Compound construction: Schemas or analogy?
This chapter argues that there is no absolute boundary between analogy and abstract schemas in word formation. Patterns of compounding are captured by constructional schemas of various degrees of abstraction. The necessity of such subschemas is argued for on the basis of observations on semantic specialization, headedness variation, diachrony, and allomorphy selection. Analogy and abstract schemas are opposite endpoints on a scale of schematicity.