Bernhard Haidacher

• Despite some critical voices, in German linguistics the concept of confix can meanwhile be considered as an established morpheme category. Schmidt (1987) introduced the term into German to describe bound morphemes that are lexical, but not inflectable. Since the 2000s, an increasing number of publications deal with the phenomenon and the term has begun to enter linguistic reference works as well. In French, the situation is completely different due to the structure of the language (poor in compounds and mostly post-determinative). Although theDespite some critical voices, in German linguistics the concept of confix can meanwhile be considered as an established morpheme category. Schmidt (1987) introduced the term into German to describe bound morphemes that are lexical, but not inflectable. Since the 2000s, an increasing number of publications deal with the phenomenon and the term has begun to enter linguistic reference works as well. In French, the situation is completely different due to the structure of the language (poor in compounds and mostly post-determinative). Although the term and the concept have originall y been coined by the French structuralist André Martinet ([1961] \(^3\)1980 ), the denomination itself is barely present in Romance linguistics. French researchers usually take different approaches to discuss the phenomenon (e.g., neoclassical compounds, constructed lexemes). In Italian, the denominations confisso/ confissazione are first used by De Mauro (1999), who adopts both the term and concept directly from Martinet; moreover, they can be found in some contributions on word formation and lexicology (e.g., Adamo/Della Valle 2008). Nevertheless, the Italian termino-logy remains heterogeneous, with some researchers still using the terms prefissoide/suffissoide coined by Migliorini (1963). As I will show by comparing the languages in question, the terminology and the concept of confixes vary greatly between Romance and Germanic languages.…