destruction and alas, such as (45b) – i. e. the borderline between
(A) to (B) is vague.
(45a) ampua alas ‘shoot down (an idea, a plan)’

repiä alas (lit. tear down) ‘break down (boundaries, conventional values
(45b)
etc.)’
(B) Serialization indicates compositionality. Rudiments of serialized formation

occur as niches of a few similar particle verbs, i. e. there is some variation in the
verb component, cf. (46a) where yhteen ‘together’ alludes to a confrontation, or
(46b) where kiinni ‘shut, fixed, closed’ refers to a state that cannot be changed
anymore.
(46a) iskeä yhteen (lit. hit together) ‘clash, lock horns’

ottaa yhteen (lit. take together) ‘clash, quarrel’
(46b) iskeä kiinni (lit. hit fixed) ‘stabilize (e. g. a dominating position)’
naulata kiinni (lit. nail fixed) ‘nail down, fix on (e. g. prizes)’
330 Irma Hyvärinen
(C) MWEs consisting of verbs and the particles ilmi ‘open(ly), apparent(ly)’ and
julki ‘(in) public, out’ build productive phraseosyntactic patterns, expressing that
information is made available or public. In contrast to adverbs like ulos ‘out’ or
kiinni ‘shut, fixed, closed’ which occur both in concrete and in figurative
combinations, ilmi and julki always have a constant abstract meaning, which can
explain the stronger serialization. There are both intransitive and transitive
series. The kernel verbs are so-called light verbs like tulla ‘come’, antaa ‘give’,
saada ‘get’, tuoda ‘bring’, but they can be replaced with more specific verbs
expressing for example that the publicity was not intended, cf. (47a) vs. (47b). In
the transitive pattern, antaa ‘give’, saattaa ‘put’ or tuoda ‘bring’ can be replaced
by various speech verbs and their descriptive and expressive variants,
cf. (48a–c):
(47a) tulla julki ‘come out, become public’

(47b) vuotaa ⁓ lipsahtaa julki ‘leak ⁓ slip out’
(48a) tuoda julki ‘bring into publicity’

(48b) lausua ⁓ puhua ⁓ sanoa julki ‘express ⁓ speak ⁓ say publicly’
(48c) kaakattaa ⁓ kiljua ⁓ möläytellä julki ‘cackle ⁓ scream ⁓ blurt out’
(D) Combinations of verb and directional adverb are often situated on the bound-
ary between regular syntactic constructions and fixed MWEs. At first sight it
seems controversial that, according to Kolehmainen (2006: 91, 97, 170), the Ger-
man separable particle verbs in (49) are lexicalized phraseological (but not idio-
matic) units, whereas the corresponding Finnish combinations are not. However,
this is not necessarily controversial because the lexicalization strategies in two
languages need not be identical. Yet, the difference in the language-specific affin-
ity of such combinations to merge into one lexeme should be proved theoretically.
A possible explanation could be related to the grade of semantic-structural
autonomy of German and Finnish adpositions and adverbs. Different word order
conditions could be relevant, too.
(49) weg/ziehen – muuttaa pois ‘move away’

vor/gehen – kulkea edellä ‘walk ahead’
auf/blicken – katsoa ylös ‘glance up’
hinaus/gehen – mennä ulos ‘go out’
nieder/knien – polvistua alas ‘kneel down’
In any case it is obvious that lexicalization is mostly combined with semantic

specificity. As for the directional adverb ulos ‘out’, for instance, the concrete
non-specific meaning is manifest in contexts where the locality inside of some-

thing that is left behind is explicated verbally (50a) or when the location is infer-
able by context and situation, like in (50b), assuming that ‘being in a tunnel’ is
already a known fact (contextual ellipsis).
(50a) ajaa ulos tunnelista ‘drive out of the tunnel, leave the tunnel’
(50b) ajaa ulos (Ø) ‘leave’
Besides contextual ellipses there are conventionalized ellipses that are not figura-
tive but bear some specific semantic features connected with a certain topic or
text type. For example, in reports on road accidents or motor sports ajaa ulos has
the conventional meaning ‘drive off the track, swerve off the road’ (51a). The noun
ulos+ajo (51b) is used particularly in this specific meaning, yet it is difficult to say
if it has been derived from the lexicalized phrasal verb. It could as well have been
originated as a synthetic compound and then later specialized as a traffic term, of
which the specific phrasal verb has been formed analogically, similar to backfor-
mation. This makes it difficult to use phrasal input for derivation as a criterion of
lexicalizedness of the base, especially as there are synthetic compounds going
back to fully transparent non-specific combinations, cf. (52) and (49) above –
even if dictionaries codify primarily the idiomatized or spezialized compounds
and leave the semantically self-evident ones out.
Henkilöauto ajoi ulos sunnuntaina Räyringissä. ‘On Sunday, a passenger

(51a)
car drove off the road in Räyrinki.’
(51b) ulos+ajo (lit. out+driving) ‘driving off the road’ (nomen acti), cf.
Ulosajo tallentui videolle. ‘The accident [driving off the road] was
videotaped.’
(52) muuttaa pois ‘move away’ – pois+muutto (N)

mennä ulos ‘go out’ – ulos+meno (N)
Components of lexicalized MWEs cannot be anaphorized. Consequently, if the par-

ticle in a combination with a verb is anaphorizable, the combination is free, cf. (53).
However, many adverbs lack natural anaphors. For example kiinni ‘fixed, shut,
closed’ is not anaphorizable regardless of whether it occurs in concrete or figurative
meaning. So, anaphorizability can exclude a combination from phrasal verbs, but
lacking anaphorizability cannot be used as evidence of lexicalizedness.
(53) Anna meni ulos. – Menikö hän sinne yksin? ‘Anna went out. – Did she go
there alone?’
332 Irma Hyvärinen
Summa summarum: The concept of phrasal verbs deserves to be applied to Finn-

ish, yet, further research is needed to define the limits of the category.
4 C
oncluding remarks
Compounding is the most common way to form new words in modern Finnish.
Prototypical determinative nominal compounds with an underspecified first con-
stituent (N+N) form the most common and still increasing type. Apart from this
type many less prototypical compound models are productive, too. Among these,
special attention has been paid above to formations showing syntactic features
similar to MWEs and/or competing with MWEs. The essential findings can be
summarized as follows:
1. In about one third of A+N compounds the adjective agrees in number and
case with the head, which does not fulfil the criterion of morphological integ-
rity. However, compound-internal congruence is a recessive feature; there are
hardly any neologisms with internal congruence. Compounds with a non-con-
gruent first constituent tend to have a term-like character.
2. Internal inflection also occurs in complex numerals. Numerals with hun-
dreds, thousands etc. are grouped into smaller (still complex) units, thus
combining characteristics of non-prototypical compounds and MWEs.
3. In synthetic compounds argument relations of the verb that underlies the
head are explicated by case forms, which is a syntactic feature.
4. A prototypical compound cannot be replaced with a phrasal unit of formally
identical components. Generally, if such pairs occur, they differ in meaning.
Overlap occurs if the modifier is in the genitive, which is the situation for
semantically relative adjectives and many deverbal nominalizations. Univer-
bation strengthens the conceptual unity, and vice versa, conceptualization
furthers univerbation.
5. An opposite example of the correlation between conceptual unity and univer
bation is represented by Finnish particle verbs. Compound verbs with an
adverb or adposition as first constituent are not productive in modern Finn-
ish, partly as consequence of normative language planning. This gap in the
system is compensated by “phrasalization”, i. e. keeping apart the compo-
nents in particle verbs. However, the formation model is far less productive
than in English or German, for instance. Apart from singular idioms, seriali-
zation, based on phraseosyntactic patterns, occurs in some amount. Drawing
the line between lexicalized MWEs and syntactically free combinations
requires further research.
6. When the syntactic distributions of a compound and a semantically equal

MWE are different, their relation is complementary rather than competing.
This applies to similative compound adjectives/adverbs and corresponding
phrasal similes: The latter cannot occur as adjective attributes. Furthermore,
while predicative and adverbial similative compounds can be transformed
into phrasal similes, the opposite is not always possible: Only phrasal similes
allow expansions in the part that expresses the point of comparison.
The following topics remain for further research: In Finnish, non-figurative MWEs
such as fixed collocations and nominations for specific concepts have been so far
studied mostly in terminology. In the future, more attention should also be paid
to corresponding combinations in standard language. So far, MWEs have been
excluded when working out the statistical distribution of different lexem struc-
ture types in the Finnish vocabulary. Another question deserving attention is the
role of MWE patterns at the intersection of syntax and lexicon: Besides particle
verbs and similes, e. g. light-verb constructions, binomials and serial modifica-
tion of a specific idiom structure are topics worth of further attention. Several
single studies to these areas have been carried out within contrastive phraseology
and construction grammar but a systematic overview of MWE patterns is still
outstanding.
References
Baldwin, Timothy/Kim, Su Nam (2010): Multiword expressions. In: Indurkhya, Nitin/Damerau,
Fred J. (eds.): Handbook of natural language processing. 2nd ed. Boca Raton i. a.: CRC
Press. 267–292.
Eronen, Riitta (1996): Monimuotoiset yhdyssanat. In: Kielikello 1996, 4. Internet: http://
kielikello.fi.libproxy.helsinki.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=386 (last access:
15.9.2017).
Fleischer, Wolfgang/Barz, Irmhild (2012): Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th
ed. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Häkkinen, Kaisa (1987): Suomen kielen vanhoista ja uusista yhdysverbeistä. In: Sananjalka 29.
7–29.
Häkkinen, Kaisa (1994): Agricolasta nykykieleen. Suomen kirjakielen historia. Porvoo: WSOY.
Häkkinen, Kaisa (1997): Kuinka ruotsin kieli on vaikuttanut suomeen? In: Sananjalka 39. 31–53.
Heinonen, Tarja Riitta (2001): Harmaaturkit herkkusuut – bahuvriihit sanakirjassa ja kieliopissa.
In: Virittäjä 105. 625–634.
Heinonen, Tarja Riitta (2010): Kuin-vertaukset. In: Virittäjä 114. 348–373.
Hopper, Paul J./Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2003): Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. (= Cambridge
Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
334 Irma Hyvärinen
(eds.). 450–467.
ISK (2004) = Hakulinen, Auli et al. (2004): Iso suomen kielioppi. (= Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden
Seuran Toimituksia 950.) Helsinki: SKS.
Jaakola, Minna (1997): Genetiivin kanssa esiintyvien adpositioiden kieliopillistumisesta. In:
Lehtinen, Tapani/Laitinen, Lea (eds.): Kieliopillistuminen. Tapaustutkimuksia suomesta.
(= Kieli 12). Helsinki: SKS. 121–156.
Jussila, Raimo (1988): Agricolan sanasto ja nykysuomi. In: Koivusalo, Esko (ed.): Mikael
Agricolan kieli. (= Tietolipas 112). Helsinki: SKS. 203–288.
Karlsson, Fred (1983): Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Porvoo: WSOY.
Karlsson, Fred (2004): Finnish (Finno-Ugric). In: Booij, Geert et al. (eds.): Morphologie.
Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. An international
handbook on inflection and word-formation. Vol. 2. (= Handbooks of Linguistics and
Communication Science (HSK) 17.2). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 1328–1342.
Karlsson, Fred (2015): Finnish. An essential grammar. Translated by Andrew Chesterman. 3rd
ed. London/New York: Routledge.
Kielitoimiston sanakirja (2006) = Grönros,Eija-Riitta et al. (2006): Kielitoimiston sanakirja. Osat
1–3. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.
Koivisto, Vesa (2013): Suomen sanojen rakenne. Helsinki: SKS.
Kolehmainen, Leena (2006): Präfix- und Partikelverben im deutsch-finnischen Kontrast.
(= Finnische Beiträge zur Germanistik 16). Berlin i. a.: Lang.
Korhonen, Jarmo (2018): Fraseologia – Kiinteiden sanayhtymien tutkimus. Helsinki: Finn
Lectura.
Lehmann, Christian (1985): Grammaticalization. Synchronic variation and diachronic change.
In: Lingua e Stile 20, 3. 303–318.
Mäkisalo, Jukka (2000): Grammar and experimental evidence of finnish compounds. (= Studies
in Languages 35). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Malmivaara, Terhi (2004): Luupää, puupää, puusilmä. Näkymiä sananmuodostuksen
analogisuuteen ja bahuvriihiyhdyssanojen olemukseen. In: Virittäjä 108. 347–363.
Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.) (2015–2016): Word-formation: An international handbook of the
Nenonen, Marja (2002): Idiomit ja leksikko. Lausekeidiomien syntaktisia, semanttisia ja
morfologisia piirteitä suomen kielessä. (= Publications in the Humanities 29). Joensuu:
University of Joensuu.
Niemi, Jussi (2009): Compounds in Finnish. In: Lingua & Linguaggio 8. 237–256.
Niinimäki, Anneli (1992): Sanaliittojen tiivistyminen yhdyssanoiksi. In: Virittäjä 96. 283–286.
Nykysuomen sanakirja (1951–1961) = Sadeniemi, Matti (1951–1961): Nykysuomen sanakirja.
Osat I–VI. Porvoo: WSOY.
Öhmann, Emil (1957): Beobachtungen über feste Verbalzusammensetzungen im Finnischen. In:
Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 29. 33–37.
Olsen, Susan (2015): Composition. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 364–386.
Pääkkönen, Irmeli (1989): Sanojen äänneasu ja oikeinkirjoitus. In: Vesikansa, Jouko (ed.).
357–382.
Pitkänen-Heikkilä, Kaarina (2016): Finnish. In: Müller, Peter O. et al. (eds.). 3209–3228.
Rahtu, Toini (1984): Suomen nominialkuiset yhdysverbit. In: Virittäjä 88. 409–430.
Räisänen, Alpo (1986): Sananmuodostus ja konteksti. In: Virittäjä 90. 155–163.
Sag, Ivan A. et al. (2002): Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. In: Gelbukh,
Alexander (ed.): Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Third
International Conference, CICLing-2002, Mexico City, Mexico, February 17–23, 2002.
(= Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2276). Berlin i. a.: Springer. 1–15.
Sajavaara, Paula (1989): Vierassanat. In: Vesikansa, Jouko (ed.). 64–109.
Saukkonen, Pauli (1973): Suomen kielen yhdyssanojen rakenne. In: Commentationes
Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Erkki Itkonen. (= Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 150).
332–339.
Schellbach-Kopra, Ingrid (1964): Die Bahuvrihi-Komposita in der alten finnischen
Volksdichtung. In: Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran aikakauskirja – Journal de la Société
finno-ougrienne 65. 1–41.
Stein, Stephan (2012): Phraseologie und Wortbildung des Deutschen. Ein Vergleich von Äpfeln
mit Birnen? In: Prinz, Michael/Richter-Vapaatalo, Ulrike (eds.): Idiome, Konstruktionen,
„verblümte Rede“. Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanistischen Phraseologieforschung.
(= Beiträge zur Geschichte der Germanistik 3). Stuttgart: Hirzel. 225–240.
Suomen kielen perussanakirja (1990–1994) = Haarala, Risto (1990–1994): Suomen kielen
perussanakirja. Osat 1–3. (= Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 55).
Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
Toropainen, Tanja (2017): Yhdyssanat ja yhdyssanamaiset rakenteet Mikael Agricolan teoksissa
(= Turun yliopiston julkaisuja – Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 439). Turku: University
of Turku. Internet: https://doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/143331/AnnalesC%20
439Toropainen.pdf?sequence=2 (last access: 25.8.2017).
Tyysteri, Laura (2015): Aamiaiskahvilasta ötökkötarjontaan. Suomen yleiskielen morfosyn-
taktisten yhdyssanarakenteiden produktiivisuus. (= Turun yliopiston julkaisuja – Annales
Universitatis Turkuensis C 408). Turku. Internet: https://doria.fi/bitstream/
handle/10024/113113/AnnalesC408Tyysteri.pdf?sequence=2 (last access: 25.8.2017).
Vaittinen, Tanja (2003): Vanhan kirjasuomen yhdysverbit. In: Sananjalka 45. 45–66.
Vesikansa, Jouko (1989): Yhdyssanat. In: Vesikansa, Jouko (ed.). 213–258
Vesikansa, Jouko (ed.) (1989): Nykysuomen sanavarat. Porvoo: WSOY.
Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
Compounds and multi-word expressions in
Hungarian
The notion of compounding is notoriously difficult to define and there are hardly
any universally accepted criteria for determining what a compound is. In the
present chapter we will make a distinction between prototypical compounds and
non-prototypical compounds. The latter but not the former are syntactically sep-
arable. All compounds are right-headed and are inflected as a whole. Moreover,
according to the received view compounds express a conceptual unit though it is
not easy to define what exactly this means. Finally, typically only the first syllable
of a compound bears stress.
Compounding is a rather late development in the history of Hungarian.
Though compounds can be found sporadically before the 18th century, during the
language reform (end of 18th and beginning of 19th century) new compounds were
massively created partly by using existing patterns and partly by loans mainly
from German. This explains why productive patterns of root (endocentric) com-
pounds are – as far as the categories involved are concerned – identical in Hun-
garian and German.1
The structure of our chapter is as follows: in the first part of the chapter we are
going to provide an overview of productive compounding patterns, i. e. root com-
pounds, morphologically marked compounds, deverbal compounds and coordi-
native compounds. Section 2 is devoted to the description of compound-like
phrases in Hungarian, i. e. preverb + verb constructions and bare noun + verb con-
structions. Finally, Section 3 summarizes the main conclusions of the chapter.
1 P
rototypical compounds
1.1 R
oot compounds
Let us first have a look at root compounds. A root compound is a compound

whose head is not deverbal or whose non-head does not have the function of
argument of the verb from which the head is derived. The productive patterns
1 Sections 1.1 through 1.3 and 2.2 are heavily based on our earlier works on the subject. Cf., in
particular, Kiefer (1992, 1993, 2009) and Kiefer and Németh (2018).
Open Access. © 2019 Kiefer/Németh, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-012
338 Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh
involve nouns and adjectives only, there are no productive patterns with adverbs
and/or verbs. All endocentric compounds in Hungarian are right-headed and are
formed by juxtaposition of the relevant lexical items. No morphological markers
appear between the constituents of root compounds. (1a–d) shows the chart of
productive patterns.2,3
(1a) N+N
város+háza
‘city hall’
tök+mag
‘pumpkin seed’
(1b) A+N
kis+autó
‘small car’
meleg+ágy
‘hotbed’
(1c) N+A
kő+kemény
‘stone hard’
oszlop+magas
‘pillar high’
(1d) A+A
sötét+zöld
‘dark green’
bal+liberális
‘left-liberal’
Recently a fifth pattern seems to be gaining ground in addition to the ones shown
in (1a–d), namely the pattern N + V. It can be argued, however, that the corre-
sponding compounds are (at least in the majority of cases) backformations from
the corresponding deverbal compounds. For some examples, cf. (2a–c).4
2 In Hungarian compounds are usually written as one word. In the examples the constituents
are written separately for the sake of clarity.
3 1 = first person; 3 = third person; acc = accusative; com = comitative; cond = conditional; dat=
dative; def = definite; inf = infinitive; instr = instrumental; intr = intransitive; loc = locative;
nmlz = nominalization; pl = plural; poss = possessive; prev = preverb; pst = past; ptcp = parti-
ciple; res = resultative; sg = singular; temp = temporal (terminative).
4 Cf. also Ladányi (2007: 64 f.).
Compounds and multi-word expressions in Hungarian 339
(2a) N+V
gép+ír
machine write
‘write on a typewriter’
from gép+ír-ás5
machine writing
‘typing’
(2b) ház+kutat
house search (verb)
from ház+kutat-ás
house search (noun)
(2c) tömeg+közlekedik
mass run
from tömeg+közleked-és
mass/public transportation
Similar examples are legion. It should be noted, however, that compounds such
as (2a–c) are more frequent in everyday and newspaper language than in literary
language.
1.2 Morphologically marked compounds
Compounds in Hungarian may be morphologically marked or morphologically

unmarked. In the first case the morphological marker may appear either on the
first or on the second member of the compound, e. g. újjá+épít (új ‘new’ + -já
‘translative case suffix’ + épít ‘build’) ‘reconstruct’, tévét néz6 (tévé ‘television’ + t
‘accusative case suffix’ + néz ‘look, watch’) ‘watch television’. In such cases the
head of the compound is always a V and the nonhead is a syntactic or semantic
argument of the verb. Note that neither újjá nor tévét are independent lexical
items. Moreover syntactic rules may manipulate the internal structure of such
5 ás/és is a nominalizing suffix, the choice between the two forms is determined by vowel har-
mony. The usual phonological notation is -Vs where V denotes the harmonizing vowel, i. e. -ás or
-és.
6 In contrast to phrases such as könyv-et néz book acc look ‘look at a book, on books’, kép-et néz
‘look at a picture on pictures’, which are not compound-like since they don’t share any property
of compounds. Cf. Section 2.2 for a more detailed discussion of ‘bare object noun + verb’
constructions.
compounds, in other words these compounds must be considered non-proto

typical.
The morphological marker appears on the second member of the compound
if it is derived from a possessive construction, e. g. város+háza (város ‘city’ + ház
‘house’ + -a ‘possessive suffix’) ‘city hall’, tojás+fehérje (tojás ‘egg’ + fehér ‘white’
+ -je ‘possessive suffix’) ‘egg-white’. Neither can the members of such compounds
be separated by syntactic rules. In this sense they belong to prototypical rather
than to non-prototypical compounds. Note that the second member of such com-
pounds is not an independent word: *háza, *fehérje.7 Though such compounds
are rather frequent, it is unclear to what extent the pattern is productive and/or
rule-governed.
Another case where the second member of the compound is morphologically
marked are N+A compounds in which the head is derived from a past participle.
In such compounds the participle is suffixed by the 3P personal suffix and the
nonhead is interpreted as a kind of causer, i. e. of being the cause of the eventual-
ity, normally referred to as Natural Force.
(3a) vihar+ver-t-e
storm+beat-ptcp-3sg
‘storm-beaten’
(3b) víz+mos-t-a
water+wash-ptcp-3sg
‘water-lashed’
Once again the participial head adjective of the compound is not an independent
word: *verte, *mosta.8 At first sight it would seem that in these compounds the
first member satisfies the subject argument of the deverbal head. However, such
an analysis would run counter the received view that subject arguments cannot
be satisfied in compound structure (cf., for example, Di Sciullo/Williams 1987).
The analysis of N+A constructions with participial heads as verbal compounds is
not mandatory, however. It can be argued that these constructions are participial
constructions rather than genuine compounds (cf. Kenesei 1986). Productive par-
ticipial constructions must be distinguished from frozen ones, while the former
can freely be modified, modification is impossible in the latter case. Compounds
7 Though it is often used in certain contexts as a shortened form of tojásfehérje ‘egg-white’.

8 Note that verte and mosta are identical with the 3P Sg Past Tense forms of the verbs ver ‘beat’
and mos ‘wash’, respectively.
such as víz+mosta ‘water-lashed’, por+lepte ‘covered with dust’ are frozen expres-
sions. In contrast, an expression such as (4),
(4) munkás+lak-t-a
worker+inhabit-ptcp-3sg
‘inhabited by workers’
can be modified: it is possible to say sok/kevés munkás lakta ‘inhabited by many/

few workers’. Since modification of the nonhead is not possible in the case of
genuine compounds we must conclude that the participial constructions such as
(4) are not compounds.
1.3 D
everbal compounds
Deverbal compounds are special and have received much attention in the perti-
nent literature because there is a clear argument-head relationship between the
elements of the compound. In this case two questions need to be answered: (i)
what kind of arguments can the head inherit from its base; (ii) which arguments
can be satisfied by the nonhead.
Nouns can be derived from verbs by means of the suffix -ás and in a consid-
erable number of cases the derived nouns can be interpreted as event nouns, e. g.
ír-ás ‘writing’ (from the verb ír ‘write’), olvas-ás ‘reading’ (from the verb olvas
‘read’).9 If such an event noun occurs as the head of a compound the nonhead can
be interpreted as an argument of the verb. Apparently in the case of a deverbal
noun derived from a transitive verb the only argument which can occur in non-
head position is the object argument:
(5a) levél+ír-ás
letter+write-nmlz
‘letter writing’
(5b) könyv+olvas-ás
book+read-nmlz
‘book reading’
9 In the case of resultative verbs the derived nominal may be ambiguous between the action and
result reading. The deverbal noun Italics may mean the activity of writing but also the result of
writing.
(5c) levél+ír-ás-a Péternek

letter+write-nmlz-pos Peter.dat
‘writing a letter to Peter’
(5d) *levél Péternek+írás-a
letter Peter.dat+write-nmlz-pos
In (5c) the dative form Péternek can never occur in compounds.

The situation is similar in (6) where Péterrel ‘with Peter’ is the comitative
form of the noun:
(6a) találkoz-ás Péterrel

meet-nmlz Peter.com
‘meeting with Peter’
(6b) *Péterrel találkoz-ás
Peter.com meet-nmlz
The following generalizations hold:
(7a) If the deverbal head of a compound is derived from a transitive verb the
only argument which can occur in nonhead position is the object
argument.
(7b) No other internal argument can occur in compounds.
The subject argument is normally considered to be an external argument and it is

claimed that external (subject) arguments can never occur in nonhead position.
In Hungarian the following examples seem to contradict this generalization.
(8a) hó+es-és
snow+fall-nmlz
‘snowfall’
(8b) motor+zúg-ás
engine+buzz-nmlz
‘hum of the engine’
(8c) dió+ér-és
walnut+ripen-nmlz
‘ripening of walnuts’
(9a) liba+gágog-ás
goose+gaggle-nmlz
‘gaggling of a goose’
(9b) kutya+ugat-ás
dog+bark-nmlz
‘barking of a dog’
(9c) gyermek+sír-ás
child+cry-nmlz
‘crying of a child’
In the theory of thematic roles normally a distinction is being made between an

intentionally acting (normally human) agent and an unintentionally acting
actor. In both cases the nonhead is not an agent who acts intentionally in
order to change the world, the event is rather brought about by natural force
or an unintentionally acting actor. This means that the generalization (7b) can
be saved if we restrict it to agent arguments, i. e. it can be claimed that agent
arguments cannot occur in nonhead position. On the other hand, actor argu-
ments are not excluded from this position. Notice furthermore that the com-
pounds in (8a–c) and (9a–c) seem to fall into two semantic classes: (8a–c)
describe phenomena of nature, while (9a–c) describe events of unintentional
sound production.
Next consider the following examples. The verb csökken ‘decrease’ is intran-
sitive, its transitive counterpart is csökken-t. Prices can decrease transitively and
intransitively as shown by (10a–b).
(10a) ár+csökken-és
price+decrease.intr-nmlz
‘drop in prices’
ár+drágul-ás
price+go.up-nmlz
‘rise of prices’
(10b) ár+csökken-t-és
price+decrease-acc-nmlz
‘reduction of prices’
ár+drágít-ás
price+raise-nmlz
‘raising of prices’
The examples in (10a–b) demonstrate the difference between a head derived from
an intransitive and a head derived from a transitive verb. In (10a) the nonhead
can only be interpreted as the actor argument of the verbal base. In contrast the
head in (10b) is derived from a transitive verb, hence the nonhead is interpreted
as the object argument of the verbal base.
There are a number of compounds in which the nonhead looks very much
like an actor argument but it can be shown that the relation between nonhead
and head can only be interpreted conceptually but not syntactically. Consider:
(11a) bolha+csíp-és
flea+sting-nmlz
‘flea-bite’
(11b) kutya+harap-ás
dog+bite-nmlz
‘dog-bite’
(11c) disznó+túr-ás
pig+root-nmlz
‘rooting of pigs’
In the examples in (11) the head noun is a result nominal (referring to the result of
biting or rooting) which has not inherited the argument structure of the base
verb, hence argument satisfaction does not arise. The properties of result nomi-
nals are well-known from the relevant literature which we will not repeat here.
Suffice it to mention that result nominals are incompatible with durative tempo-
ral adverbials while action nominals are.
Before embarking on the discussion of coordinative compounds it should be
made clear that deverbal compounds can also be formed by means of the parti-
cipial suffixes -ó10 (present participle) and -t (past participle). E.g. dió+darál-ó
‘nut grinder’ and sertés+sül-t ‘roast pork’ (from sül ‘roast’).
1.4 C
oordinative compounds
Formally, there are two main categories of coordinative compounds in Hungar-

ian: actual coordinatives and compounds derived by lexical reduplication.
As Kiefer (2000: 525) points out, actual coordinative compounds are derived
from free lexemes, as shown in (12a) below.
(12a) ad-vesz (from ad ‘give’ + vesz ‘buy’) ‘mart, buy and sell’
jön-megy (from jön ‘come’+ megy ‘go’) ‘come and go, fidget’
üt-ver (from üt ‘hit’+ ver ‘beat’) ‘beat, pound’
10 Denoting the suffixes -ó or -ő where once again the choice is determined by vowel harmony.
jár-kel (from jár ‘walk’+ kel ‘traverse’) ‘go about, shuttle’

él-hal (from él ‘live’ + hal ‘die’) ‘be overfond of sth’
eszik-iszik (from eszik ‘eat’ + iszik ‘drink’) ‘eat and drink, regale oneself’
(12b) */?rohan-szalad (rush + run)
*/?szeret-imád (love + adore)
*/?sír-bőg (cry + bellow)
*/?esik-zuhan (fall + dive, tumble)
*/?nyomtat-szkennel (print + scan)
The ill-formed examples in (12b) above are meant to demonstrate the limited pro-
ductivity of the construction type: the compounds in (12a) are all fully lexicalized,
frozen items, while derivation from other non-bound elements seems to be rather
problematic.
Another type of coordinative compounds is derived by lexical reduplication,
which has several subcategories, as shown in (13).
(13a) alig-alig (hardly + hardly) ‘hardly, with great difficulty’

sok-sok (many + many) ‘very many’
olykor-olykor (sometimes + sometimes) ‘rarely, seldom’
(13b) egyszer-egyszer (once + once) ‘sometimes, rarely’
ki-ki (who + who) ‘each’
(13c) tarka-barka (from tarka ‘colourful, spotty’)
‘very colourful, spotty’
csiga-biga (from csiga ‘snail’) ‘(tiny, sweet) snail’
cica-mica (from cica ‘kitten’) ‘(tiny, sweet) kitten’
(13d) dimbes-dombos (from domb ‘hill’ + -os ‘adjectivizing suffix’)
‘hummocky, full of hills’
girbe-görbe (from görbe ‘curved’) ‘full of curves, sinuous’
rissz-rossz (from rossz ‘bad’) ‘very bad’
(13e) irul-pirul (from pirul ‘blush’) ‘blush, be blushful’
izeg-mozog (from mozog ‘move’) ‘fidget, wiggle’
ici-pici (from pici ‘tiny’) ‘very tiny’
The examples in (13a–b) demonstrate the case of total lexical reduplication,

where the base is copied without modification. Semantically, the derivation
serves the purpose of intensification, i. e. the meaning of the compound is analo-
gous with that of the reduplicated base, which means that the derivation only
adds the feature of intensification to the base (cf. 13a). However, in some lexical-
ized cases the meaning of the compound is totally different from that of the base
(cf. 13b) (cf. Kiefer 2000: 524 f.; Brdar/Brdar-Szabó 2014).
Another type of lexical reduplication is when the base is copied with some
kind of modification: either an initial consonant of the base is replaced by another
one (cf. 13c), or there is a vowel alternation pattern similar to ablaut (cf. 13d).
Brdar/Brdar-Szabó (2014: 39 f.) label the former phenomenon as inexact total
reduplication or rhyming(-motivated) reduplication, and the latter as ablaut-moti
vated reduplication. Finally, the examples in (13e) are instances of partial redupli
cation, where only a segment of the base is copied (ibid.: 39).
Note that in these cases, too, the semantic feature added to the base is inten-
sification, and the compounds mainly serve as stylistic versions of their bases:
they mostly express the endearing attitude of the speaker, thus they should be
dealt with in a morphopragmatic framework as well.
2 C
ompound-like phrases
We have already mentioned some cases of non-prototypical compounds; in the
present section a more detailed analysis of such constructions will be provided.
2.1 Preverb + verb constructions
In Hungarian preverbs (particles attached to the verb base) are all separable and
can fulfil various functions. If fully grammaticalized they express telicity, the
most typical being the preverb meg which has completely lost its original mean-
ing and has become an aspectual marker. Among other things, it can express the
resultative Aktionsart as in the case of főz ‘cook’ – meg+főz ‘cook.res’, varr ‘sew’
– meg+varr ‘sew.res’ or the semelfactive Aktionsart as in vakar ‘scrape’ – meg+
vakar ‘scrape once’, csóvál ‘wag’ – meg+csóvál ‘wag once’.
Most preverbs are less grammaticalized yet they can be used to derive an
Aktionsart. For example, the preverb el (whose original directional meaning is
‘away’) can be used to express inchoativity if it is accompanied by the reflexive
pronoun magát ‘self’, e. g. ordít ‘shout, cry’ – el+ordítja magát ‘cry out’ or nevet
‘laugh’ – el+neveti magát ‘burst out laughing’. In addition to meg some other orig-
inally directional preverbs can be used to express resultativity: takarít ‘tidy, clean’
– ki+takarít ‘clean up’, gereblyéz ‘rake’ – fel+gereblyéz ‘rake up’, kaszál ‘scythe’
– le+kaszál ‘scythe.res’, költ ‘spend’ – el+költ ‘spend.res’.
At first sight Aktionsart-formation may seem to belong to derivational mor-
phology. This would, however, contradict several generalizations concerning der-
ivational morphology in Hungarian. First, derivational affixes harmonize with
the verbal stem (szép-ség ‘beauty’, jó-ság ‘goodness’), in contrast, preverbs never
harmonize.11 Second, derivational affixes may change the part of speech category
of the base which is not the case with preverbs. Third, derivational affixes are
bound morphemes. On the other hand, preverbs can be detached from their base.
First, they can be used in short answers to a question without their base as in
(14–15) below.
(14a) Meg+írtad a levelet?

‘Have you written the letter?’
(14b) Meg.
‘Yes.’
(15a) Ki+mentél a kertbe?

‘Have you gone out into the garden?’
(15b) Ki.
‘Yes.’
Moreover, preverbs can freely be moved to various positions in the sentence, cf.
the variants of (15a) in (16a–c).
(16a) A kertbe mentél ki?

(16b) Ki a kertbe mentél?
(16c) Mentél ki a kertbe?
We may thus conclude that the formation of complex verbs cannot be part of der-
ivational morphology. On the other hand, preverb+verb constructions are not
prototypical compounds either, at least not with respect to their behavior vis-a-
vis syntax. In other words, their internal structure is accessible to syntactic rules.
Yet they are compounds semantically as testified, among other things, by the
large number of lexicalized forms. It should also be noted that a large number of
preverbs are undistinguishable from the formally identical adverbs.
An interesting property of the Hungarian preverbs is that they can be redupli-
cated to express iterativity.12 Consider:
11 Preverbs with a front vowel such as ki can easily be attached to back vowel stems as in ki+mar
‘corrode’, ki+old ‘undo’, ki+rúg ‘kick out’.
12 Iterativity can also be expressed by the verbal suffix -gat which is, however, semantically
radically different from the iterativity expressed by preverb reduplication.
(17a) Ki-ki+megy a kertbe.

prev-prev+go the garden.loc
‘From time to time he/she goes out into the garden.’
(17b) Meg-meg+ír egy levelet.
prev-prev+write the letter.acc
‘From time to time he/she writes a letter.’
The type of iterativity is one of the Aktionarten in Hungarian which, however, is

not expressed by a particular preverb or suffix but by reduplicating the preverb.
Note that reduplicated preverbs cannot be separated from the verb base by
another constituent and they cannot be moved after the verbal base either. From
this property it follows that reduplicated verbs cannot be negated since the nega-
tive particle nem must immediately precede the verbal base, cf. (18). External
negation is, of course, possible (19).
(18a) *Nem meg-meg+ír egy levelet.

not prev-prev+write a letter.acc
(18b) *Nem ír egy levelet meg-meg.
not write a letter.acc prev-prev
(19) Nem igaz, hogy meg-meg+ír egy levelet.

not true that prev-prev+write a letter.acc
‘It is not true that he always (repeatedly) writes a letter.’
These properties seem to suggest that reduplicated forms are not only semanti-
cally but also syntactically words. First they have a specific meaning (to do some-
thing repeatedly), second syntactic rules cannot change their internal structure.
Preverb reduplication is not possible across the board: it must obey a phono-
logical and several semantic constraints. The phonological constraint refers to
the length of the preverb in terms of the number of syllables: preverbs longer than
two syllables cannot be reduplicated, as shown by (20).
(20a) *utána-utána+megy ‘go after, follow’ (lit. after-after go)

(20b) *keresztül-keresztül+vág ‘cut through’ (lit. through-through cut)
As far as the semantic constraints are considered, apparently activities if pushed

to the extreme cannot be reduplicated. The preverbs túl ‘over’, agyon ‘over’, tönkre
‘over’ are used to express the extreme degree of an activity, therefore it does not
come as a surprise that such preverbs cannot be reduplicated. Consider:
(21a) *túl-túl+hangsúlyoz ‘over stress’ (lit. over-over stress)

(21b) *
agyon-agyon+hajszol ‘over-fatigue, work to death’ (lit. over-over work)
(21c) *
tönkre-tönkre+dolgozza magát ‘work oneself to death’ (lit. over-over work)
2.2 Bare noun + verb constructions
According to the literature (Kiefer 1990; Farkas/de Swart 2003), Hungarian bare
noun + verb constructions (in short, BNV constructions) are instances of type I
noun incorporation in terms of Mithun (1984). Mithun describes the phenomenon
as a type of compounding where a verb and a noun with the semantic function of
patient, location or instrument combine to form a new complex verb. The eventu-
ality designated by the BNV construction is not just a random co-occurrence of an
entity and an eventuality, but it is perceived as a recognizable, unitary concept
worth labelling (cf. Mithun 1984: 848 f.).
We consider the Hungarian BNV construction type as a special case of com-
pounding by juxtaposition, the general characteristics of which are briefly cap-
tured by Mithun as follows:
A number of languages contain a construction in which a V and its direct object are simply
juxtaposed to form an especially tight bond. The V and N remain separate words phonolog-
ically; but as in all compounding, the N loses its syntactic status as an argument of the
sentence, and the VN unit functions as an intransitive predicate. The semantic effect is the
same as in other compounding: the phrase denotes a unitary activity, in which the compo-
nents lose their individual salience. (ibid.: 849)
The examples in (22)–(23) below demonstrate some of the commonly recognized

features of the Hungarian BNV construction type.
(22a) Péter újságot olvas.

Peter newspaper.acc read
Péter zenét hallgat.
Peter music.acc listen
Péter tanulmányt ír.
Peter article.acc write
Péter keresztrejtvényt fejt.
Peter crossword.acc solve
Péter ruhát próbál.
Peter outfit.acc try on
‘Peter is reading (a) newspaper(s) / listening to music / writing an article /
solving (a) crossword puzzle(s) / trying on (an) outfit(s).’
(22b) Péter olvassa az újságot.

Peter read.3sg.def the newspaper.acc
Péter hallgatja a zenét.
Peter listen.3sg.def the music.acc
Péter írja a tanulmányt.
Peter write.3sg.def the article.acc
?Péter fejti a keresztrejtvényt.
Peter solve.3sg.def the crossword.acc
?Péter próbálja a ruhát.
Peter try on.3sg.def the outfit.acc
‘Peter is reading the newspaper / listening to the music / writing the article
/ solving the crossword puzzle / trying on the outfit.’
*/?Péter újságot
(23) olvas, és elégedett vele.
Peter newspaper.acc read and content instr
*/?Péter zenét hallgat, és elégedett vele.
Peter music.acc listen and content instr
*/?Péter tanulmányt ír, és elégedett vele.
Peter article.acc write and content instr
*/?Péter keresztrejtvényt fejt, és elégedett vele.
Peter crossword.acc solve and content instr
*/?Péter ruhát próbál, és elégedett vele.
Peter outfit.acc try on and content instr
‘Peter is reading (a) newspaper(s) / listening to music / writing an article /
solving (a) crossword puzzle(s) / trying on (an) outfit(s), and he is content
with it.’
As pointed out by Kiefer (1990: 153 f.) and shown in (22) above, Hungarian BNVs
form one single phonological unit from the point of view of stress assignment
(i. e., only the subject and the incorporated object bear stress on their first sylla-
ble, cf. 22a), while their V + DP counterparts show the opposite pattern (i. e., the
subject, the verb and the direct object all bear separate stress on their first sylla-
ble, cf. 22b). The ill-formedness of some of the constructions in (23) is due to the
fact that some of these BNVs, namely keresztrejtvényt fejt ‘solve crossword puz-
zles’ and ruhát próbál ‘try on outfits’ seem to be lexicalized units without exact
syntactic paraphrases, e. g. V + DP counterparts.
One of the key semantic features of direct object incorporation, often men-
tioned in the literature (cf. Mithun 1984; Kiefer 1990; Farkas/de Swart 2003), is
the non-referentiality of the bare object noun, which means that the nouns in
these BNV constructions do not denote any specific, identifiable entity in the
world. This feature can be tested by adding an anaphoric pronominal constituent

to the sentence, as in (23) above. The examples in (23) are ill-formed because the
nouns in each construction have a type referring function, i. e. they only add a
specific classificatory feature/component to the eventuality expressed by the
verb.
Péter érdekes
(24a) újságot olvas, és elégedett vele.
Peter interesting newspaper.acc read and content instr
P
éter érdekes tanulmányt ír, és elégedett vele.
Peter interesting article.acc write and content instr
‘Peter is reading an interesting newspaper / writing an interesting article,
and he is content with it.’13
(24b) Péter egy érdekes újságot olvas, és elégedett vele.
Peter a interesting newspaper.acc read and content instr
Péter egy érdekes tanulmányt ír, és elégedett vele.
Peter a interesting article.acc write and content instr
‘Peter is reading an interesting newspaper / writing an interesting article,
and he is content with it.’
The constructions in (24a) above are meant to demonstrate the effects of modifi-
cation on BNV constructions. The inserted adjective overrides the non-referenti-
ality property of the object noun and – as a consequence – the complex eventual-
ity meaning of the BNVs. This means that we are dealing with at least two different
construction types from the point of view of semantics and discourse transpar-
ency, as shown by the fact that, contrary to the case of (23), the modified version
of the construction admits the insertion of an anaphoric pronominal constituent
into the sentence. As noted in Kiefer (1990: 152), the constructions like those in
(24a) seem to be some kind of stylistic variants of the full-fledged construction
types shown in (24b).
The number neutrality of the singular incorporated noun is another impor-
tant characteristic of BNVs, and it is strongly connected to the above mentioned
non-referentiality feature. As Farkas/de Swart (2003: 13 f.) point out, morpholog-
ically singular incorporated nouns are compatible with both atomic and non-
atomic interpretations. Most of the examples in (22a) above are underspecified
regarding the number of objects involved in the eventualities described by the
BNVs. The singular noun in the BNV újságot olvas ‘read (a) newspaper(s)’, for
13 Similar things were discussed in considerable detail in Maleczki (1994).

instance, allows for both an atomic (singular) and a non-atomic (plural) interpre-
tation, i. e. the BNV does not specify whether Peter is reading one newspaper or
several newspapers one after the other. As shown by the examples in (25) below,
the varying interpretations are influenced by pragmatic (contextual) information.
The BNV in (25a) triggers an atomic interpretation due to extra linguistic knowl-
edge about marriage related customs (though it would allow for a non-atomic
interpretation in the context of legal bigamy), the one in (25b) clearly triggers an
atomic interpretation (without any cultural variation), finally, the one in (25c)
unambiguously triggers a non-atomic interpretation.
(25a) Feri feleséget keres. (Farkas/de Swart 2003: 14)

Feri wife.acc search
‘Feri is looking for a wife.’
(25b) Anna napfelkeltét néz az erkélyen.
Anna sunrise.acc watch the balcony.loc
‘Anna is watching the sunrise on the balcony.’
(25c) Mari bélyeget gyűjt. (ibid.: 13)
Mari stamp.acc collect
‘Mari is collecting stamps.’
As far as plural bare objects are concerned, the following generalization holds:
plural bare object nouns form grammatical BNVs, however, as shown in (26)
below, their discourse transparency properties are similar to the ones of modified
singular objects, as shown in (25a) above.
(26a) Anna leveleket ír, és elküldi őket.

Anna letter.pl.acc write and prev.send.3sg.def them
‘Anna writes letters and sends them.’
(26b) Az orvos betegeket vizsgál, és megpróbál segíteni rajtuk.
The doctor patient.pl.acc examine and prev.try help.inf loc.3pl
‘The doctor examines patients and tries to help them.’
Finally, a distinction must be made between fully productive and idiomatic cases.
As pointed out in Kiefer (1990), the meaning of idiomatic BNVs cannot be derived
from a corresponding free construction (cf. the examples in (27)–(28) below),
while fully productive BNVs generally have matching syntactic paraphrases as
already demonstrated by the examples in (23a–b) above.
(27a) A behaviorista szemlélet gyökeret vert a

the behaviorist approach root.acc beat.pst the
nyelvészetben is.
linguistics.loc too
‘The behaviorist approach invaded linguistics as well.’
(27b) Péter bocsánatot kért a barátjától.
Peter forgiveness.acc ask.pst the friend.3sg.poss.loc
‘Peter apologized to his friend.’
(27c) Az autó tegnap gazdát cserélt.
the car yesterday owner.acc change.pst
‘The car changed owners yesterday.’
(27d) Mari gyereket vár.
Mari child.acc wait
‘Mari is pregnant.’
(28a) *A behaviorista szemlélet verte a

the behaviorist approach beat.pst.3sg.def the
gyökeret a nyelvészetben is.
root.acc the linguistics.loc too
(28b) *Péter kérte a bocsánatot a barátjától.
Peter ask.pst.3sg.def the forgiveness.acc the friend.3sg.poss.loc
(28c) *Az autó tegnap cserélte a
gazdá(já)t.
the car yesterday change.pst.3sg.def the
owner.(3sg.poss.)acc
(28d) Mari várja a gyereket /
Mari wait.3sg.def the child.acc /
vár egy gyereket.
wait a child.acc
‘Mari is waiting for the / a kid.’
The difference between the lexicalized BNVs in (27a–c) and (27d) is that the for-
mer type cannot be grammatically matched with a syntactic paraphrase (cf.
(28a–c)), while the latter construction type has a well-formed syntactic para-
phrase, however, (synchronically) this paraphrase has nothing to do with the
meaning of its BNV counterpart (compare (27d) and (28d)).
As mentioned above, the most prominent and universal semantic and prag-
matic feature of BNVs is that the eventuality designated by the construction has
to be perceived as a recognizable, unitary concept worth separately labelling.
This ‘institutionalized’ character of the complex activity expressed by the BNV
seems to be a strong criterion regarding the derivation of the construction type.
Thus it does not come as a surprise that not all bare objects are admitted in BNV
constructions with equal ease. Consider the examples in (29b) and (29d) which,
as opposed to those in (29a) and (29c), are odd on their generic reading.
(29a) Mari (épp) újságot olvas a szobájában.

Mari just newspaper.acc read the room.3sg.poss.loc
‘Mari is reading the newspaper in her room.’
(29b) Mari (épp) csomagolást olvas a húsrészlegen.
Mari just package.acc read the meat aisle.loc
‘Mari is reading (a) package(s) in the meat aisle.’
(29c) Virágék (épp) vendéget várnak.
Virág.pl just guest.acc wait.3pl
‘The Virágs are waiting for (a) guest(s).’
(29d) Virágék (épp) világvégét várnak.
Virág.pl just apocalypse.acc wait.3pl
‘The Virágs are waiting for the end of the world.’
The oddness of (29b) is caused by the fact that, generally speaking, reading pack-
ages is not considered a recognizable, re-occurring complex eventuality, how-
ever, the BNV in question becomes acceptable if matched with a proper context:
if, for example, the participants of the speech situation know that Mari has a
habit of reading the package of meat products trying to avoid certain ingredients.
The same holds true for (29d) as well: waiting for the end of the world is generally
not perceived as an ‘institutionalized’ activity, nevertheless, the use of the BNV is
justified in the context of knowing that the Virágs have prepared for the end of the
world on several occasions in the past due to false predictions.
These types of marginal examples show that, although there may be some
pragmatic factors that influence the derivation of BNVs, if the contextual factors
match the corresponding pragmatic criteria, even seemingly odd BNVs will be
considered well-formed.
Finally, mention must be made of the aspectual restrictions filtering the
range of input verbs. The generalization seems to be as follows: activity/process
verbs, i. e. [+dynamic, –telic] verbs potentiate well-formed BNVs, while accom-
plishment and achievement verbs, i. e. [+dynamic, +telic] verbs as well as stative,
i. e. [–dynamic, –telic] verbs do not tend to form grammatical constructions (cf.

Kiefer 1990), as shown by the examples in (30) below.14
(30a) *Péter újságot elolvasott.

Peter newspaper.acc prev.read.pst
*Péter zenét meghallgatott.
Peter music.acc prev.listen.pst
*Péter keresztrejtvényt megfejtett.
Peter crossword.acc prev.solve.pst
‘Peter read the newspaper / listened to music / solved a cross-word
puzzle.’
(30b) ?István keze autót érintett az utcán.
István hand.3sg.poss car.acc touch.pst the street.loc
‘István’s hand touched a car on the street.’
(30c) ?Anna barátot hívott, mert egyedül nem
Anna friend.acc call.pst because alone not
tudta megoldani a problémát.
can.pst solve.inf the problem.acc
‘Anna called (for) a friend, as she could not solve the problem alone.’
(30d) *Tamás poharat tört a konyhában,
Tamás glass.acc break.pst the kitchen.loc
és rögtön bocsánatot kért.
and immediately forgiveness.acc ask.pst
‘Tamás broke a glass in the kitchen and immediately apologized for it.’
(30e) *Éva fiút szeretett, de nem lett jó vége.
Eva boy.acc love.pst but not become good end.3sg.poss
‘Eva loved a boy, but it did not end well.’
(30f) *Laci hegyet látott a kiránduláson.
Laci mountain.acc see.pst the trip.loc
*Laci hegyet látott, amikor fölhívtam.
Laci mountain.acc see.pst when call.pst.1sg.def
‘Laci saw a mountain on the trip / when I called him.’
14 We use the terms activity, achievement, accomplishment and state according to the Vendleri-
an tradition well known in the literature on aspect. Vendler (1967) isolated four situation types:
states (e. g. love, know, etc.), activities (e. g. run), achievements (e. g. reach the summit) and ac-
complishments (e. g. draw a circle). For more on these aspectual categories, cf. Smith (1991), Ten-
ny (1994), Kiefer (2006), etc.
(30g) *Matyi titkot tudott, és hosszú

Matyi secret.acc know.pst and long
ideig nem mondhatta el senkinek.
time.temp not tell.cond.pst prev nobody.dat
‘Matyi knew a secret, and he was not allowed to tell it to anyone for a long
time.’
According to these examples, the above generalization seems to hold true for
Hungarian BNVs. The constructions in (30a–d) derived from telic verbs are
ungrammatical, although a distinction should be made between prefixed and
unprefixed telic verbs, as the latter are invariably ungrammatical in these con-
structions, while in some cases the former may serve as acceptable input verbs
(as shown in (31a–b) below).15 The ungrammatical BNVs like those in (30e–g)
lead to the conclusion that stative verbs are indeed excluded from the range of
possible input verbs, however, as shown in (31d–e), we may find some grammat-
ical BNVs derived from stative verbs as well.
(31a) István keze labdát érintett, és

István hand.3sg.poss ball.acc touch.pst and
a biró észrevette.
the referee observe.pst
‘István’s hand touched the ball, and the referee saw it.’
(31b) Anna mentőt hívott, mert egyedül nem
Anna ambulance.acc call.pst because alonenot
tudta megoldani a problémát.
can.pst solve.inf the problem.acc
‘Anna called an ambulance, as she could not solve the problem alone.’
(31c) Tamás diót tört a kalákán.
Tamás nut.acc break.pst the group work.loc
‘Tamás was cracking nuts at the group work.’
15 The distributional properties of these verb classes are captured in Kiefer (1990: 169) as fol-
lows: “Syntactically, both the bare noun and the prefix belong to the same class of elements, of-
ten referred to as preverb since under normal circumstances an element of this class occupies the
position immediately preceding the verb. Consequently, two preverbs can never co-occur.”
(31d) Mari fájdalmat érzett a bal lábában,

Mari pain.acc feel.pst the left foot.3sg.poss.loc
ezért orvoshoz ment.
hence doctor.loc go.pst
‘Mari felt pain in her left leg, so she went to the doctor.’
(31e) Az éjjeliőr zajt hallott, ezért
the night-watchman noise.acc hear.pst hence
újra ellenőrizte a folyosókat.
again check.pst the hallway.pl.acc
‘The night watchman heard noise, so he checked the hallways again.’
The well-formed examples in (31) violate the aspectual criteria formulated above,
so we need to take a closer look at the semantic and pragmatic features of these
BNVs. The sentences in (31a–b) contain BNVs derived from telic verbs, while the
ones in (31d–e) contain stative verbs. The example in (31c), contrasted with (30d),
is meant to demonstrate how contextual non-atomicity entailments induce aspec-
tual coercion in the case of punctual verbs (the BNV triggers an iterative interpre-
tation, otherwise, with an atomic interpretation, it would be considered ill-
formed, like the one in (30d) above; and reversely: the BNV poharat tör ‘break
glasses’ becomes well-formed with an iterative and habitual interpretation).
The common feature of these BNVs is that they all denote institutionalized,
re-occurring eventualities. The institutionalized nature of the eventualities
expressed by (31a–b) is also shown by their contrast with the constructions in
(30b–c) above: in football, touching the ball with one’s hand is a frequent, pun-
ishable occurrence. The same institutionalized character holds true for the even-
tuality of calling an ambulance and for the stative predicates in (31d–e).
Based on these observations, we conclude that the aspectual criterion
described above should be reduced to a remark regarding the prevalency of pro-
cess verbs in BNVs, as the range of verbs which (potentially) denote institutional-
ized eventualities strongly overlaps with the category of process verbs, however,
some telic and stative verbs also describe eventualities which satisfy the prag-
matic criterion controlling BNV formation.
3 Summary
In the present paper we have summarized the most important facts concerning
compounds and compound-like phrases (= non-prototypical compounds) in
Hungarian. We have concentrated on the productive, or at least regular patterns
of compounding and derivation of compound-like constructions. In particular,
we have stressed the features which deviate from “Standard Average European”.
Some of such features can be found in the case of deverbal compounds as well,
e. g. that the subject argument can be satisfied in compounds which does not
seem to be the case in Germanic or Romance. However, the most striking feature
of Hungarian compounding is the existence of bare noun constructions and their
relation to verbal aspect.
References
Brdar, Mario/Brdar-Szabó, Rita (2014): Syntactic reduplicative constructions in Hungarian (and
elsewhere): Categorization, topicalization and concessivity rolled into one. In: Rundblad,
Gabriella et al. (eds.): Selected Papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference.
London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. 36–51.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria/Williams, Edwin (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Farkas, Donka/de Swart, Henriëtte (2003): The semantics of incorporation: From argument
structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kenesei, István (1986): On the role of the agreement morpheme in Hungarian. ALH 86, 1–4.
104–120.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1990): Noun incorporation in Hungarian. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40, 1–2.
149–177.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1992): Compounding in Hungarian. Rivista di Linguistica 4, 1. 45–55.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1993): Thematic roles and compounds. Folia Linguistica 27, 1–2. 25–55.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2000): A szóösszetétel [Compounds]. In: Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.): Strukturális magyar
nyelvtan 3. Morfológia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 519–568.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2006): Aspektus és akcióminőség – különös tekintettel a magyar nyelvre [Aspect
and Aktionsart – with special emphasis on Hungarian]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Kiefer, Ferenc (2009): Compounding in Hungarian. In: Lieber, Rochelle/Stekauer, Pavol (eds.):
Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks. 527–541.
Kiefer, Ferenc/Németh, Boglárka (2018): Aspectual constraints on noun incorporation in
Hungarian. In: Zoltán, Huba Bartos/den Dikken, Marcel/Váradi, Tamás (eds.): Boundaries
crossed: Studies of the crossroads of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics, and
semantics. Berlin: Springer. 21–32.
Ladányi, Mária (2007): Produktivitás és analógia a szóképzésben [Productivity and analogy in
word formation]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Maleczki, Márta (1994): Bare common nouns and their relation to the temporal constitution of
events in Hungarian. In: Dekker, Paul/Stokhof, Martin (eds.): Proceedings of the Eighth
Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation,
University of Amsterdam. 347–365.
Mithun, Marianne (1984): The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60. 847–895.
Smith, Carlota (1991): The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tenny, Carol L. (1994): Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer.
Vendler, Zeno (1967): Verbs and times. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca/New York: Duke

Bauer 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bauer 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bauer 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complex Lexical Units

Konvergenz und Divergenz

Sprachvergleichende Studien zum Deutschen

Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions

Edited by Barbara Schlücker

Redaktion: Dr. Anja Steinhauer

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 2018964353

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2019 Barbara Schlücker, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Annett Patzschewitz

Kristel Van Goethem/Dany Amiot

Ferenc Kiefer/Boglárka Németh

Open Access. © 2019 Finkbeiner/Schlücker, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed

2.1 The notion of the lexicon

It is a widely held assumption that the lexicon is a repository of stored linguistic

2.2 L exicon-syntax interface

In early conceptions of Generative Grammar, the lexicon was conceived of as a

A word therefore is to be thought of not as a passive unit to be pushed around in a deriva-

2.4 Compounds and multi-word expressions in the lexicon

The criterion of lexicalization, i. e. the property of being a (complex) lexical unit,

(a) [+morphological], [+lexical]

Of these four options, (a) represents the prototypical instance of a lexicalized

sitional. Both can be regarded as semantic units, however. As to the frequency

2.5 Problem of correspondence

spondence between compounds and MWEs cannot be described in a uniform

3.1 West Germanic languages and German

As German is a West Germanic language, more similarities than differences with

8 Stalen is a relational adjective derived from the noun staal ‘steel’.

3.2 North Germanic languages and German

The North Germanic languages comprise the continental Scandinavian languages

18 The exponent 1/2 replaces the primary stress sign.

3.3 Romance languages and German

In Romance, morphological compounding is much more restricted than in Ger-

2011; Arnaud 2015). Thus, syntactic impenetrability, inseparability, and unaltera-

3.4 Modern Greek and German

Starting with compounding proper, it is remarkable that virtually all proper-

As for MWEs, two particularly interesting constructions that relate to the

Greek lexical [A N] sequences as syntactic compounds (N0) within the framework

3.5 Slavic languages and German

In addition to the formation of endocentric and coordinate compounds of

(i. e. in the non-Slavic literature) as the fixation of a phrasal item as a single

3.6 Finno-Ugric languages and German

Compounding is a productive word-formation pattern both in Finnish and Hun-

feketes+zoftver (A+N) ‘black/illegal software’, Finnish kylmä+varasto (A+N) ‘cool

Lexical noun phrases, their morphosyntactic properties and the question of

This section is devoted to a discussion and summary of the preceding sections.

perspective, all of them also emerged as problematic in at least one language, or

What makes a compound morphological should be defined on a language-specific basis,

Although it is ultimately impossible to weigh the various criteria against each

Chomsky, Noam (1970): Remarks on Nominalization. In: Jacobs, Roderick A./Rosenbaum,

Masini, Francesca (2009): Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist

Villoing, Florence (2012): French compounds. In: Probus 24, 1. 29–60.

2 The notion of ‘word’

to define ‘word’ sufficiently well to allow a definition of a compound as a word to

(1) Forestress End-stress

(2) I badge-flashed my way to the scene.1

(3a) Doctor Johnson, Miss Havisham, King George

of apposition, but it is less clear: Model T is something which deserves at least

2.1 The notion of the lexicon

2.2 L exicon-syntax interface

2.4 Compounds and multi-word expressions in the lexicon

2.5 Problem of correspondence

3.1 West Germanic languages and German

3.2 North Germanic languages and German

3.3 Romance languages and German

3.4 Modern Greek and German

3.5 Slavic languages and German

3.6 Finno-Ugric languages and German

2 The notion of ‘word’

3.3 Other word-classes +N

3.5 Verbal compounds

3.6 Compounds in minor word-classes

3.10 Phrases as words

4.1 L iteral interpretation

4.2 F igurative interpretation

4.4 Quotations, proverbs and the like

2.1 Identifying compounds and MWEs in German

2.2 Proportion of MWEs and compounds in the German lexicon

3 Overview of German MWEs and compounds

3.1 Prepositions and conjunctions

3.2 Adverbs and adverbials

3.4 Adjectival compounds and MWEs

(12a) butterweich, gummiweich, wachsweich, watteweich

3.5 Nominal compounds and MWEs

1 I ntroduction: morphological and phrasal

2 Demarcation of compounds and phrases

2.1 L exical Integrity