1. Introduction

(1)

a. Subordination: e.g., taxi driver, brain death

b. Modification: e.g., ghostwriter, blackboard

c. Coordination: e.g., singer-songwriter, mind-brain

(2)

a. singer-songwriter

  ‘someone who is a singer and songwriter’

b. actor-author

  ‘someone who is an actor and author’

(3)

a. mind-brain

  ‘the philosophical and physiological aspects of cognitive processes

considered as a causally interrelated entity’ <Philosophy>

b. Austro-Hungary, Austria-Hungary

  ‘the dual monarchy established in 1867 by the Austrian emperor Franz Josef, according to which Austria and Hungary became autonomous states under a common sovereign.’

2. Framework

3. Data

4. Discussion

4.1. Testing the prediction

Let us recall that our prediction was that there should be VV dvandvas that behave as repetitive durative or [−B, +CI] verbs. In this section we show that it is empirically borne out by Pattern B. Pattern A, on the other hand, behaves as either non-repetitive durative or punctual verbs, i.e., [±B, −CI] verbs. Our conceptual basis is that of Lieber (2004: Ch.5), as already mentioned in Section 2.2. The quantity-related features [B] and [CI] are used to characterize quantitative or aspectual classes among simplex verbs, not among verb phrases (Lieber 2004: 141-144), in the following way:

I propose that the feature [B] to be used to encode the distinction between temporally punctual situations and temporally durative ones. [+B] items will be those which have no linguistically significant duration, for example, explode, jump, flash, name. [−B] items will be those which have linguistically significant duration, for example, descend, walk, draw, eat, build, push. (Lieber 2004: 137)

Plural nouns denote multiple individuals of the same kind, nonplural nouns single individuals or mass substances. I would like to suggest that the corresponding lexical distinction in situations is one of iterativity vs. homogeneity. Some verbs denote events which by their very nature imply repeated actions of the same sort, for example, totter, wiggle, pummel, or giggle. By definition, to totter or to wiggle is to produce repeated motions of a certain sort, to pummel is to produce repeated blows, and to giggle to emit repeated small bursts of laughter. Such verbs, I would say, are lexically [+CI]. The vast majority of other verbs would be [−CI]. Verbs such as walk or laugh or build, although perhaps not implying perfectly homogeneous events, are not composed of multiple, repeated, relatively identical actions. (Lieber 2004: 138-139)

This view nicely captures the two patterns in Table 2: iterativity (pattern B) vs. homogeneity (pattern A). It is crucial to use Japanese data for our test because English VV compounds such as blow-dry, crash-land, freeze-dry, slam-dunk, stir-fry, etc. (see Bagasheva 2015 for a review) uniformly behave like the majority, non-repetitive verbs.

Pattern B compounds all show a habitual or repeated action interpretation in the simple past tense. For example, yari-tori ‘give and receive’ refers to the alternative multiple occurrence of the act of giving and receiving by more than one agent, in addition to a one-time giving and receiving performed simultaneously or consecutively. In the literature on English VV compounds, the distinction between simultaneous and sequential readings has been a topic of some importance, but both readings describe a single event; Pattern B differs in its multiple-event reading.

First, we examine the [−B] property of pattern B. The sentences below show that even when the component verbs are punctual, pattern B compounds are iterative-durative, accepting a time adverbial denoting a relatively long period of time.

(21)

a. Taro to Hanako wa sannen kan meeru de yari-tori sita                Converse

    and   top three year for e-mail by give-take do.pst

  ‘Taro and Hanako exchanged e-mails for three years.’

b. Taro wa sannen kan ie to sono byooin o iki-ki sita                 Reversive

    top three year for house and the hospital acc go-come do.pst

  ‘Taro went back and forth between his house and the hospital for three years.’

c. Hanako wa hito ban zyuu sono mado o ake-sime sita                Reversive

    top one night through the window acc open-close do.pst

  ‘Hanako opened and closed the window all through the night.’

d. Hanako wa natu zyuu oba no ie de ne-tomari sita               Co-hyponymic

    top summer through aunt gen house at sleep-stay do.pst

  ‘Hanako spent the summer at her aunt’s house.’

The observed durativity is closely related to the iterativity or multiple occurrences of the same kind of event, i.e., the [+CI] property of Pattern B. Thus, in (18a), where the converse verbs of buying and selling denote a single situation from different perspectives, the events they describe cannot be performed simultaneously by one agent. While they can be performed consecutively by an agent in a single occasion (e.g., a situation where Taro bought something and then immediately sold it), such a singular reading is rarely observed when the component verbs are converse opposites. The simultaneous singular reading becomes more natural with a plural subject (e.g., situation where Taro bought something that Hanako sold). The most common reading, however, is the habitual or repeated alternation of buying and selling by one or more than one agents, as in the English binomial buy and sell. The same observation applies to the reversive compounds in (18b) and the co-hyponymic compounds in (18c); the component verbs describe events that cannot be simultaneously performed by one agent. The other kinds of singular readings seem to be possible with the former, reversive group where the semantic opposition of the components concerns physical movement. That is, the compounds in (18b) can describe sequential serial movement by one agent (e.g., a situation where Taro went to his workplace and then came home from there) and a simultaneous bidirectional movement by two agents (e.g., a situation where Taro went somewhere and Hanako returned from there). Much more common, however, are the habitual or repeated action readings shown in (21).

The quantifier takusan ‘a lot’ can quantify events in colloquial diction (Tanaka 2015: 56-59 and the references therein). The [−B, +CI] property of Pattern B is confirmed by the fact that takusan gives rise to the interpretation of an event-number measurement, regardless of whether the component verbs are transitive, unergative, or unaccusative:

(22)

a. Taro to Hanako wa takusan syoogaku o yari-tori sita                number

    and top a lot small sum acc give-take do.pst

  ‘Taro and Hanako exchanged a small amount of money many times.’

b. Taro wa ie to sono byooin o takusan iki-ki sita

    top house and the hospital acc a lot go-come do.pst

  ‘Taro went back and forth between his house and the hospital many times.’

c. Hanako wa sono mado o takusan ake-sime sita

    top the window acc a lot open-close do.pst

  ‘Hanako opened and closed the window many times.’

d. Hanako wa oba no ie de takusan ne-tomari sita

    top summer aunt gen house at a lot sleep-stay do.pst

  ‘Hanako stayed at her aunt’s house many times.’

In the uncompounded state, this is not observed; the interpretation of takusan will be that of ‘much’ rather than ‘many times.’ Thus, as shown below, takusan + uncompounded verb usually measures the duration, intensity, or degree of an intransitive event and the volume of the theme/patient argument of a transitive event.

(23)

a. Watasi wa takusan {neta/naita}               duration, intensity

    I  top a lot {slept/cried}

  ‘I slept/cried a lot.’

 

b. Kami ga takusan nobita.                       degree

  Hair nom a lot grew

  ‘My hair grew a lot.’

 

  Kion ga takusan {agatta/sagatta}                   degree

  the temperature nom a lot {rose/fell}

  ‘The temperature rose/fell a lot.’

 

c. Watasi wa takusan {yatta/totta}               volume of the theme

    I  top a lot {gave/took}

  ‘I gave/took a lot.’

 

  Watasi wa takusan {yonda/kaita}.

    I  top a lot {read/wrote}

  ‘I read/wrote a lot.’

Furthermore, the [−B, +CI] property of pattern B explains the following semantic ambiguities (i), (ii):

(24)

a. Taro to Hanako ga ikkai agari-sagari sita.

    and  nom once ascend-descend do.pst

(i)   ‘Taro and Hanako ascended and descended together.’

(ii)   ‘Taro ascended and Hanako descended. ‘ or

    ‘Taro descended and Hanako ascended.’

 

  Yamada huuhu ga ikkai sono omoi mado o ake-sime sita

  husband-wife nom once the heavy window open-close do.pst

  ‘Mr. & Mrs. Yamada opened and closed the heavy window together.’

  ‘Mr. Yamada opened the heavy window and Mrs. Yamada closed it.’ or ‘Mrs. Yamada opened the heavy window and Mr. Yamada closed it.’

As shown by (ii), when a Pattern B compound takes a coordinated subject, either a syntactic coordination (24a) or dvandva compound (24b), it becomes possible to have a one-to-one distributive reading, roughly as shown below.

Moreover, although this is not limited to the coordinated-subject construction above, the events described by the component verbs in Pattern B need not be temporally adjacent. That is, the sentence in (24b), for example, is compatible with situations in which the window in question is opened in the morning and then closed in the evening. These observations support our view that semantically, Pattern B compounds are conceived of as being composed of separable similar internal units.

Pattern A, on the other hand, shows no habitual or repeated action interpretation in the simple past tense. Its examples divide into non-repetitive durative verbs such as (17a) and punctual verbs such as (17b). Importantly, here, the two constituent events (e.g., crying and screaming in (17a)) can be performed simultaneously by one agent, and it is the only reading in our judgments. As shown by the acceptable and unacceptable (*) readings in (25), it is also important to note that the two component events of pattern A cannot be associated with different agents.

(25)

a. Taro to Hanako wa niziikan naki-wameita              Nonrepetitive durative

  and   top two hour cry-scream.pst

(i)   ‘Taro and Hanako cried and screamed for two hours.’

(ii)   *’Taro cried and Hanako screamed for two hours, respectively.’

 

b. Taro to Hanako wa (*nizikan) sono sensei ni nare-sitasinda             Punctual

  and  top (two hours) the teacher dat get used-grow intimate.pst

(i)   ‘Taro and Hanako got to know and like the teacher.’

(ii)   *’Taro got used to the teacher and Hanako became intimate with her, respectively.’

The complete absence of the one-to-one distributive reading indicates that pattern A coordinate compounds, whether durative or punctual, denote a single event that is temporally homogeneous or internally undifferentiated. In other words, the two component verbs form a single complex predicate in which the events they describe are semantically synthesized into one.

Pattern A compounds characterized by the feature composition [−B, −CI] can be combined with the quantifier takusan ‘a lot.’ However, unlike the observation in (22) with pattern B compounds, the quantification does not lead to the event-number measurement:

(26)

a. Taroo wa takusan naki-sakenda             duration or intensity, *number

    top a lot cry-scream.pst

  ‘Taro cried and screamed a lot.’

 

b. Watasi wa kanoosei o takusan omoi-egaita.        volume of the theme, *number

  I  top possibility acc a lot think picture.pst

  ‘I imagined a lot of possibilities.’

This is because counting numbers requires the plural eventuality.

In conclusion, the existence of VV dvandvas is empirically confirmed. Pattern B behaves as [+CI] words just like classic dvandva compounds.

4.2. Treatment of Pattern A

The remaining question concerns the treatment of pattern A: is it a subtype of dvandva compounding or a type of non-dvandva coordinate compounding? The former view would suggest that pattern A represents the co-synonymic dvandva (Yonekura et al. (2023: 231)). While we agree with the semantic analysis that motivates this view, we believe that the obvious morphophonological differences between the two patterns as summarized in Table 2 cannot be easily ignored. In Modern Greek, another dvandva-rich language, dvandvas and appositive coordinate compounds are distinguished primarily by their formal properties. The MG dvandva compounds shown in (13) consist of two bound stems connected by the characteristic compound marker -o-. In contrast, according to Ralli (2013: 255), the MG appositive asyndetic construction consists of two independent words and does not involve -o- in-between (e.g., iθopios-traγuδistis ‘actor-singer’) (see also Manolessou and Tsolakidis 2009 for the classical language).6

The form-based distinction becomes much more plausible and empirically grounded when attention is paid fo a further contrast between pattern A and pattern B. At the end of Section 2.1, it was observed that classic Japanese dvandvas occur in either the [free morph + free morph] or [bound morph + bound morph] pattern, and that many contemporary free + free examples have corresponding older bound + bound realizations. Significantly, this generalization applies to pattern B, but not to pattern A. As suggested in Table 3, Pattern B compounds have a bound + bound synonym; their component forms are free morphs because when viewed independently of the host construction, they occur freely in the syntax.

Table 3. Pattern B compounds with Sino-Japanese forms

Table 3. Pattern B compounds with Sino-Japanese forms

Kanji representation	Native pronunciation	Sino-Japanese pronunciation
売+買	(18a) uri-kai (suru)	bai=bai (suru)
授+受、受+授	(18a) yari-tori, yari-morai	zyu=zyu
往+来	(18b) iki-ki	oo=rai
上+下	(18b) agari-sagari	zyoo=ge
出+入	(18b) de-iri, dasi-ire	syutu=nyuu
開+閉	(18b) ake-sime	kai=hei
見+聞	(18c) mi-kiki	ken=bun
飲+食	(18c) nomi-kui	in=syoku

In Table 3, the Sino-Japanese pronunciations are used in formal diction, while the native pronunciations have no stylistic restrictions. Syntactically, the Sino-Japanese forms are also non-conjugational verbs, as suggested by the parenthesized suru in the first example.

Now, not only pattern B but also pattern A uses the native pronunciation, but with it, the alternation with the Sino-Japanese pronunciation is much weaker. In (17), only koi-sitaw- can be matched with ren=bo, and outside (17), oi-motome(ru) (lit. follow-pursue) ‘pursue’ and tui=kyuu (追求) may be relevant. Historically, pattern A may also have been associated with bound + bound synonyms, but the association is much less easily identifiable than with pattern B. This perspective sheds light on why ake-kurer(u) behaves as pattern A; semantically, the coordination of reversives is an odd one out in the list of (17), but the item is like the other examples in that it has no living bound + bound synonym.7 Furthermore, it seems safe to say that most Sino-Japanese coordinate compounds that do not have corresponding native forms are cosynonyms (e.g., too=hi (逃避), set=too (窃盗)).

5. Conclusions

List of abbreviations

• A: adjective
  acc: accusative
  [+B]: a semantic feature that stands for “bounded” in the LSF. When a word has this feature, it is bounded in space or time.
  [+CI]: a semantic feature that stands for “composed of individuals” in the LSF. When a word has this feature, it is conceived of as being composed of separable, similar internal units.
  CM: compounding marker
  COORD: coordinate compounding or coordinate compounds
  dat: dative
  du: dual
  gen: genitive
  LSF: Lexical Semantic Framework
  MOD: modificational compounding or modificational compounds
  N: noun
  nom: nominative
  pst: past tense
  pl: plural
  prs: present tense
  R argument: referential argument
  SUB: subordinate compounding or subordinate compounds
  top: topic
  V: verb

References

1. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Arcodia, Giorgio, F., Nichola Grandi, and Bernhard Wälchli. 2010. Coordination in compounding. In Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding. Edited by Sergio Scalise and Irene Vogel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177-197.
3. Aronoff, Mark. 2023. Three ways to look at morphological rivalry. Word Structure 16 (1): 49-62. [CrossRef]
4. Bagasheva, Alexandra. 2015. On the classification of compound verbs. On-line proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8). Edited by Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise, and Athanasios Karasimos, pp.41-55.
5. Bauer, Laurie. 2008. Dvandvas. Word Structure 1: 1-20.
6. Bauer, Laurie. 2010a. Co-compounds in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Languages 22 (3): 201-219. [CrossRef]
7. Bauer, Laurie. 2010b. The typology of exocentric compounds. In Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding. Edited by Sergio Scalise and Irene Vogel. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 167–175.
8. Bauer, Laurie. 2017. Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bauer, Laurie. 2022. Exocentricity yet again: A response to Nóbrega and Panagiotidis. Word Structure 15 (2): 138-147. [CrossRef]
10. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
11. Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Ceccagno, Antonella, and Bianca Basciano. 2009. Sino-Tibetan: Mandarin Chinese. In The Oxford handbook of compounding. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 478-490.
13. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14. Cruse, Alan. 2011. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2005. Lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: Lexicon vs. syntax. Language 81 (3): 568-612. [CrossRef]
16. Fukushima, Kazuhiko. In press. Competition of lexicon vs. pragmatics in word formation: Japanese lexical V-V compounds and argument synthesis. In Competition in Word-Formation. Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano, and Vincent Renner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Gardelle, Laure. 2019. Semantic plurality: English collective nouns and other ways of denoting pluralities of entities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. ten Hacken, Pius. 1994. Defining morphology: A principled approach to determining the boundaries of compounding, derivation, and inflection. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
19. Harris, Alice C. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. The semantics of non-Boolean ‘AND.’ Journal of Semantics 6: 19-40. [CrossRef]
21. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. Eds. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to gokeisei [Grammar and word-formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi.
23. Kageyama, Taro. 2009. Isolate: Japanese. In The Oxford handbook of compounding. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 512-526.
24. Kiparsky, Paul. 2009. Verbal co-compounds and subcompounds in Greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57, 187-195.
25. Kiparsky, Paul. 2010. Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language 86 (2): 302-331. [CrossRef]
26. Kishimoto, Hideki, and Satoshi Uehara. 2016. Lexical categories. In Handbook of Japanese lexicon and word formation. Edited by Taro Kageyama and Hideki Kishimoto. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 51-91.
27. Koliopoulou, Maria. 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.
28. Kopaczyk, Joanna, and Hans Sauer. 2017. Defining and exploring binomials. In Binomials in the History of English. Edited by Joanna Kopaczyk and Hans Sauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-23.
29. Lauwers, Peter and Marie Lammert. 2016. New perspectives on lexical plurals. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39 (2): 207-216. [CrossRef]
30. Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78-104.
32. Lieber, Rochelle. 2016a. English nouns: The ecology of nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Lieber, Rochelle. 2016b. Compounding in the lexical semantic framework. In The semantics of compounding. Edited by Pius ten Hacken. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.38-53.
34. Lieber, Rochelle, and Pavol Štekauer. eds. 2009. The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Manolessou, Io, and Symeon Tsolakidis. 2009. Greek coordinated compounds: Synchrony and diachrony. Patras Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 23-39.
36. Masini, Francesca, and Anna M. Thornton. 2008. Italian VeV lexical constructions. On-line proceedings of the sixth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM6). Edited by Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise, and Athanasios Karasimos, pp.149-189.
37. Masini, Francesca, Simone Mattiola, and Steve Pepper. 2023. Exploring complex lexemes cross-linguistically. Binominal lexemes in cross-linguistic perspective: Towards a typology of complex lexemes. Edited by Steve Pepper, Francesca Masini, and Simone Mattiola. De Gruyter Mouton, pp.1-20. [CrossRef]
38. Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion ‘word.’ Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
39. Nagano, Akiko, and Masaharu Shimada. 2014. Morphological theory and orthography: Kanji as a representation of lexemes. Journal of Linguistics 50 (2): 323-364. [CrossRef]
40. Naya, Ryohei, and Takashi Ishida. 2021. Double endocentricity and constituent ordering of English copulative compounds. In Data Science in Collaboration 4. Edited by Yuichi Ono and Masaharu Shimada. Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba, pp. 49-57.
41. Nicholas, Nick, and Brian D. Joseph. 2009. Verbal dvandvas in Modern Greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57: 171-185.
42. Niinuma, Fumikazu. 2015. The syntax of dvandva VV compounds in Japanese. The Journal of Morioka University 32: 53-68.
43. Nóbrega, Vitor A., and Phoevos Panagiotidis. 2020. Headedness and exocentric compounding. Word Structure 13 (2): 211-249. [CrossRef]
44. Olsen, Susan. 2001. Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 279-320.
45. Packard, Jerome L. 2000. The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Pepper, Steve. 2016. Windmills, Nizaa and the typology of binominal compounds. In Word-Formation across Languages. Edited by Lívia Körtvélyessy, Pavol Štekauer, and Salvador Valera. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp.281-310.
47. Ralli, Angela. 2013. Compounding in Modern Greek. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. [CrossRef]
48. Ralli, Angela. 2019. Coordination in compounds. Oxford Research Encyclopedia. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics.
49. Renner, Vincent. 2008. On the semantics of English coordinate compounds. English Studies 89 (5): 606-613. [CrossRef]
50. Roy, Isabelle. 2013. Nonverbal predication: Copular sentences and the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Scalise, Sergio, and Antonietta Bisetto. 2009. The classification of compounds. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33-53.
52. Scalise, Sergio, Antonio Fábregas, and Francesca Forza. 2009. Exocentricity in compounding. Gengo Kenkyu 135: 49-84.
53. Shimada, Masaharu. 2013. Coordinated compounds: Comparison between English and Japanese. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10: 77-96.
54. Spencer, Andrew. 2019. Canonical compounds. In Morphological perspectives: Papers in honour of Greville G. Corbett. Edited by Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond, and Andrew Hippisley. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.31-64.
55. Tanaka, Hideki. 2015. Eigo to nihongo ni okeru suuryoosihyoogen to kankeisetu no kaisyaku ni kansuru kizyututeki rironteki kenkyuu [A descriptive-theoretical study on the semantics of quantifiers and relative clauses in English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
56. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2014. An introduction to Japanese linguistics, 3^rd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
57. Ueno, Yoshio. 2016. Gendainihongo no bunpookoozoo: keitaironhen [The grammatical structure of Modern Japanese: Morphology]. Tokyo: Waseda University Press.
58. Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
59. Whitney, William Dwight. 1879. Sanskrit grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (Reprinted 1962).
60. Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word.’ Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245-274.
61. Yonekura, Hiroshi, Akiko Nagano, and Masaharu Shimada. 2023. Eigo to nihongo ni okeru tooihukugoogo [Coordinate compounds in English and in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
62. Yuhara, Ichiro. In press. Revisiting Poser’s (1992) “Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items” from the perspective of the economy of language use principle. In Competition in Word-Formation. Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano, and Vincent Renner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63. Yumoto, Yoko. 2005. Hukugoodoosi haseidoosi no imi to toogo [The semantics and syntax of compounded and derived verbs]. Tokyo: Hituzi.