Article published in:
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 461–478

Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation

| Victoria University of Wellington
The distinction between endocentric and exocentric is usually taken as an important semantic factor in classifying compounds. But the same division does not appear to be used in classifying derivatives. This may be because exocentricity has no obvious correlates in derivation; but it is argued here that its correlates in compounding are illusory, and that there are alternative, and probably more explanatory, ways of dealing with exocentrics.
Published online: 29 June 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.15bau
References

References

Allan, Keith
1986 Linguistic Meaning, Vol 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. D.
1974 Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142: 5–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1990 Be-heading the word. Journal of Linguistics 26: 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008a Dvandva. Word Structure 1: 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008b Exocentric compounds. Morphology 18: 51–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 The typology of exocentric compounding. In Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311], Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds),167–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Huddleston, Rodney
2002 Lexical word-formation. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 1621–1721. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo
2013 The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Leila
2002 Structuring of word meaning II: Aspects of polysemy. In Lexicologie/Lexicology, Vol 1, D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Rolf Lutzeier (eds), 319–337. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benczes, Réka
2006 Creative Compounding in English. The Semantics of Methaphorical and Metonymical Noun-noun Combinations [Human Cognitive Processing 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2007 The Grammar of Words, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Compounding and construction morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 201–216. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugene
1977 Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des Typs coupe-papier). In Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung, Herbert E. Brekle & Dieter Kastovsky (eds), 46–61. Bonn: Grundmann.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.Alan
1992 Monosemy and polysemy. Linguistics 30: 577–599.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert & Zawada, Britta
(eds) 2001 Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 177]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul D.
1988 Polysemy and cognition. Lingua 75: 325–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel
1998 Compounding. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 66–83. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1993 Vagueness’s puzzle, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 223–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gragg, Gene B.
1984 Polysemy and derivation: areal-diachronic perspectives. In Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, David Testen, Veena Mishra & Joseph Drogo (eds), 131–142. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2002 Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Schwarze, Christoph
2013 Italian V+N compounds, inflectional features and conceptual structure. Morphology 23: 325–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1936 Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6: 240–288.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter
1982 Wortbildung und Semantik. Duesseldorf: Bagel & Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis & Stonham, John
2006 Morphology, 2nd edn. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
2013 The role of creativity in the cognitive turn in linguistics. International Review of Pragmatics 5: 271–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, John & Savini, Vincenzo M.
2004 Using Italian. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koskela, A. & Murphy, M. Lynne
2006 Polysemy and homonymy. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 9, Keith Brown (ed.), 742–744. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne
1990 Polysemy, conventionality and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics 1–2: 207–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Polysemy in derivational affixes. In Trends in Linguistics: Polysemy. Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language, Brigitte Nehrlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman & David D. Clarke (eds), 217–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
2004 Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Love, Catherine E.
1985 Collins Giunti Marzocco Concise Italian- English English-Italian Dictionary. Firenze: Giunti & Glasgow: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Robustelli, Cecilia
2000 A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne
2010 Lexical Meaning. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1972 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruhl, Charles
1989 On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Bisetto, Antonietta
2009 The classification of compounds. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 34–53. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Fábregas, Antonio
2010 The head in compounding. In Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311], Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds), 109–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene
2010 Why compounding? In Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311], Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2013 Lexical Relatedness. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David
1993 Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 273–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Bauer, Laurie
2018. Conversion as metonymy. Word Structure 11:2 ► pp. 175 ff. Crossref logo
BAUER, LAURIE
2020. Blackbirds and blue whales: stress in English A+N constructions. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.