text:
Compounding in Morphology
Summary and Keywords
Compounding is a word formation process based on the combination of lexical elements (words or stems). In the theoretical literature, compounding is discussed controversially, and the disagreement also concerns basic issues. In the study of compounding, the questions guiding research can be grouped into four main areas, labeled here as delimitation, classification, formation, and interpretation. Depending on the perspective taken in the research, some of these may be highlighted or backgrounded.
In the delimitation of compounding, one question is how important it is to be able to determine for each expression unambiguously whether it is a compound or not. Compounding borders on syntax and on affixation. In some theoretical frameworks, it is not a problem to have more typical and less typical instances, without a precise boundary between them. However, if, for instance, word formation and syntax are strictly separated and compounding is in word formation, it is crucial to draw this borderline precisely. Another question is which types of criteria should be used to distinguish compounding from other phenomena. Criteria based on form, on syntactic properties, and on meaning have been used. In all cases, it is also controversial whether such criteria should be applied crosslinguistically.
In the classification of compounds, the question of how important the distinction between the classes is for the theory in which they are used poses itself in much the same way as the corresponding question for the delimitation. A common classification uses headedness as a basis. Other criteria are based on the forms of the elements that are combined (e.g., stem vs. word) or on the semantic relationship between the components. Again, whether these criteria can and should be applied crosslinguistically is controversial.
The issue of the formation rules for compounds is particularly prominent in frameworks that emphasize form-based properties of compounding. Rewrite rules for compounding have been proposed, generalizations over the selection of the input form (stem or word) and of linking elements, and rules for stress assignment. Compounds are generally thought of as consisting of two components, although these components may consist of more than one element themselves. For some types of compounds with three or more components, for example copulative compounds, a nonbinary structure has been proposed.
The question of interpretation can be approached from two opposite perspectives. In a semasiological perspective, the meaning of a compound emerges from the interpretation of a given form. In an onomasiological perspective, the meaning precedes the formation in the sense that a form is selected to name a particular concept. The central question in the interpretation of compounds is how to determine the relationship between the two components. The range of possible interpretations can be constrained by the rules of compounding, by the semantics of the components, and by the context of use. A much-debated question concerns the relative importance of these factors.
Keywords: definition, head, synthetic compound, exocentric compound, copulative compound, Recoverably Deletable Predicate, skeleton and body, Parallel Architecture, onomasiological approach
Compounding is a word formation process based on the combination of lexical elements. The elements can be characterized as words, stems, or lexemes, depending on the language and on the theoretical framework adopted. In the theoretical literature, the discussion of compounding is marked by disagreement on basic issues. Here, these issues will be grouped into four main areas, labeled as delimitation, classification, formation, and interpretation. To each of these, a section will be devoted. Not all of the issues are equally important in all theoretical frameworks and perspectives. A question that concerns all of them is to what extent theories can be applied crosslinguistically. The final section gives some general considerations about the relationship between the different issues. As much of the discussion in the literature focuses on English, English compounds will be central in the presentation of issues. However, examples from other languages will be included as well, in particular when they raise issues that do not arise in English.
1. Delimitation
A wide range of criteria have been used to characterize compounds and distinguish them from other phenomena, in particular syntactic phrases and derivations. The preference for certain criteria is determined by three questions, listed in (1).
A typical compound in English is textbook. It has a range of properties that can be evaluated for the three factors in (1). Morphologically, it consists of two uninflected nouns. Phonologically, it has a characteristic stress pattern. Orthographically, the two components are written together. Syntactically, it behaves as a noun. Semantically, it refers to a type of book, marked in some way by text.
When these properties are considered in the light of (1), a good example of (1a) is the question of whether orthographic criteria are acceptable. In many linguistic theories, starting from Saussure (1916), it is assumed that orthography is not itself part of language. Such considerations have to be distinguished from the question how useful the criterion is. It is well known that in English, the orthography of many compounds is variable. Lieber and Štekauer (2009, p. 7) give the example of flower pot, flower-pot, flowerpot. This makes it difficult to decide whether it is a compound on the basis of this orthographic criterion, a problem of type (1c). Whereas in English, compounds are most often written as two words, in other Germanic languages compounds are generally written together, which highlights the issue in (1b). The combination of problems involved has led to a fairly general rejection of orthography as a criterion for compoundhood.
Phonological criteria offer a good example of the problems involved in a positive answer to (1b). The Dutch examples in (2) illustrate contexts for final obstruent devoicing.
The final consonant of the stem in (2a) is realized as /t/ at the end of a word, but when it is followed by an affix starting with a vowel, whether inflectional as in (2b) or derivational as in (2c), resyllabification takes place and the final consonant is realized as /d/. Dutch orthography represents the underlying /d/ in all cases. Compounds as in (2d) do not have resyllabification, so that the final obstruent is devoiced and realized as /t/.
A criterion for recognizing compounds based on final obstruent devoicing would necessarily be language-specific. In English, the rule does not apply. In other languages where it applies, there is no reason to assume that it works in exactly the same way as in Dutch. Moreover, in many Dutch compounds, the rule does not have any observable effect. In hoofdkussen (lit. 'head cushion'; i.e., pillow), the context for resyllabification does not exist. In kunstacademie ('art academy'), the first component does not have an underlying voiced final obstruent. This reduces the value of the criterion in case of a positive answer to (1c). Similar considerations apply to criteria based on stress (cf. Giegerich, 2009).
Morphosyntactic criteria take as their starting point the structure of the compound. Usually, a structure such as (3) is assumed.
Adopting the binary structure in (3) means that compounds with more than two basic components, for example church history textbook, are the result of recursion, in this example [[church history] [textbook]]. For certain types of compound, for example philosopher-singer-songwriter, such an analysis is rather unnatural, because the choice between the possible orders of combination is arbitrary. However, (3) gives a good basis for discussing morphosyntactic properties of (most) compounds. In English and other Germanic languages, Y is usually the head of the compound.
One relevant issue is the status of X and Y. Especially in the German tradition, there is a tendency to identify intermediate categories between stem and affix. Fleischer (1969, pp. 63–66) is an influential early source on this, but he refers to older sources. Often affixoid is used for elements such as ‑man in postman or ‑ful in careful. This approach is not compatible with a positive reply to (1c), but rather introduces a cline from more stem-like to more affix-like elements, resulting in more compound-like or more derivation-like words.
Another issue pertaining to X and Y in (3) is to what extent they can be inflected. The problem can be illustrated with the plural inflection in Dutch (4) and Italian (5).
In (4), there are two singular nouns (Z) formed with the same components, but X is singular in (4a) and plural in (4b). They have a different meaning in the sense that (4a) designates a council for a city, whereas in (4b) the council has its scope over several cities. Both nouns are generally considered compounds in Dutch. In (5), the contribution of X and Y is reversed. In Italian, N+N compounds are left-headed. As a consequence, the plural ending can either attach to the head X, as in (5b), or to the full compound Z, as in (5c). Dictionaries tend to give (5b), but grammars give both forms, for example, Dardano and Trifone (1985, p. 120). If (4) and (5) are compounds, meaningful inflection of components as well as inflection of the compound attaching to the first component must be accepted.
A slightly different case is genitive inflection. Some relevant examples from different languages are given in (6).
German (6a) is generally considered a compound. It should be noted, however, that Friedens is the genitive form of Frieden ('peace'). Traditionally, the ending ‑s is analyzed as a linking element in German grammar. Historically, many linking elements have their origin in genitive endings. Synchronically, however, there are some frequent combinations that do not correspond to genitives, as in (7).
As illustrated in (7), all nouns in ‑ung and ‑heit have a linking element ‑s when they appear as X in a structure such as (3). The genitive form of these nouns is the same as the nominative, without ‑s, and they do not have ‑s as an inflectional ending in other forms either. On the status of linking elements and their relation to syntax, cf. Koliopoulou (2014).
The English genitive in (6b) is ambiguous. As noted by ten Hacken (1994, pp. 81–83), the ambiguity can be resolved in various ways. One of them is by means of agreement with the determiner, as in (8).
As indicated by the brackets, this in (8a) determines the bracketed complex expression α, whereas these in (8b) is part of the noun phrase β. Therefore, (6b) may be considered a compound in contexts such as (8a) but not in contexts such as (8b). From Marchand's (1969, pp. 65–69) discussion, it is obvious that the genitive construction illustrated in (8a) is particularly common with human or at least animate nouns as X.
If Polish (6c) is considered as a compound, it is left-headed. However, traditional Polish grammar considers it as a lexicalized syntactic construction (e.g., Szymanek, 2010, p. 218). Observing the parallelism with the English construction, ten Hacken (2013a) argues for an analysis as a compound, while noting the same ambiguity as in (8).
A third interesting case is that of relational adjectives (RAs). The way inflection plays a role in RA+N constructions is illustrated for Polish in (9).
The RA autobusowy agrees with the noun it modifies in case, number, and gender, as illustrated by the contrast in (9). When the nominative in (9a) is changed to the genitive in (9b), the ending ‑y on the RA is replaced by ‑ego. For Matthews (1974, p. 35), who gives Latin examples, this is a sufficient reason to exclude RA+N constructions from compounding. To the extent they are fixed expressions, he assigns them to lexicography, analyzing them as idioms. For Polish, Szymanek (2010, pp. 218–219) adopts a similar position. The opposite view, defended, for instance, by Levi (1978), appeals to semantic arguments.
As an example of a criterion based on the relation between the components X and Y and the compound Z in (3), Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) adopt the Right-hand Head Rule (RHR) not as a generalization over compounds but as a delimiting criterion for word formation, which can be used to distinguish compounding from syntax. According to the RHR, Y in (3) is the head of the compound by virtue of its being the right-hand component. Z inherits the syntactic category and other properties from Y. This is illustrated in German (10).
In (10), gender is indicated for each of X, Y, and Z. As the two components have different genders, it can be seen that Z takes its gender from Y, not from X. Especially in Germanic languages, taking the RHR as a criterion yields results that coincide with general usage of the term compound. However, (11) gives some examples of expressions that are excluded by this criterion.
The French expression in (11a) can be interpreted as evidence that compounds in French are left-headed. The same is true for Italian in (5). The entire compound shares its masculine gender with centre, whereas ville is feminine. However, Di Sciullo and Williams (1987, p. 83) interpret such observations as evidence that French does not have compounds. The Dutch example in (11b) is an exocentric compound. It fails the RHR in the sense that its gender is neuter, whereas kant ('side') is nonneuter.
A purely syntactic criterion for the distinction between compounds and phrases can be based on the observation, originally by Postal (1969), that the nonhead of a compound, X in (3) in languages like English, cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun. This is illustrated in the Dutch example (12).
The only masculine noun that hij can refer to in (12) is berg ('mountain'), but because it is embedded in the compound bergdorp ('mountain village'), it is not available as an antecedent. An explanation for this impossibility is that nonheads of compounds are interpreted in a generic sense. However, proper nouns, which cannot be generic, also appear as nonheads. They are available for pronominal reference. A Dutch example is (13).
Ward et al. (1991) claim that pronominal reference to the nonhead of a compound is governed by pragmatic rather than morphosyntactic constraints. They give a list of real-life examples from English. The majority of them are with proper names; others seem to be performance errors or conscious play on the rule. A typical example of the latter is the dialogue in (14).
The contrast between B and B' in reply to A in (14) is not equally strong for all speakers of English, but for most speakers it is easily detectable. In order to explain that the nonhead of a compound is either generic or a proper noun, ten Hacken (1994, p. 73) proposes that it is not possible to use outside context for the interpretation. Proper nouns like Brahms in (13) refer to an individual directly, but common nouns like berg in (12) need a determiner to identify an individual object. This idea is corroborated by the observation that first names are only possible if they are by themselves sufficient to identify an individual, as illustrated in (15).
Compared to the properties discussed so far, semantic aspects have not been used a great deal in the delimitation of compounding. Their role is rather in formation and interpretation. Ten Hacken (2013a), however, proposes to take the way an expression gets its meaning as the main criterion for identifying compounds. The relationship between the components of a compound is not determined by the word formation rule, but emerges from the meaning of the individual components and the use of the compound for naming a concept (cf. section 4). This results in the inclusion of genitive constructions such as (6b–c) as well as RA+N constructions as in (9) in compounding. An interesting case is prepositional constructions such as (16) in Romance languages.
The Italian linguistic tradition is divided over constructions such as (16b). Scalise (1992) does not mention them in his overview of compounds, but in their overview of theories, Konecny and Autelli (2015) mention several accounts in which such constructions are given a status close to compounding. The preposition has a function similar to the genitive, and the P+N could be called a periphrastic genitive.
After this overview of criteria that have been used, it is worth reconsidering the questions in (1). The centrality of theory in the selection and formulation of criteria is an obvious given. Dressler's (2006) objections to existing definitions that they are theory-specific and not crosslinguistically valid are not compatible with a terminological understanding of the nature of definitions. Definitions cannot be refuted. The question is not whether a definition is accurate but whether it delimits a useful theoretical concept. In a pretheoretical sense, it is no problem to use a language-specific definition with criteria that are easy to apply. If the concept of compounding is not used as a basis for theoretical claims, a series of typical properties for their identification, leading to a prototype with gradually decreasing typicality, is sufficient.
2. Classification
In classification, a fundamental distinction has to be made between taxonomies and incidental classes. In a taxonomy, a class of items, for instance compounds, is partitioned into subclasses in such a way that every item of the class belongs to exactly one subclass. There is no such requirement for incidental classes. An example of an incidental class is Roeper and Siegel's (1978) class of verbal compounds. They define verbal compounds as compounds in which the head is deverbal and has one of the suffixes ‑er, ‑ing, or ‑ed. There is no obvious way the remaining set of compounds would be characterized, except as the complement of this class. In general, taxonomies are theoretically more valued. However, the value depends on the use made of the classes. A division of English compounds into solid compounds, hyphenated compounds, and spaced compounds on the basis of their orthography is of little use, because not much follows from membership in one of the classes.
A widely used classification scheme for compounds is the one found in Sanskrit grammars such as Whitney (1879, pp. 424–456). The three main classes he distinguishes are copulative compounds, determinative compounds, and secondary adjective compounds. At this level, the Sanskrit classification system is a taxonomy. Its principal use is to describe the types of compound found in Sanskrit. This means that it is language-specific. At lower levels, there are also incidental classes, that is, special classes whose complement is not a described class or set of classes. Bloomfield (1933, p. 235) mentions several of these classes, but for the three that remain as the central ones he gives the Sanskrit names dvandva, tatpurusha, and bahuvrihi. The equivalents he gives for them are copulative, determinative, and exocentric. Determinative compounds are exemplified by most of the examples in section 1, for example, (4), (5), and (7).
The idea that bahuvrihi is equivalent to exocentric is somewhat problematic (cf. Koliopoulou, 2015). In Sanskrit, the word bahuvrīhi (lit. 'much rice'; i.e., rich) exemplifies a class of adjectives that may become nouns by conversion. Two examples from Dutch are given in (17).
As opposed to Sanskrit examples, the Dutch examples in (17) are only nouns. (17a) has an A+N, (17b) an N+N structure. While (17) exhibits exocentric compounds of the bahuvrihi type, the classification into endocentric and exocentric is based on different criteria than the ones for the main Sanskrit classes. Bloomfield exemplifies exocentric compounds with turnkey, which is clearly not a bahuvrihi compound.
The distinction between endocentric and exocentric compounds was introduced by Bloomfield (1933, p. 235) and is one of the most widely used taxonomic distinctions among compounds. Nowadays usually understood as based on headedness, for Bloomfield it is a matter of whether the compound belongs to the same (form) class as the head. Thus he calls turnkey exocentric because "the head member is an infinitive verb, but the compound is a noun" (1933, p. 235). The difference between these two interpretations is particularly notable in copulative compounds, as illustrated in (18).
In English, copulative compounds of the type illustrated by α in (18a) only occur as the nonhead of compounds. Dutch also has them for adjectives in contexts such as β in (18b). Haeseryn et al. (1997, p. 731) treat β as a compound, not the entire expression of (18b). In Modern Greek, N+N compounding of this type, illustrated in (18c), is productive. In these cases, Bloomfield would call α, β, and (18c) endocentric. However, as it is impossible to distinguish between a head and a nonhead in these cases, such copulative compounds are not usually considered endocentric in modern interpretations of the term.
Whereas from a language-specific Sanskrit perspective, the classification of dvandva, tatpurusha, and bahuvrihi may be a taxonomic one, the concepts need to be extended to maintain this status for a wider range of languages. As mentioned, the extension of bahuvrihi to V+N constructions such as turnkey was adopted by Bloomfield (1933, p. 235). This construction is very common in Romance languages, as illustrated in (19).
It is not generally accepted that (19) should be classified as compounds. Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) and ten Hacken (2010) adopt alternative analyses.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the difficulty of extending the Sanskrit taxonomy to a wider range of languages is Bauer's (2008) crosslinguistic study of dvandva. Whereas the examples in (18) all correspond to the Sanskrit class of dvandva compounds, Bauer ends up with a much more detailed typology, including related types of copulative compounding not found in Sanskrit. In this typology, five types of dvandva are distinguished, as well as four types of coordinated compounds that are not dvandva.
A type of compound that has been discussed controversially is synthetic compounds. The term was introduced by Bloomfield (1933, p. 231). Although the precise boundary is not set in stone, usually two types of expression are classified as such, illustrated in (20).
All examples in (20) show a combination of two stems and an affix. In (20a–b), the second stem is verbal. Bloomfield (1933, p. 232) calls these semi-synthetic. Marchand (1969, p. 31) uses the term verbal-nexus compound. In these cases, the noun with a V+affix structure can be considered the head of a compound. The nonhead may be the object of the verb, as in (20a), or have a different function, as in (20b). In (20c–d), the second stem is nominal. Semantically, it combines with the adjectival nonhead before combining with the affix. In (20d), poster is not a constituent of the word. On this basis, ten Hacken (2010) argues that they are not compounds but derivations based on a phrase. He also points out the similarity in meaning structure of synthetic compounds of the type in (20a–b) and exocentric compounds as illustrated in (19).
Scalise and Bisetto (2009) give a detailed overview of compound classifications and propose a taxonomy with three layers. At the highest level, they distinguish subordinative, attributive/appositive, and coordinative compounds. Subordinative compounds are divided into ground compounds and verbal-nexus compounds. Attributive compounds and appositive compounds are the divisions of the second class. The five classes resulting from the distinctions on the first two levels of the taxonomy are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Classification of compounds by Scalise and Bisetto (2009)
high school
A problem with the division in Table 1 is that it is supported only by rather vague descriptions of the labels. The number of examples they give is very limited. There are more examples from an earlier version of the classification, but it is not clear to what extent these are meant to fall into a different class in the new version. Thus, Scalise and Bisetto (2009, p. 46) list girlfriend as attributive but woman doctor as coordinative.
For the third level of the taxonomy, Scalise and Bisetto (2009) refer to the distinction between endocentric and exocentric. Each of the five classes in Table 1 is further subdivided according to this opposition. Technically, this means that the headedness criterion is orthogonal to the classification in Table 1. Although Scalise and Bisetto (2009, p. 50) present the classification as a tree structure, a matrix would be a better representation. The examples in Table 1 are all endocentric. In order to implement this matrix structure, a further column with exocentric examples would have to be added.
A general question about classification is for what purpose a classification is needed. Sanskrit grammarians used their classification as a way of systematically presenting the range of compound constructions in their language. Modern examples of this type of use are found in Marchand (1969) for English and de Haas and Trommelen (1993) for Dutch. They tend to select criteria from the ones presented in this section and supplement them with criteria such as syntactic category and semantic relation between the head and nonhead. There is no reason to expect that the details of such a classification, which at least for the lower levels is arrived at by a bottom-up approach, would be applicable crosslinguistically. Unless theoretical claims are associated with individual classes of compounds, the details of the classification are of limited theoretical relevance.
3. Formation
Whereas the tradition of the delimitation and classification of compounding reaches back to the Sanskrit grammarians, the question of the formation of compounds only came up with the emergence of generative grammar. A landmark in this respect was the 1960 PhD dissertation by Robert Lees. Lees (1960) proposes a rule system that derives a compound from a deep structure that may also serve (with at most minor modifications) as the basis for a sentence. He gives the examples in (21) (1960, p. 117).
Lees (1960) did not intend that (21a) is derived from (21b), but that (21a) and (21b) are derived from the same deep structure by means of a different sequence of transformations. As described in more detail by ten Hacken (2009), Lees's (1960) account triggered extensive discussion. On the one hand, the derivation of compounds from a deep structure that specifies the relation between the two components has the potential to account for the meaning of the compound. On the other, the transformations required to derive a compound from such a richly specified deep structure are so powerful that they undermine the explanatory value of the theory. The emphasis on the advantages or disadvantages of this type of approach was correlated with the position taken in the debate on the place of semantics in generative grammar in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
Researchers embracing generative semantics tried to save the central insight of Lees (1960) that the formation of compounds could account for their meaning. In this vein, Levi (1978) proposed a set of Recoverably Deletable Predicates (RDPs). Instead of the unlimited freedom of describing the meaning of compounds exhibited in (21), RDPs offer a finite set of possible relations between the two components of a compound. The deep structures underlying (21a) and (21c) in Levi's account would be something like (22).
Whereas in the system illustrated in (21), the number of possible deep structures is not limited, the system illustrated in (22) has nine RDPs, three of which can be used in two directions (X make Y or Y make X), so that windmill and flour mill are exactly 12-way ambiguous.
The opposition to Levi's (1978) system was mainly directed at the generative semantic framework she adopted. However, there were also objections based on the problems of connecting the formation of compounds with their interpretation. Thus, the high degree of ambiguity that is predicted by Levi's account does not correspond to the perceived meaning. Windmill and flour mill do not have twelve meanings from which one is selected.
As an alternative, Allen (1978) proposed the Variable R Condition. Her hypothesis is that the relation between the two components of a compound depends only on the semantics of the components, not on any constraints imposed by the formation rules for compounding. The different relations in (21) are determined by the slots opened by mill and the ways wind and flour can fill these slots. As a consequence of this hypothesis, the formation of compounds can be studied independently of their interpretation. An example of the resulting approach is Selkirk's (1982, p. 16) set of rewrite rules for the formation of compounds in English, given in (23).
The categories in {} in (23a–b) are alternatives. Reflected in (23) is the Right-hand Head Rule (RHR), which was already encountered in a different role in section 1; cf. (10). For Allen and Selkirk, the RHR is the only generalization contributed by the rule of compounding. The selection of categories in (23) is in principle language-specific. Following Marchand (1969, pp. 100–107), Selkirk (1982, pp. 16–17) analyzes verbs such as mass-produce and dry-clean as back-formations, based on compounds such as mass production and dry cleaning. Therefore, they do not require an extension of the rule in (23c).
Selkirk's proposal has been influential in particular in inspiring the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM). DM was first proposed by Halle and Marantz (1993). It does not include a lexical component in which word formation could take place, but distributes the workings of morphology between feature bundles, active in syntax; a vocabulary list, used between syntax and PF; and an encyclopedia, consulted between LF and semantic interpretation. Harley (2009, p. 129) describes the goal of DM as developing "a fully explicit, completely syntactic theory of word formation."
When rules of the type in (23) are accepted as the basis of compounding, the formation and the interpretation of compounds are separated. Perhaps the only type where the formation can still be correlated with the interpretation is verbal compounds. Roeper and Siegel (1978, p. 199) restrict this class to compounds involving the affixes illustrated in (24).
For this class, Roeper and Siegel (1978) propose a special mechanism that exploits the argument structure of the verb embedded in the nonhead. Although they formulate this mechanism as a transformation, in later elaborations (e.g., Selkirk, 1982), it was conceptualized as an operation on the argument structure in the lexicon. After the end of research in generative semantics, research on compounding was largely focused on verbal compounds for some decades. Thus, in his chapter on compounding, Spencer (1991, pp. 309–349) devotes 20 pages to verbal compounds as against 5 to root compounds.
The explicit restriction to the three affixes in (24) has been criticized. Thus, Allen (1978) argues that population growth should be treated in the same way. However, Marchand (1969, p. 349) gives growth and spilth as the only deverbal nouns in ‑th. When such unproductive suffixes are considered relevant as well, this raises the question where to draw the line. If bicycle theft and bicycle thief are treated in the same way, the result may be a mechanism in which theft and thief are analyzed on the basis of their meaning, independently of the structure of the form, an approach very similar to the one adopted in generative semantics. A generalization of this approach can be observed in Booij's (2010) construction morphology. He proposes to dissolve compounding as a category into a hierarchy of more and less inclusive constructions, where the more specialized constructions inherit properties from the more inclusive ones they are specializations of.
Finally, the exact nature of the elements combined in a compound must be considered. Whereas in English, rewrite rules such as (23) take a form as their basis that is at the same time identical to the stem and to the word, other languages show variations in the form. Some Dutch examples illustrating this are given in (25).
In (25), the linking elements are indicated in small caps in the literal gloss. In (25a), there is no linking element. (25b–c) illustrate two forms of a linking element that, for standard Dutch and most dialects, only differ orthographically, because the <n> in (25c) is not pronounced. The other widespread form of the linking element is illustrated in (25d). (25e) shows a third linking element, which only occurs with a very limited number of stems. The choice of the form of the linking element depends on the first component, although there exist cases in which the same noun takes different linking elements in different compounds, for example, kindsdeel (lit. 'child-s-part'; i.e., statutory portion of an inheritance going to a child of the deceased).
A different type of form variation is found in Modern Greek. Here, components of compounds can be stems or words. The contrast is illustrated in (26), taken from Ralli (2013).
In (26), the compounds are followed by the base form of their components. In both examples, the thematic vowel of the first component is replaced by the linking element ‑o‑. This means that these components are stems. In (26a), also the second component σπιτ- ('house') is used as a stem. However, in (26b), it is the entire word ταβέρνα ('tavern') that becomes the second component of the compound.
In several contexts, a striking disparity can be observed between heads and nonheads of compounds. Linking elements generally depend on the nonhead. Whereas the status of Greek heads can vary, as illustrated in (26), the nonhead is always a stem. (18) showed that dvandva compounds in English are possible as nonheads of a compound. In other contexts they do not occur. All of these cases suggest that nonheads of compounds permit the appearance of elements that are not possible elsewhere. It is not surprising, then, that there are also phrasal compounds, namely compounds with a phrasal nonhead, for example a connect-the-dots puzzle. Wiese (1996) also mentions extralinguistic material that can appear in nonheads of compounds, for example the # key. Ten Hacken (2003) proposes that this is possible because the nonhead of a compound does not have a syntactic category. For a recent discussion of phrasal compounds, comparing English and German data, cf. Trips (2016).
An even more radical difference in the nature of the elements can be found in the case of neoclassical compounds, for example, anthropomorphism. As Bauer (1998) shows, these formations raise different issues compared to the more typical compounds discussed here. These issues include the status of anthropo and morpho (or anthrop and morph) as elements of the English lexicon and of the rule that combines them. Ten Hacken (2012) proposes an explanation of their emergence in English and a system of formation rules in which they are minimally different from regular compounds. Panocová (2015) compares the status of neoclassical compounds in English and in Russian, concluding that English has a formation system for them, but in Russian they are borrowings.
The formation mechanism for compounds is for most languages relatively simple. Complications arise in particular when the formation of compounds is linked directly with their interpretation. Form-related questions going beyond the combination patterns of components, for example, the presence and shape of linking elements, require language-specific solutions.
4. Interpretation
In early overviews of compounding, it was not so much the process of compounding but the interpretation of the compounds which was the central concern. The crucial question in interpreting a compound is how the relation between the two components should be established. Jespersen (1942) gives an extensive catalogue of relations, while admitting that no such list can pretend to be exhaustive. Lees's (1960) transformational account instrumentalized these relations as the basis for the deep structure of the compounds, cf. (21). This idea was taken up by Marchand (1969), although the two disagreed on the precise significance of the deep structures (cf. ten Hacken, 2009, pp. 60–63 for an overview of their discussion).
Levi's (1978) RDPs, illustrated in (22), can be interpreted as a compromise between the constraints of a mechanism for the formation of compounds and the requirements of a mechanism for their interpretation. As a formation mechanism, it has the disadvantage of making each compound 12-way ambiguous. As an interpretation mechanism, it has the limitation that with only 12 RDPs the description of the relation is very crude. A well-known example is the contrast in (27).
Both compounds in (27) have for as their RDP, although the intended effect on the referent of the nonhead is opposite. As noted by Downing (1977, pp. 825–828), it is possible to reduce the relations between components of a compound to a finite set, but only as a classification, not as an adequate description of the relation. The main problem of Levi's approach is perhaps that she tries to derive the relation between the two components exclusively from rules for compounding.
Allen's (1978) Variable R Condition takes the opposite position. The Variable R Condition says that the relation R between the two components of a compound is only governed by the semantics of the components. The head component opens a range of slots for modification, and the semantics of the nonhead determines which of the slots fit. In the case of (21a, c), mill opens slots for, among others, the source of energy and the output of the operation. Wind fits the former slot and flour the latter. Of course, there are other slots, as in town mill ('in the service of') or riverside mill ('located at'). Also the contrast in (27) can be accommodated if it is assumed that fertility is desirable and headache is not. However, without a proper theory of slots, the Variable R Condition does not offer any explanations.
For a relatively long period after 1978, the interpretation of compounds was low on the agenda of morphological research. Presumably, this is because the question was associated with generative semantics, and the predominant currents of generative grammar focused on the generation of grammatically correct forms. It is only at the start of the 21st century that some new proposals have been made. Three such proposals are compared by ten Hacken (2016). Two of them can be seen as building on the insights of Levi (1978) and Allen (1978) as well as on the critical reception of their ideas.
Lieber (2004) presents a theory of word formation that includes a mechanism for the coindexation of slots. It can be interpreted as providing the principled approach to slots that is missing in Allen's (1978) proposal. In Lieber's theory, the meaning of lexical entries consists of a skeleton and a body. The skeleton is a formalized part of the meaning that is expressed by a closed class of features. The body encodes the remaining aspects of meaning, some of which may be formalized as features, others only stated informally. Lieber (2016, p. 40) gives the example of cat, where [+material ([ ])] is a feature of the skeleton, <+animate> a feature of the formalized part of the body, and 'meows' belongs to the informal, more encyclopedic part of the body. As an example of a case where the coindexation expresses contrastive readings, Lieber (2016, p. 45) gives (28).
The contrast in (28) involves verbal compounds. The transitive verb celebrate has two slots, and the contrastive interpretation of the roles of family and birthday in (28) can be correlated with the interpretation of the nonhead as going into the first slot, corresponding to the subject, in (28a), but into the second slot, corresponding to the object, in (28b).
Compounds of the type illustrated in (21) and (27) do not have the same possibility of contrastive coindexation. However, in all cases, the precise interpretation of what coindexation means uses information from the body. The idea that a family is a group of people and as such <+sentient>, as opposed to birthday, qualifies it to be in the first slot of celebrate and at the same time indicates the nature of the event. In the case of (27), pill will have the encyclopedic information that it is taken with the purpose of changing something in the physical body of the person taking it. The encyclopedic information that fertility is desirable and a headache is not can then be used to make sense of the coindexation for the two compounds in (27).
Jackendoff (2009) presents a system for the interpretation of compounds in the framework of his Parallel Architecture (PA; cf. Jackendoff, 2002). Somewhat modified versions of this system are presented in Jackendoff (2010, pp. 413–451; 2016). The most striking aspect of his system is a set of 'basic predicates.' The number and characterization of these predicates vary slightly in the different versions, but several of them correspond to Levi's (1978) RDPs, for example, cause and make. The crucial difference between Jackendoff's basic predicates and Levi's RDPs, however, is that the basic predicates are embedded in a much richer system for expressing the meaning of compounds. In particular, the combination of various mechanisms in a generative way results in an in principle unbounded number of possible relations. For barbershop, Jackendoff (2016, p. 34) gives the analysis in (29).
In (29a), it is formalized that shop refers to a place which has the proper function (pf) that someone sells something in it. In (29b), it is formalized that barber designates a person whose occupation (occ) is to cut hair. In the compound barbershop, the representation of barber is inserted into the representation of shop, but only after an operation of reprofiling. As represented in (29c), this operation puts the person profiled in (29b) into the position of α with which it was coindexed. In (29d), most of the meaning is ultimately based on the lexical entries of the components. This is not because the components have a verbal root, but because for primary nouns as well, the semantic component of PA gives lexical conceptual structures with a great deal of relevant detail.
In all the approaches seen so far in this section, the interpretation of compounds is based on two sources of information. On one hand, there are the rules of compounding, contributing, for instance, RDPs or basic functions. On the other, there is the semantics of the components. The latter is the main source of information in Lieber's system, but also very important in Jackendoff's. Lieber's approach starts from the form and works toward the meaning. Jackendoff's approach starts from the components and works toward the compound. As noted by Downing (1977, pp. 822–824), compounds have the function of providing a name for a concept. Therefore, a further source of information that determines the meaning of a compound is the concept to be named. In general, compounds are not formed in order to combine two components but in order to name a new concept. They are neologisms. Ten Hacken (2013b) argues for a separate word formation component in PA on the basis of this argument.
The onomasiological approach to word formation as developed by Štekauer (1998, 2005) takes the naming function of word formation as its central characteristic. Although the resulting system does not identify compounding as a separate phenomenon, Štekauer (2016) explores how different types of compounding are covered in it. The point of departure is that the system provides a series of ever more specific decisions leading from the identification of a concept to be named to the selection of a name for this concept. A central role in this process is taken by the so-called onomasiological types (OTs). Štekauer (2016, pp. 59–61) presents eight different OTs, which lead to the morphological expression of different semantic aspects. The type of difference giving rise to different OTs can be illustrated on the basis of the examples in (30).
In (30a), three components are expressed, an object (guitar), an action (play), and an agent (‑er). It illustrates Štekauer's OT1, which expresses all components of the onomasiological structure. Other OTs leave one or two components unexpressed or express two components in one morpheme. In (30b), the object is not expressed, which makes it an example of OT2. In (30c), the action is not expressed, as is typical of OT3. In (30d), representing OT5, the action and the agent are jointly expressed by cheat. It should be noted that Štekauer's theory is much richer than only an expression of the contrasts in (30). The OTs illustrated here can also be applied to other types of word formation. Thus, writer also belongs to OT2 and novelist to OT3. The distinction between derivation and compounding is orthogonal to the distinction between OTs.
An important difference between the onomasiological approach and the other approaches seen in this section is that by starting from the concept, the ambiguity of a compound is not relevant. Starting from the concept 'a mechanism for grinding grain into flour' and working gradually toward the compound flour mill, there is no point at which the possibility of interpreting flour mill in a way parallel to windmill comes up.
In general, it can be said that there are three sources of information that can be used in the interpretation of compounds. One is the lexical entries for the elements that are combined. Then there is the rule for combining them, which may be equipped with specific conditions. Finally, there is the concept to be named. Different approaches have emphasized one or two at the expense of the others.
5. Correlations Between the Different Issues
The distinction between delimitation, classification, formation, and interpretation is useful for expository reasons, but it is to some extent artificial. This is visible in the appearance of the same theories in different sections. After the presentation of the individual issues, it is therefore worth indicating more systematically how the four issues relate to each other.
There is a clearly observable opposition between two pairs of strongly related issues. Delimitation and classification can be called expository issues, whereas formation and interpretation are substantive issues. Expository issues are more descriptively oriented and originate in traditional grammar. Definitions of compounding and divisions into subtypes are used to come up with a systematic description. Substantive issues have an explanatory orientation and originate in theoretical approaches to language. A theory of language cannot dispense with an account of the formation and interpretation of compounds, but such an account does not have to identify a precisely delimited category of compounds. An example is Štekauer's (2016) onomasiological theory, which treats compounds without identifying compounding as a class.
Historically, classification is the oldest issue, as it was already part of the Sanskrit grammarians' concerns. In traditional grammar, the question of delimitation is less prominent in the sense that it follows from the classification. It only becomes an issue of its own when a crosslinguistic perspective is taken. Both issues can be seen also as primarily of a terminological nature. The question is, then, whether and how to define terms such as compound or subtypes, for example, exocentric compound.
The interest in the substantive issues only arose when explanatory theories became more important. As the discussion in sections 3 and 4 illustrates, the emergence of generative grammar played a central role in this process. Historically, three phases can be distinguished. The first was marked by the account of the formation and interpretation of compounds by means of a single, nondifferentiated mechanism. Exponents of this phase are Lees (1960) and Levi (1978). In the second phase, the emphasis was on formation mechanisms only. Examples include Allen (1978) and Selkirk (1982). Downing (1977) starts by criticizing the theories of the first phase, but instead of limiting herself to formation mechanisms, she makes some lucid observations that foreshadow the issues that emerge in the third phase. This third phase reintegrates the issue of interpretation into the theory, but separates it from the question of how compounds are formed. Here, Lieber (2004) and Jackendoff (2009) are good examples.
From a theoretical perspective, the substantive issues are more important than the expository issues. The extent to which definitions of terms designating (classes of) compounds are necessary is determined by the need to make and test theoretical claims depending on them. Whether a definition of synthetic compound, for instance, is needed depends on whether synthetic compounding is covered by a separate mechanism. When it is decided for what reason synthetic compound needs a definition this reason gives at least a clue as to the criteria this definition should be based on. In this way, the expository issues have become subordinate to the substantive issues.
At the same time, classifications have benefited from theoretical insights. An obvious example is Marchand's (1969) use of Lees's (1960) theory. However, it should be noted that a purely classificational use of a theory does not respect the theory's original purpose. This was a source of conflict between Marchand and Lees. Also for other theories, it is important to see that they are not meant as a source for classification or delimitation, but as an explanatory account. Levi's (1978) RDPs are not intended as a classification. When Levi (1978, pp. 280–284) gives lists of compounds for each RDP, her purpose is to illustrate RDPs, not to classify compounds. Jackendoff's (2009) basic functions are even less suitable for a classification, because they are meant as only one component of a much more complex mechanism for the formation and interpretation of compounds. Similarly, for Štekauer's (2016) OTs, it is not a problem when for some compounds it is hard to determine which OT they belong to. As long as all compounds can be accounted for, the purpose of the theory is fulfilled. As long as each OT has cases that are not covered by any other OT, its separate existence is justified.
The development of the research in compounding has seen a gradual shift of emphasis. Whereas expository issues were the focus of attention until the mid-20th century, substantive issues have become more central since then. Within the substantive issues, the interpretation has gained in importance in the last decades, after being in the background in the final part of the 20th century. Although no agreement has been reached in many of these issues, insight has grown.
Further Reading
Edited Volumes
Libben, G., & Jarema, G. (Eds.). (2006). The representation and processing of compound words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Scalise, S., & Vogel, I. (Eds.). (2010), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (Ed.). (2016). The semantics of compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Special Issues of Journals
Scalise, S. (Ed.). (1992). The morphology of compounding, Rivista di Linguistica, 4(1).Find this resource:
Gaeta, L., & Grossmann, M. (Eds.). (2009). Compounds between syntax and the lexicon, Rivista di Linguistica, 21(1).Find this resource:
Bisetto, A. (Ed.). (2009). Compounds crosslinguistically, Lingue e linguaggio, 8(2).Find this resource:
Szpakowicz, S., Bond, F., Nakov, P., & Kim, S. N. (Eds.). (2013). On the semantics of noun compounds, Natural Language Engineering, 19(3).Find this resource:
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (1994). Defining morphology: A principled approach to determining the boundaries of compounding, derivation, and inflection. Hildesheim: Olms.Find this resource:
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Language-specific handbooks
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2d ed.). München: Beck.Find this resource:
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Fleischer, W., & Barz, I. (2012). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartsprache (4th ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter.Find this resource:
de Haas, W., & Trommelen, M. (1993). Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. 's‑Gravenhage: SDU.Find this resource:
Moyna, M. I. (2011). Compound words in Spanish: Theory and history. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Find this resource:
Ralli, A. (2013). Compounding in Modern Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.Find this resource:
Allen, M. R. (1978). Morphological investigations (Unpublished PhD diss.). University of Connecticut, Storrs.Find this resource:
Bauer, L. (1998). Is there a class of neoclassical compounds and if so is it productive? Linguistics, 36, 403–421.Find this resource:
Bauer, L. (2008). Dvandva. Word Structure, 1, 1–20.Find this resource:
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: H. Holt.Find this resource:
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Dardano, M., & Trifone, P. (1985). La lingua Italiana: Una grammatica completa e rigorosa. Bologna: Zanichelli.Find this resource:
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Downing, P. A. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–841.Find this resource:
Dressler, W. U. (2006). Compound types. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 23–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Fleischer, W. (1969). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Find this resource:
Giegerich, H. J. (2009). The English compound stress myth. Word Structure, 2, 1–17.Find this resource:
de Haas, W., & Trommelen, M. (1993). Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. 's‑Gravenhage: SDU.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (1994). Defining morphology: A principled approach to determining the boundaries of compounding, derivation, and inflection. Hildesheim: Olms.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2003). Phrasal elements as parts of words. In E. Hajičová, A. Kotěšovcová, & J. Mírovský (Eds.), Proceedings of CIL17. CD-ROM, Praha: Matfyzpress, MFF UK.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2009). Early generative approaches. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 54–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2010). Synthetic and exocentric compounds in a parallel architecture. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 17, 233–251.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2012). Neoclassical word formation in English and the organization of the lexicon. In Z. Gavriilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki, & P. Kambakis-Vougiouklis (Eds.), Selected papers of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics (pp. 78–88). Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2013a). Compounds in English, in French, in Polish, and in general. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 10, 97–113.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2013b). Semiproductivity and the place of word formation in grammar. In P. ten Hacken & C. Thomas (Eds.), The semantics of word formation and lexicalization (pp. 28–44). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (Ed.), (2016). The semantics of compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
ten Hacken, P. (2016). Three analyses of compounding: A comparison. In P. ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp. 211–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooy, J., & van den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.Find this resource:
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 105–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Jackendoff, R. (2010). Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture, 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Jackendoff, R. (2016). English noun-noun compounds in conceptual semantics. In P. ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp. 15–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English grammar on historical principles; Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Find this resource:
Koliopoulou, M. (2014). How close to syntax are compounds? Evidence from the linking element in German and Modern Greek compounds. Rivista di Linguistica, 26(2), 51–70.Find this resource:
Koliopoulou, M. (2015). Possessive/bahuvrīhi compounds in German: An analysis based on comparable compounds in Modern Greek. Languages in Contrast, 15, 81–101.Find this resource:
Konecny, C., & Autelli, E. (2015). Scale ripide, mobili e a chiocciola – Steile, Roll- und Wendeltreppen: Diverse categorie di combinazioni lessicali italiane del tipo "N + Agg o SPrep" e i loro equivalenti tedeschi – un confronto interlinguistico. In E. Lavric & W. Pöckl (Eds.), Comparatio delectat II: Akten der VII. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich, Innsbruck, 6.–8. September 2012, Teil 2 (pp. 567–586). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Find this resource:
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Lieber, R. (2016). Compounding in the lexical semantic framework. In ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp. 38–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2d ed.). München: Beck.Find this resource:
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Panocová, R. (2015). Categories of word formation and borrowing: An onomasiological account of neoclassical formations. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Find this resource:
Postal, Paul M. (1969). Anaphoric islands. In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 205–239). Chicago: University of Chicago.Find this resource:
Ralli, A. (2013). Compounding in Modern Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.Find this resource:
Roeper, T., & Siegel, M. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 199–260.Find this resource:
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Translated and edited by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye. Paris: Payot, 1981.Find this resource:
Scalise, S. (1992). Compounding in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica, 4(1), 175–199.Find this resource:
Scalise, S., & Bisetto, A. (2009). The classification of compounds. In Lieber and Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 34–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:
Štekauer, P. (1998). An onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.Find this resource:
Štekauer, P. (2005). Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 207–232). Dordrecht: Springer.Find this resource:
Štekauer, P. (2016). Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In P. ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp. 54–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Szymanek, B. (2010). A panorama of Polish word formation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Find this resource:
Trips, C. (2016). An analysis of phrasal compounds in the model of parallel architecture. In P. ten Hacken (Ed.), The semantics of compounding (pp. 153–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Ward, G., Sproat, R., & McKoon, G. (1991). A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language, 67, 439–474.Find this resource:
Whitney, W. D. (1879). A Sanskrit grammar, including both the classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Find this resource:
Wiese, R. (1996). Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 183–193.Find this resource:


text:
From Freeside Atlanta
What exactly comes with being a Freeside member? Some say it's the opportunity to contribute to an amazing culture and community of like-minded individuals that come together to build magnificent creations.
The only limit is yourself. Please join us!
Standard Benefits
- 24/7 access to the space, its equipment, and materials
- Member voting rights to decide the fate of Freeside
- Dedicated member storage box
- Members-only wifi access points and services
- Access to our members-only mailing list, discussion forum
- Access to Freeside's shared drive full of our organization's documentation
- Trello account that helps track progress of Freeside projects
Other Available Benefits
- Blog access to post and show off your cool projects
- Wiki account with edit rights
- @freesideatlanta.org email address and account
- Linux accounts to our various servers
- Hosting your own server (with IT approval and setup)
Benefits through our Community
- Discounts on Freeside classes
- Cool swag like Freeside t-shirts and stickers, as we print them
- Collective and bulk purchasing power with other Freeside members
- And much, much more we really can't get into

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Nike Free 5.0 is billed as the most flexible shoe in the world. To show off the minimalist runners, Nike had a special new box designed, which uses one-third the material of other boxes.
The above advertisement created by Uruguayan firm Publicis Impetu perfectly captures the conceptual thriftiness of the lightweight, ultra-flexible shoes: A set of hands armed with a box cutter and some paste trims a regular-sized Nike box down and crams a pair of Free 5.0 in.
Even though the redesigned boxes are apparently only special editions, it's lovely to think that the containers used exclusively for delivering shoes to customers might be less wasteful. [Publics Impetu via The Dieline]


text:
Students Supporting Students Programs & Services
Students Supporting Students Programs & Services
Peer Mentoring
Peer Mentors are on site to give you one-on-one advice on how to transfer, get financial assistance, or get involved in your community.
A Place To Study
SCube has computers available to do class work, print-out papers, or do internet research.
Academic Workshops
SCube holds workshops thoughout the semester on topics like How to Transfer, How to Write Your Personal Statement, Legitimate Hustlin' ( for free resources ), Study Skills, and Resume & Cover Letter Writing.
Student Activites & Club Support
SCube connects students to their communities both on and off campus. We organize field trips where you can learn about what's going on in the community and hook you up with other student clubs.
Organizing & Advocacy
SCube organizes and advocates for social justice and student equity for low-income, students of color. We have led marches to Sacramento to demand funding for schools not prisons, student walk-outs to fight tuition increases, and advocate for Ethnic Studies and culturally relevant student services.
SCube Staff & Club Affiliations
Peer Mentors:
- Brian Bautista - Pilipinos for Education, Art , Culture & Empowerment (PEACE)
- Derrick " Toddy" Moore - Polynesian Club
- Brandi Machado
- Francesca Mauricio- Pilipinos for Education, Art , Culture & Empowerment (PEACE)
- John Tuapola - Polynesian Club
- Marielle Bautista - Pilipinos for Education, Art , Culture & Empowerment (PEACE)
- Tibebe Worku - Polynesian Club
Coordinator : Andrew Vai


text:
Video: Factory vs. aftermarket car speakers listening test
Can you hear the difference?
Okay, so we've been telling you forever how much better aftermarket speakers sound than factory speakers. Factory speakers are not built to last. Over time they'll deteriorate to the point where they sound truly awful. However, since that deterioration happens gradually, your ears may have gotten used to it.
Just for kicks, we set up a blind listening test in our lab and invited some of our most critical listeners to drop by and see if they could tell a difference in the sound. They'll start off listening to a very nice pair of brand new Focal speakers, priced in the hundreds of dollars. Then we'll switch to a pair of old, deteriorated cheap factory speakers, just to see how our coworkers react.
It was fun for us, but a little confusing for them!
The real point of this for you is to hear the difference between really nice, high-quality aftermarket speakers and a pair of OEM speakers that are long past their glory days. It's not meant to be a fair "test", just a fun comparison.
Video Transcript
Matt: Hi there. We're in the Crutchfield car listening room today to do a little mad scientist experiment with a set of really old and worn out factory speakers. Now the thing about factory speakers is, that when you first buy your car they can sound fantastic. They're very efficient, so they play pretty loudly, and they're fairly accurate because they're in good shape. They're brand new. But they degrade over time. Heat, extreme cold, and in many places extreme humidity conspire to take their toll. And after a while the surrounds deteriorate, the cones fall apart. They can crack and tear.
The problem is it's a gradual process. It happens over time, so you train your ear to get used to the sound. And as it gets worse, you don't quite hear how bad it is. It would be one thing if you jumped in the car and heard this. Then you would know that something was terribly wrong. But it doesn't. It doesn't go out all at once. Like I said, it deteriorates over time and so your ear gets used to it.
To make that point, to make that point clear we're gonna have a little fun today. We're gonna bring in three of our experts — a couple of our home writers and one of our car writers — to do a blind AB test with these factory speakers, these ugly guys right here, and a set of really nice Focal speakers. We will cover them with this acoustically transparent cloth so that they can't see which speakers they're listening to, and then we're gonna start them off with the set of Focal components which are, you know, sound beautiful. They have warm sound, really nice high notes, really full and rich bass and we're not gonna tell them that we're comparing them to the factory speakers. We're just gonna tell that we are comparing them to a potential competitor. And we're going to see what their immediate visceral reaction is.
Lynn: So it's very, it's a very warm sound to me, very distinct vocal. It's not muddy with the music. You can hear them separately. Wow! Is that how that's supposed to sound? Okay.
Steve: Pretty dramatic difference. Pretty pinched sounding in the upper, and I think I'm hearing some static from one side that is blown. Ahh. Sweet relief.
Matt: So what you're listening to...
Dave: A pair of blown factory speakers. Well that one's blown, at least.
Matt: So as you can see, it was pretty apparent to all of our listeners and I'm sure to you listening at home that which were the factory speakers and which were the nice Focals. The difference was so stark that nobody could mistake one for the other. So if you have a set of factory speakers that you need to replace, give one of our experts a call.


text:
- Did you mean
- wooster ag facilities consisted research farm
Search results
Fruit Pruning School
OSU South Centers, and Research Assistant Ryan Slaughter. Gao, who has hosted pruning workshops at ... Piketon. Attendees should enter the Research and Extension Building upon arrival. ...
Pruning School to be held at OSU South Centers in March
feature Dr. Gary Gao, Professor and Extension Specialist at OSU South Centers, and Research Assistant Ryan ... Piketon. Attendees should enter the Research and Extension Building upon arrival. specialty crops ...
OSU Extension Direct Food & Agricultural Marketing Team
Partnered with the OSU Resource and Ag Law Program, Wright & Moore Law, LPP, and Ohio Farm Bureau to ... By Christie Welch Direct Marketing Program Manager Direct Food & Ag Marketing Team focus: ... healthier farms, food producers, and the communities where they reside, as well as increase access for ...
Another Fruitful Year for the Small Fruits Team
farming operations through our cultivar trails. Both of their Extension and research efforts help create ... program at South Centers in Piketon in the areas of Extension, research, international collaboration, and ... "Our research efforts led to several promising blueberry rootstocks for Ohio and beyond. We identified ...
Center for Cooperatives kicks off 3-year student cooperative project
Research and Education (NCR-SARE). The project incorporates teaching sustainable production and marketing ... using the cooperative model for the student-managed school farm cooperative at the Ohio Valley Career ... includes OSU Extension Direct Ag Marketing Specialist Christie Welch, retired co-op executive and ...
From Burkina Faso to Piketon: Dr. Compaore collaborates with soil/water program
vast resources of computing, statistical, and library facilities to improve his data analysis and ... interpretation capability. In return, we benefitted from his research experience and training, and cultural ...
Aquaculture Boot Camp-2 successfully completed
Aquaculture Research and Development (OCARD), in partnership with the Ohio Aquaculture Association (OAA) and ... activities on a typical aquaculture/aquaponic farm, so that a participatory hands-on training events can ... practice projects were completed by the intensive students. Twenty-one new businesses/farms have been ...
Taking Care of Business
'whatever it takes' approach toward making a venture successful." Built in 2005, the facility consists of ... facilities or expand into larger facilities. One such partner is Innovative Solutions (InSolves). It was one ... facility along U.S. Highway 23 in Piketon. "The program worked, we graduated from the Endeavor Center and ...
Bigger, Faster: Aquaculture Center is transferring fast-growing fish to the aquaculture industry
Center for Aquaculture Research and Development (OCARD) at The Ohio State University South Centers has ... farms has been identified for the farm demonstration. Faster-Growing All-Female Yellow Perch Yellow ... to aquaculture industry for demonstration. A few aquaculture farms have been identified for the farm ...
Don't Hurry Into Hemp
researcher Dr. Rafiq Islam were members of a special Hemp Task Force comprised of 25 Ohio State University ... researchers and Extension specialists within the College of Food Agriculture and Environmental Sciences ... did not sign the bill, permitting limited growth of the crops for research purposes, into law until ...


text:
Early last month we told you about the satellite archaeologist who thought she discovered lost Egyptian pyramids using Google Earth. Well, it turns out that the structures may not be pyramids — but they still have archeological significance, in any case.
As NBC science editor Alan Boyle reports, the site has been known to Egyptologists since the 1920s. The remnants are located in an area around the present-day town of Dimai in Egypt's Fayoum Desert. The locale used to be a desert settlement during Egypt's Ptolemaic era, back when Greek and Roman influence were on the rise.
According to Italian archaeologist Paola Davoli, the structures may have been watchtowers — but she hasn't ruled out the possibility that they might also be tombs or well sites. What's needed is an excavation to unlock the secrets hidden within — and this is what Davoli's Soknopaiou Nesos Project aims to do.
And interestingly, Davoli has been in touch with Angela Micol, the satellite archaeologist who brought the structures back into the spotlight. Boyle writes:
Based on the satellite imagery, Micol suggested that the mounds might represent eroded pyramids. The up-close pictures make the formations look more like piles of rocky rubble. The largest one appears to have the ruins of a square building or walls on its summit, but it'll take a full-blown excavation to unravel the mystery.
"Since the sites haven't been excavated so far, I don't see how anyone could say it's not a pyramid," Micol told me today. "The potential that it still is a pyramid is very plausible. I wouldn't throw it out."
However, Micol acknowledged that her experience is more in the line of architecture and scoping out satellite imagery for unusual features - which she said she's been doing for 10 years. "I really want to help archaeologists - that's my dream, that's my goal," she said. "I had no idea that this was going to go viral. I was shocked. I just wanted to help."
Now she's hoping to stay in contact with the experts on Egyptology, to find out more about Dimai as well as another site about 90 miles (144 kilometers) away, known as Abu Sidhum. Micol marveled over a triangle-shaped feature in the satellite imagery that she thought might represent the remnants of a pyramid. Geologists say the 190-meter-wide (625-foot-wide) feature at Abu Sidhum is merely a naturally formed butte, and one expert has been quoted as complaining that Micol appeared to be "one of the so-called 'pyridiots' who see pyramids everywhere."
Pyridiots. Ouch. Though "pyramidiots" has a much better ring to it...
Read all of Boyle's account here, including some more images.
Images via NBC/Soknopaiou Nesos Project, University of Salento.


text:
I have some ideas that I think might make interesting games for a Facebook-like platform, in that they are social and casual. Does anyone have advice on how to get into Facebook development from a background in traditional C++ game development? Is there anything special that differentiates developing facebook games from developing other web-based games, such as API intricacies and so forth?
To start with this will probably be hobbyist level instead of some sort of professional enterprise, anything I need to know about making indie-level facebook games?


text: Individuals who travel to Asia and certain Eastern European countries may be at an increased risk of a malware infection or inspection of electronic devices at the demand of government agents, according to security experts. Large businesses with employees who travel to remote locations often have strict policies to safeguard data. However, government agencies often prepare to have devices snooped on when visiting certain countries, prohibiting officials from storing restricted information. Even encrypted data is at risk. A chief security officer who worked for several defense contractors told CRN that mobile devices and laptops were scanned for hidden malware and often destroyed upon return from China or business trips to Eastern European countries. Individuals who travel to high-threat countries should bring only "disposable" devices, warns Richard Bejtlich, chief information security officer at Mandiant. Here are five steps you can take to help safeguard your devices while abroad.


text:
How noisy are wind turbines really?
It's not easy to measure wind turbine noise as background noise from rainfall to traffic interferes with the results, says the latest Wind Directions based on a recent EWEA workshop. In fact, that background noise – including the wind itself – is usually louder than the sound of the turbines.
At least 17 peer-reviewed studies have found that there is no adverse effect on human health linked to turbine noise.
However, people's concerns about wind turbine noise must be taken seriously. "Developers must also show respect by answering questions and listening to fears," said Jeremy Bass, Senior Technical Manager at RES.
Read the full article in Wind Directions now.


text:
Hurd Peak Climber's Log
BCL - Aug 21, 2009 8:31 am Date Climbed: Jul 25, 2009Route Climbed: West Face (ascent) / East Face (descent) Date Climbed: July 25, 2009
Fun jaunt from South Lake. Mosquitos were unbearable down low.
bricewilson - Mar 15, 2009 8:20 am Date Climbed: Aug 13, 2008East Face
Day 6 of 2008 Sierra Challenge: Ascended East Face with Bob Burd, then dropped back down a bit below (East of) the South ridge and traversed to Trapezoid's NE ridge.
Noondueler - Nov 4, 2008 11:23 pmRe: dog friendly route
I like it!
Noondueler - Nov 4, 2008 11:22 pm Date Climbed: Sep 28, 2001Heard you was comin' to town...
...back to Bishop for a good meal, some tea and a beautiful evening below the eastern Sierra.
dshoshone - Nov 1, 2008 10:11 am Date Climbed: Oct 30, 2008dog friendly route
Took the dog out for a walk and ended up on top of Hurd. Went up a dog friendly chute on the East face. Cold,windy, snowing lightly on summit
Bob Burd - Sep 8, 2008 5:46 pm Date Climbed: Aug 13, 2008East Face / South Ridge
Day 6 of the 2008 Sierra Challenge. Climbed the East Face of Hurd in the morning with Brice W, then traversed to Trapezoid via the South Ridge of Hurd and Trapezoid's NE Ridge (the South Ridge was a better scramble). Met up with Adam J on Trapezoid and traversed the crest to Johnson. Fun day. Trip Report
bechtt - Aug 23, 2008 8:34 pm Date Climbed: Aug 16, 2008Easy alternative
Skipped Day 9 of the Challenge to do the Hurd to Trapezoid traverse. Opted to descend after doing Hurd -- easy day.
Augie Medina - Aug 23, 2008 2:50 am Date Climbed: Aug 20, 2008East Face
From the north end of Long Lake, made our way to the base of the large buttress. We stayed to the right of a big sandy chute and encountered 3d and 4th class rock (the latter I didn't expect). Nearing the top of the "crest" it got particularly steep. We then headed south for a ways until we finally came to the summit. On the descent, we opted for the large sandy chute toward the south end of Long Lake.
fossana - Aug 18, 2008 1:08 am Date Climbed: Aug 17, 2008nw slabs
With t-storms hitting the Sierra for the past 3 days we decided to do something short, but with fun technical sections. Climbed the slabs next to the big dihedral (just to the right of the NW arete) with Jascha. Thunder to the north and dark clouds to the west, but we stayed dry.
fossana - Jun 9, 2008 6:17 pm Date Climbed: Jun 8, 2008ne face/ridge
Jascha and I were headed up to do Cloudripper (after my unsuccessful attempt to ride us up to the Humphreys TH on my F650GS) when Hurd caught our eye. Our detour did not disappoint. Like Deb & Dave we encountered everything from Class 3 to thought-provoking icy/licheny Class 5 hand cracks. Descended one of the snow-filled E gullies.
rhyang - Jul 22, 2007 2:43 pm Date Climbed: Jul 21, 2007East Face
I'd initially planned to dayhike from South Lake up to Bishop Pass and down into Dusy Basin, but someone in the parking lot mentioned Hurd Peak. I said "well, I just broke my foot a few months ago, so no peaks for me" :)
By the time I got to Long Lake I looked up at Hurd and its various chutes and said ... 'yeah, that looks doable' ... before I knew it I'd scrambled up above the lake, endured some of the sand, and then decided some class 3-4 scrambling would be more fun. I ended up a bit north of the true summit, then scrambled along the west side to sign the register.
Descended a sandy chute to the far side of Long Lake, and continued on up to Bishop Pass, then turned around and hiked back to my car.
The foot didn't feel too bad in stiff boots with lots of ankle support. Pretty tiring day ... hadn't been above 10000' since January.
Deb - Jun 4, 2007 2:19 pm Date Climbed: Jun 2, 2007The Easy Day - NE Ridge
After a tough week and lack of sleep, Dave and I hit the trail at 0800 for an easy Hurd climb before attacking Peppermint Peak on Sunday. Turned out to be quite fun (Class 3) and hair-raising (Class 5) in some sections; great views and so much for that 20% chance of rain, beautiful day with gourmet cheese and olives with my love on the summit. :)
soslaw - Jul 24, 2006 3:32 pm Date Climbed: Jul 22, 2006North Face
Climbed via the north face descended via the west slope. West slope chute on the climber's far left (looking down or to the right looking up) is class 3.
Bob Burd - Jul 22, 2005 12:42 pmRoute Climbed: North Face (ascent) / West Face (descent) Date Climbed: Aug 11, 2004
Many interesting routes on this peak. Everyone travelling through Bishop Pass can't help but notice this interesting peak. It makes a fine half day outing from South Lake. Trip Report
cp0915 - Jul 22, 2005 10:46 amRoute Climbed: East Face Date Climbed: July 18, 2005
Had an interesting time crossing the creek. Leaped across, fell, struck my shoulder on a rock, jammed my finger (still swollen, tender, and bruised). From there, my partner and I headed straight up the face, landed in one of the sandy chutes, hit the notch, then followed the crest (more or less) of the summit ridge south to the summit. Took a slightly different way down. Any route will do.


text:
The BBC reported last week on the mathematical modelling of census data from nine countries that predicts the death of religion in those countries by 2050 or thereabouts. I take seriously the work of social scientists and am impressed with the way that mathematical modelling can predict scenarios that might otherwise be difficult, even impossible, to construct. However, it's important to keep a firm grip on the fact that mathematical modelling constructs models and scenarios based on non-mathematical assumptions. If the assumptions lack imagination, the model may fail to convince or satisfy, however sophisticated the modelling.
Released on the 14th January 2011, the work of three mathematicians from Northwestern University, Evanston IL, is stimulated by the growth in numbers of those who claim to be 'non-affiliated' when asked to indicate their religious affiliation. The research draws on data from six European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.) as well as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and its predictions are said to be valid for 'modern secular societies'. Readers of their paper will immediately recognise that its mathematical modelling is probably beyond the ability of most to offer a credible critique. I suspect that even a good number of statisticians would struggle!
However, all models need a foundation and I'd simply encourage readers to consider whether they agree with the model's assumptions. The first assumption is that religious groups become more attractive as the number of members increases. The second is that the attractiveness of a religious group depends upon the social, economic, political and security benefits of belonging to it, in addition to the shared spiritual vision of the group.
A question to ask is whether this model can, therefore, adequately account for religious groups whose appeal is grounded in the imaginative prospect of living without the benefits listed, who stress sacrifice, and who remain unconcerned with large numbers. This alternative way of life is likely to remain convincing for some. The researchers might dismiss this as being an unappealing prospect in a modern secular society but their dismissal would be rooted in human assumptions rather than mathematical certainty.
I am as confident as are the researchers standing behind their mathematical modelling, that well beyond the predicted demise of religion in 2050, it will continue to be a vital source of personal transformation and commitment. I dare not be complacent in the face of the significant challenges posed by secular alternatives, but I remain hopeful that in Europe, as elsewhere in the world, faith will continue to provoke imagination and form followers of Christ who 'wager on a future that verifiable experience seems to belie.' (David Bosch) Or, to put it another way, and to quote a well known mathematician, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.' (Albert Einstein).


text:
The Answer to All Your Burning Questions
Photography by Chyanime
Photos from Louisianime 2011 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Pages [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]
Enter your username and password below to login.
Complete the form below to register.
Enter your email address to reset your password.
Official Facebook
Powered by WordPress | Designed by Elegant Themes


text:
Jump for Joy now offers the opportunity to provide affordable and unique entertainment for any event of age group. Your guests can jump, bounce and crawl on or in our wonderful inflatables. Reserve online or call us at (804) 301-5024.
Book now! Call (804) 301-5024 or place your orders online!


text:
For Immediate Release, September 4, 2012
San Francisco's Rediscovered Franciscan Manzanita Gains Endangered Status,
300 Acres of Proposed Critical Habitat
SAN FRANCISCO— One of San Francisco's most important biological discoveries, the Franciscan manzanita (Arctostaphylos franciscana), will gain Endangered Species Act protection, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency is also proposing to designate more than 300 acres of critical habitat for the manzanita in 11 different areas of San Francisco, including property owned by the Presidio Trust and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. Once finalized, this will be the first protected critical habitat for any terrestrial species in San Francisco County.
"The Endangered Species Act gives us the best tools available to protect and recover the rediscovered Franciscan manzanita,' said Brent Plater, executive director of the Wild Equity Institute. "Coupled with the help of the Bay Area's best minds in the manzanita business, the day will come when this species is once again a functioning part of our biological community."
"It's great this native San Franciscan plant is getting protections that will allow it to flourish again," said Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity. "This hopefully will bolster efforts to preserve the last remnants of San Francisco's biological heritage."
The protection of "critical habitat" is closely tied to the ultimate recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act. Species with designated critical habitat are generally twice as likely to be recovering as those without it. Because all historic habitats for Franciscan manzanita have been destroyed by development, the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing critical habitat in areas suitable for reintroduction and establishment of new manzanita populations.
Critical habitat is proposed for five locations within the Presidio Trust (Fort Point, Fort Point Rock, World War II Memorial, Immigrant Point and Inspiration Point) and five areas within San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and other lands (Corona Heights, Twin Peaks, Mount Davidson, Diamond Heights, Bernal Heights and Bayview Park).
The final listing rule, which will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow, will become effective Oct. 5, 2012. The Fish and Wildlife Service will accept public comments on the critical habitat proposal for 60 days.
In 2009, Dr. Daniel Gluesenkamp rediscovered a single Franciscan manzanita, a species that had been presumed extinct in the wild for over 60 years. This subtly charming flowering shrub was endemic to San Francisco, but was tragically lost in the wild despite heroic acts by botanists. In an act of desperation, botanists stood in front of earth-moving equipment in 1947 to rescue the last known wild plants from a construction site. The plants were sent to a botanical garden, and no one found the plant in the wild again until Dr. Gluesenkamp's discovery.
The last individual manzanita plant was subsequently moved to a more secure location in the Presidio to avoid disturbance from the ongoing construction of the Doyle Drive project. While the individual plant was saved from immediate threat, formal protection was needed to ensure the species can recover. Endangered Species Act protection can benefit the species by creating a recovery plan, prioritizing federal funding for recovery efforts, and helping to protect critical habitats.
The Wild Equity Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society filed a formal listing petition seeking federal protection for the manzanita in 2009, and the Wild Equity Institute sued in 2011 when the listing proposal was delayed.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
Go back