This literature-based thesis studies the phenomenon of the regular plural inside compounds according to Giegerich’s (1999) stratal model of English morphology. The strata of his model are defined by their bases: stratum 1 is root-based and stratum 2 is word-based. The model overcomes the failings associated with earlier stratal models defined by their affixes (e.g., Kiparsky, 1982). However, assigning compounding and the regular plural to the same word stratum following Giegerich’s (1999) model leaves an open question in terms of what restricts the interaction between both rules to prevent the generation of ill-formed compounds such as *toys box and *trucks driver. Another question emerges: Should the regular plural inflection be assigned to stratum 2? This question is important because the answer affects how we discuss the interaction between the regular plural and compounding. For example, how do we account for the interaction between a stratum-2 rule and a syntactic rule if we are not dealing with an interaction of two lexical rules at the same stratum? This thesis challenges the theory that inflectional morphology is separate from the lexicon (Anderson, 1988, 1982; Perlmutter, 1988) with supporting evidence from the properties of the possessive inflection. This research contributes significantly to the literature in its analysis of a number of compounds within texts extracted from books, which demonstrates that the internal regular plural morpheme has an evident semantic function that restricts it from appearing inside compounds (that is, on stratum 2 of the base-driven stratification model). The study thereby challenges Lieber and Štekauer’s (2009) view that the internal regular plural morpheme is purposeless and therefore should be regarded as a linking element. I also argue that the possessive inflection is assigned to stratum 2 and can interact with compounding to form possessive compounds, but is restricted by the semantic feature of the non-head element.

This thesis investigates the system of compounding attested in the earliest written Latvian texts of the 16th and 17th centuries. The philological analysis presented in this work is the first systematic attempt to extensively treat compounds in Old Latvian. The purpose of this thesis is to thoroughly describe the system of compounding of the earliest period of written Latvian. One of the main aims of the analysis provided in this work is to determine whether the Old Latvian compounds were distinguished in terms of their meaning and form. This is why another important aim of this study is to discern the most characteristic formal properties of each category of compounds in Old Latvian. This study also addresses the morphological variation of the components of compounds and seeks to explain why one finds different tendencies of compounding in the texts of this period.    Firstly, it is shown in this thesis that compounds in Old Latvian were clearly distinguished in terms of their meaning. The main semantic types of Old Latvian compounds, which were analyzed in this study, are the determinative compounds, the possessive compounds, the verbal governing compounds, and the copulative compounds. Secondly, it is argued that the aforementioned types of compounds were clearly differentiated in terms of the formal properties of their components. A large number of possessive compounds and verbal governing compounds had the compositional suffix -is (m.)/-e (f.). By contrast, only a handful of determinative compounds had this suffix. In view of the distribution of the suffix found in the Old Latvian compounds, it is suggested that the suffix was originally restricted to adjectival compounds. Furthermore, the different types of compounds in Old Latvian were also distinguished in terms of the first component. In the majority of cases, both the possessive compounds and the verbal governing compounds were coined without linking elements, while the determinative compounds had linking elements to a larger extent. Thirdly, it is proposed in this thesis that a part of linking elements used in the determinative compounds in Old Latvian originated from the original stem vowels of the first components. Thus, it is argued that stem compounds were still attested in the Old Latvian texts, although this Baltic model of coining compounds is no longer visible in Modern Latvian. Lastly, it is suggested that the tendencies of compounding found in the texts under discussion represent dialectal differences. Another contribution of this study is that the Old Latvian compounds are not treated in isolation, but analyzed in drawing parallels with compounds in the other Baltic languages, Lithuanian in particular. Hence, by analyzing common features and similarities between the compounding systems, the Old Latvian compounds are positioned within the context of the Baltic system of compounding.