COMPOUNDING (B. Szymanek) 3.1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter we present an overview of compounding in Polish. In comparison to English, Polish compounds account for a relatively small section of the lexicon of morphologically complex words. Generally speaking, the process is less productive, although there are areas within the vocabulary and specific types of compounds which, in recent years, have shown a remarkable spread or revitalization of this process-type. Besides, there are interesting formal properties which characterise the class of compounds in Polish. These will be outlined and illustrated below, followed by a general semantic classification (for a more detailed division, see Kurzowa 1976). As in other languages, a compound lexeme in Polish can be defined as a combination of two or more roots or stems which may function as independent lexical items, unless they have the status of so-called combining forms (see below). The bulk of the relevant data consists of compound nouns. Compound adjectives are also fairly common. Hence we divide the following discussion into two main parts. For the sake of completeness, one should note that formation of compound verbs is completely unproductive in contemporary Polish, although a few older (often obsolete and/or lexicalised) coinages of this type do exist; e.g. cudzoło Ŝyć ‘commit adultery’, lekcewa Ŝyć ‘snub, disregard’, zmartwychwsta ć ‘rise from the dead’, etc. (Nagórko 1998: 196). Besides, as far as function words are concerned, traditional grammar books identify the class of compound prepositions (combinations of two prepositions) like po + za > poza ‘outside / behind / besides’, po + przez > poprzez ‘through(out)’, z + nad > znad ‘from above’. However, by definition, this set is extremely limited and so negligible in the context of this survey. 3.2. COMPOUND NOUNS To begin with, it ought to be pointed out that, in Polish, a typical equivalent of an English N+N combination has the status of (a) a noun phrase with an inflected noun modifier (usually in the genitive), (b) a noun phrase incorporating a prepositional phrase modifier, or (c) a noun phrase, involving a denominal, relational adjective as a modifier (derivation), as is illustrated below: (1) A. telefone number a. numer telefon-u ‘telephone number’ b. *numer do telefon-u c. *numer telefon-icz-n-y B. computer paper a. *papier komputer-a b. papier do komputer-a c. papier komputer-ow-y C. toothbrush a. *szczoteczka z ęb-ów b. szczoteczka do z ęb-ów c. *szczoteczka z ęb-ow-a D. teachers’ demands a. Ŝą dania nauczyciel-i 1 b. ? Ŝą dania od nauczyciel-i c. Ŝą dania nauczyciel-ski-e Evidently, alternative structures are often available (the kind of construction to use in every single case depends on a variety of factors which need not concern us here). What is important is the fact that both inflection and derivation are involved, but not compounding. That is to say, there are no compounds like * komputeropapier or * telefononumer , to parallel the English counterparts. This may partly explain why the number of nominal compounds is not so spectacular in Polish. Quite simply, certain functions that are served by compounding in other languages tend to be realized by syntactic, inflectional and/or derivational means in Polish. However, there is a wealth of evidence to demonstrate that nominal compounding is, relatively speaking, a live process in Polish, too. Typically, a compound noun (or adjective) in Polish must involve a so-called linking vowel (intermorph, interfix, connective) which links (or separates) the two constituent stems. As a rule, the vowel in question is -o-, but there are other possibilities as well which surface in compound nouns incorporating verbs or (some) numerals in the first position. In the latter case, the intermorph is -i-/-y- or -u-, respectively (see Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina 1999: 458). Consider the following straightforward examples where the linking element appears in bold type, hyphenated for ease of exposition: (2) Stem 1 Stem 2 Compound N gwiazd-a ‘star’ + zbiór ‘collection’ > gwiazd-o-zbiór ‘constellation’ siark-a ‘sulphur’ + wodór ‘hydrogen’ > siark-o-wodór ‘hydrogen sulphide’ star-y ‘old’ + druk ‘print, n.’ > star-o-druk ‘antique book’ Ŝyw-y ‘live’ płot ‘fence’ > Ŝyw-o-płot ‘hedge’ łam-a-ć ‘break’ + strajk ‘strike’ > łam-i-strajk ‘strike-breaker’ mocz-y-ć ‘soak, v.’ + mord-a ‘mug, kisser’ > mocz-y-morda ‘soak, n.’ dw-a ‘two’ + głos ‘voice’ > dw-u-głos ‘dialogue’ 1 dw-a ‘two’ + tygodnik ‘weekly’ > dw-u-tygodnik ‘biweekly’ Prosodically, the compounds are distinguished from phrases by the fact that they receive a single stress on the penultimate syllable (in accordance with the regular pattern of word stress in Polish). Thus, for instance, STA•ry•DRUK (phrase) vs. sta•RO•druk (compound). Morphologically, the typical presence of the interfix (usually -o-) does not exhaust the range of formal complications. In fact, there may be no interfix at all, in certain types of compounds. In some cases, the lack of an interfix seems to be lexically determined. For instance, most combinations involving the noun mistrz ‘master’ as their head have no linking 1 The intermorph -u-, which appears in some compound nouns and adjectives when it follows a numeral is, in fact, heavily restricted in its distribution: it mainly appears after the numerals dwa ‘two’ ( dwud źwi ęk ‘double note’, dwutorowy ‘double-track’) and in combinations thereof (e.g. dwana ście ‘twelve’ > dwunastolatek ‘twelve- year-old, dwadzie ścia ‘twenty’ > dwudziestozłotówka ‘twenty zloty note’, dwie ście ‘two hundred’ > dwustustronicowy ‘two-hundred-page’) as well as sto ‘one hundred’ ( stulecie ‘century’; exception: stonoga ‘centipede’) plus the following combinations of sto : dwie ście ‘two hundred’ ( dwustu -), trzysta ‘three hundred’ (trzystu -), czterysta ‘four hundred’ ( czterystu -, e.g. czterystumetrowiec ‘400-metre runner’). With most of the remaining numerals, the principal intermorph -o- is used (cf. Pi ęcioksi ąg ‘Pentateuch’, osiemnastolatek ‘eighteen-year-old’, osiemdziesięciopi ęciostronicowy ‘eighty-five-page’); after pi ęć set ‘five hundred’ and higher round hundreds no intermorph is used (e.g. pi ęć setlecie ‘five-hundredth anniversary’). Cf. also the irregular allomorphy trzy -/trój - ‘three’; the latter variant, with no intermorph, is used in a few lexicalised combinations (e.g. trójskok ‘triple jump’, trójwymiarowy ‘three-dimensional’ vs. trzycz ęś ciowy ‘three-part’, trzydrzwiowy ‘three-door’). 2 vowel (e.g. balet-mistrz ballet master’, kapel-mistrz ‘bandmaster’, zegar-mistrz ‘clockmaker’; but tor-o-mistrz ‘railway specialist’, organ-o-mistrz / organ-mistrz ‘organ specialist’). In other cases, the omission of the intermorph seems to be due to the phonological characteristics of the input forms: if the final segment of the first constituent and/or the initial segment of the second constituent is a sonorant, the combination is likely to be realized without any intervening connective (e.g. pół-noc ‘midnight’, noc-leg ‘lodging, accommodation’, ćwier ć- nuta ‘crotchet, quarter note’, trój-kąt ‘triangle’, hulaj-noga ‘scooter’ (see Kurzowa 1976: 68). The intermorph is not isolable, either, in some compounds involving so-called combining forms (see below). Another feature that blurs the picture is the frequent occurrence of co-formatives, i.e. morphological elements which, side by side with the interfix itself, contribute to the structure of a given compound. Thus, for instance, fairly common are compound nouns of the following structure: STEM1+interfix +STEM2+suffix, i.e. there is both an interfix and a suffix which jointly function as exponents of the category (hence the Polish traditional term: formacje interfiksalno-sufiksalne ). Consider a few examples: (3) Stem 1 Stem 2 Compound N nos ‘nose’ róg ‘horn’ nos-o-ro Ŝ-ec ‘rhinoceros’ (cf. *nos-o-róg) dług-i ‘long’ dystans ‘distance’ dług-o-dystans-owiec ‘long-distance runner’ obc-y ‘foreign’ kraj ‘country’ obc-o-kraj-owiec ‘foreigner’ drug-a ‘second’ klas-a ‘form’ drug-o-klas-ist(a) ‘second-form pupil’ prac-a ‘job’ daw-a-ć ‘give’ prac-o-daw-c(a) ‘employer’ gry ź-ć ‘bite’ piór-o ‘pen’ gryz-i-piór-ek ‘pen-pusher’ It may be seen that each of the compounds on the list ends in a suffix. The suffixes -ec , - owiec , -ist (a), -c(a), and -ek are quite common in this function, so that they may be said to do some of the formative work, as far as compounding is concerned, together with the linking vowel. Various other Polish compounds end in a suffix, too, which has a fundamentally different status though, since it is inflectional. However, as we shall see, it may also have an important role to play, from the point of view of word-formation. Incidentally, it will be noticed that the examples of compounds given so far are all masculine nouns, which typically have no overt inflectional ending in the nominative sg. (thus e.g. gwiazdozbiór-ø, nosoro Ŝec - ø). Here the gender of the whole combination is inherited from gender specification on the head (in case it is nominal). Thus gwiazdozbiór is masculine because zbiór is masculine, etc. Yet, in quite a few compounds there is a gender-class shift, for instance from feminine to neuter or masculine, as in the following examples: (4) Stem 1 Stem 2 Compound N wod-a ‘water’ głow-a ‘head’ wod-o-głowi-e ‘hydrocephalus’ [+feminine] [+neuter] płask-a ‘flat’ stop-a ‘foot’ płask-o-stopi-e ‘flat foot’ [+feminine] [+neuter] czarn-a ‘black’ ziemi-a ‘earth’ czarn-o-ziem-ø [+feminine] [+masculine] Thus, the compound status of wodogłowie (rather than * wodogłowa ) is signalled by two things: first, the presence of the usual connective -o- and, secondly, the gender-class modification, which results in a completely different paradigm of declension (cf. a few forms in the singular: głow-a nom., głow-y gen., głowi-e dat. vs. wodogłowi-e nom., wodogłowi-a 3 gen., wodogłowi-u dat, etc.).