In modern linguistics since American Structuralism onwards the notion of ‘head’ as ‘the most important unit’ has been the main target of the analysis devoted to syntagms and compounds. This notion nevertheless has some serious drawbacks, which are in- creasingly discussed from different points of view and methodologies in recent stud- ies. In this paper we try to face some of these issues by interpreting them in the light of Pāṇini’s marked choice of concentrating on the ‘non-head’ constituent of complex words – precisely on the upasarjana. Pāṇini’s approach is here submitted to the at- tention of modern scholars by virtue of its accounting for the undeniable crucial role of the subordinate element whose specifying function with all its lexical and figural strength prevails over the identifying role of the head with which it combines.
Lexical subordination and compounding Pāṇini’s focusing on the non-head
Maria Piera Candotti
;Tiziana Pontillo
2019-01-01
Abstract
In modern linguistics since American Structuralism onwards the notion of ‘head’ as ‘the most important unit’ has been the main target of the analysis devoted to syntagms and compounds. This notion nevertheless has some serious drawbacks, which are in- creasingly discussed from different points of view and methodologies in recent stud- ies. In this paper we try to face some of these issues by interpreting them in the light of Pāṇini’s marked choice of concentrating on the ‘non-head’ constituent of complex words – precisely on the upasarjana. Pāṇini’s approach is here submitted to the at- tention of modern scholars by virtue of its accounting for the undeniable crucial role of the subordinate element whose specifying function with all its lexical and figural strength prevails over the identifying role of the head with which it combines.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
