University of Calgary
UofC Navigation

Abstract: Filonik

            Ukrainian N+N compounds in (1) and (2) at first glance can be classified as belonging to the same type – dvandva compounds. However, they demonstrate different behaviour when undergoing adjective-forming affixation (respectively, in (3) and (4)).  In my presentation, I will attempt to account for such a puzzling difference.

 

(1)       xlib - sil’

            bread salt

            ‘food’

(2)       deputat-bjutivec’

            deputy  BJuT-er

            ‘MP who belongs to the political party BJuT (Block of Julija Tymošenko)’

(3)       N         →  Adj.

            xlib-sil’xlibosol’nyj

(4)       N → Adj.

            deputat-bjutivec’ *deputatobjutivs’kyj

           

            I will argue that such a contrast can be explained by the fact that these compounds belong to different classes, since relationships between their elements are distinct: xlib-sil’ in (1) is an appositional compound, while deputat-bjutivec’ in (2) is a dvandva. I will provide semantic and structural evidence in support of such classification of the compounds.

 

References

 

  1. Bauer, Laurie. 2008. Dvandva. Word Structure 1. 1-20.
  2. Fabb, Nigel. 1998. Compounding. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), A handbook of morphology, 66–83. Malden MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Katamba, Francis 1993. Morphology.Basingstoke: Macmillan.

 

  1. WardDennis. 1973. Appositional Compounds in Russian. The Slavonic and 
    East European Review
    51(122). 7-10.