Cover not available
Article published In:
Contrasting contrastive approaches
Guest-edited by Bart Defrancq
[Languages in Contrast 15:1] 2015
► pp. 65–80

Morphological contrasts between Modern Greek and Italian

The case of compounding

| University of Athens

The aim of this paper is to discuss topics in contrastive morphology, combining the perspectives of morphological theory and contrastive linguistics. After an overview of the recent literature on contrastive morphology and the relevant ‘tertia comparationis’ in Section 2, Section 3 focuses on the main differences between compounding in Modern Greek and Italian (e.g. the position of the morphological head, the pattern stem+stem in Modern Greek vs. the pattern word+word in Italian). The diachronic dimension, the inflectional system and the role of syntax are put forward as explanatory factors for the differences between the two languages. Two recent types of compounds, [V+V] V in Modern Greek and [V+N] N in Italian, are therefore examined contrastively. The contrastive analysis of compounding is based on three types of equivalence: ‘system equivalence’, ‘rule equivalence’, and ‘morphological age equivalence’. The main conclusion is that a contrastive approach to morphology enables us to deepen our understanding of both the fundamental distinction and the fundamental interconnection between morphology and syntax.

Keywords: compounding, morphology, equivalence, Modern Greek/Italian
Published online: 3 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1.04gia
References
Aerts, Willem and Hero Hokwerda
2002 Lexicon on the Chronicle of Morea. Groningen: Forsten.Google Scholar
Anastasiadi-Symeonidi, Anna
1994 Neological Borrowing in Modern Greek. Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2008 Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1994 Productivity. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R.E. Asher (ed.), vol. 61: 3354–3357. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
2001 Compounding. In Language Typology and Language Universals, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), 695–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta
2004 Composizione con elementi italiani. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, M. Grossmann and F. Rainer (eds), 33–51. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta and Sergio Scalise
1999 Compounding. Morphology and/or Syntax?. In Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, L. Mereu (ed.), 31–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 The Classification of Compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio IV (2): 319–332.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2005 The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1978 La formación de palabras desde el punto de vista del contenido. A propósito del tipo ‘coupe-papier’. In Gramática, semántica, universales. Estudios de lingüística funcional, E. Coseriu, 239–264. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Crocco-Galèas, Grazia and Dressler, Wolfgang
1992 Trasparenza morfotattica e morfosemantica dei composti nominali più produttivi dell’ italiano di oggi. In Linee di tendenza dell’ italiano contemporaneo, B. Moretti, D. Petrini, S. Bianconi (eds), 9–24. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène
[1874] 1967 Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes at au latin. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Debrunner, Alfred
1917 Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Di Domenico Elisa
1997 Per una teoria del genere grammaticale. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Dik, Helma
1995 Word Order in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Drachman, Gaberell and Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki
1994 Stress and Greek Compounding. Phonologica 1992, W.U. Dressler, M. Prinzhorn and J.R. Rennison (eds), 55–64. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and König, Ekkehard
2008 Introduction. ZAA 56 (3): 213–214.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker
2008 Verb-noun Compounds in English and German. ZAA 56 (3): 269–282.Google Scholar
Giannoulopoulou, Giannoula
2006 On the Borderline between Lexicon and Grammar: Confixes in Modern Greek and Italian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 59 (3): 270–283.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2002 Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Humbert, Jean
1954 Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Hüning, Matthias
2009 Semantic Niches and Analogy in Word Formation. Evidence from Contrastive Linguistics. Languages in Contrast 9(2): 183–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Carl
1980 Contrastive Analysis. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene
1987 Modern Greek. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes and Pusch, Claus, D
2011 The Romance Languages. In The Languages and Linguistics of Europe. A Comprehensive Guide, B. Kortmann and J. van der Auwera (eds), vol. 11: 69–96. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
2012 Contrastive Linguistics and Language Comparison. Languages in Contrast 12 (1): 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz
1990 Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude and Cartoni, Bruno
2011 Prefixes in Contrast. Towards a Meaning-based Contrastive Methodology for Lexical Morphology. Languages in Contrast 11 (1): 87–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manolessou, Io and Tsolakidis, Symeon
2009 Greek Coordinated Compounds: Diachrony and Synchrony. Patras Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 23–39.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan
2003 Topic, Focus and Discourse Structure: Ancient Greek Word Order. Studies in Language 27 (3): 573–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melissaropoulou, Dimitra and Ralli, Angela
2010 Greek Derivational Structures: Restrictions and Constraints. Morphology 20 (2): 343–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Migliorini, Bruno
1946 Recensione a: Tollemache, F. (1945) Le parole composte nella lingua italiana. Lingua Nostra 71: 61.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Ralli, Angela
1996 Morphology-phonology interface: Phonological Domains in Greek Compounds. The Linguistic Review 13(3-4): 357–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oniga, Renato
1992 Compounding in Latin. Rivista di Linguistica 4 (1): 97–116.Google Scholar
Pagliaro, Antonino
1930 Sommario di linguistica arioeuropea. Roma.Google Scholar
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene
1985 Word order in Modern Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 21: 113–143.Google Scholar
Pisani, Vittore
1934 Panini, Magha e l’ imperativo descrittivo. In Id., Studi di Lingua e Filologia. Roma.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela
1992 Compounds in Modern Greek. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 143–174.Google Scholar
2000 A Feature-based Analysis of Greek Nominal Inflection. Glossologia 11-121: 201–227.Google Scholar
2002 “The role of morphology in gender determination: evidence form Modern Greek”. Linguistics 40(3): 519–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Morfologia [Morphology] (in Greek). Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
2013 Compounding in Modern Greek. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, Angela and Maria Raftopoulou
1999 I synthesi stin Elliniki os diachroniko fenomeno schimatismou lexeon [Compounding in Modern Greek as a diachronic word-formation phenomenon] (in Greek). In Studies in the Greek language, 389–403. Thessaloniki: Aristotele University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard
1969 Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. (vol. III1). Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio
1992 Compounding in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 4 (1): 175–199.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio and Antonietta Bisetto
2008 La struttura delle parole. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin
1990 Analyticity and Syntheticity. A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Analysis and Synthesis. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R.E. Asher and J.M.Y. Simpson (eds), vol. 11: 111–114. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Stefanelli, Rossana
1999 Su alcuni composti esocentrici dell’ italiano: il tipo V+V (saliscendi, andirivieni, fuggifuggi). Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica (Università di Firenze) 91: 31–47.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, Pavao
1972 Grammatica storica dell’ italiano. Lessico (vol. III1). Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Tsangalidis, Anastasios
2011 Greek. In The Languages and Linguistics of Europe.A Comprehensive Guide, B. Kortmann and J. van der Auwera (eds), vol. 11: 223–239. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tserepis, Georgios
1902 Ta syntheta tis ellinikis glossis [Compounds of the Greek Language] (in Greek). Athens: Sakellariou.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel
2007 French and Dutch Preverbs in Contrast. A Case Study of French sur- and Dutch op- and over- . Languages in Contrast 7 (1): 83–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, Dominique, Bart Defrancq, Timothy Colleman, Dirk and Noël
(eds) 2004 Contrastive Analysis in Language. Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Koutsoukos, Nikos
2021. Denominal verb formationin English and Modern Greek. Languages in Contrast 21:1 ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 march 2023. 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.