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 (55)
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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 5 july 2024. 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.