Cover not available
Article published In:
Morphology and its interfaces: Syntax, semantics and the lexicon
Edited by Dany Amiot, Delphine Tribout, Natalia Grabar, Cédric Patin and Fayssal Tayalati
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37:2] 2014
► pp. 225–239

Expletives in words

Linking elements as markers of wordhood

| University of Tsukuba

The presence of semantically empty morphs (linking elements) in compounds poses a challenge for morpheme-based morphology. The purpose of this paper is to solve the problem using Distributed Morphology, which is a highly articulated version of morpheme-based morphology. Specifically, exploiting the empirical similarities between linking elements and expletives, I argue that linking elements are expletives in word domains. Moreover, I demonstrate that the Single Engine Hypothesis of Distributed Morphology theoretically supports the view of linking elements as expletives. In my analysis, linking elements function as markers of wordhood, just as phrasal expletives are markers of phrasehood. I confirm this view by showing that linking elements/expletives occur in all types of compounds.

Keywords: compounds, empty morphs, the Single Engine Hypothesis, Distributed Morphology, morpheme-based morphology, marker of wordhood, expletives
Published online: 22 May 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.37.2.03oku
References
Anderson, S
(1992) A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The significance of semantically non-concatenative morphology. Paper presented at 9th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting , Dubrovnik, Croatia, 15–18 September 2013.
Arad, M
(2003) Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 211, 737–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arcodia, G. F., Grandi, N., & Wälchli, B
(2010) Coordination in compounding. In S. Scalise, & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 177–197). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C
(1988) Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L
(2001) Compounding. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language universals and language typology (pp. 695–707). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Dvandvas. Word Structure, 1(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Typology of compounds. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 343–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, W
(1997) The reed reference grammar of Māori. Auckland: Reed.Google Scholar
Benigni, V., & Massini, F
(2009) Compounds in Russian. Lingue e Linguaggio, 8(2), 171–193.Google Scholar
Bisetto, A., & Scalise, S
(2005) The classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4(2), 319–332.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den
(2006) Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W., & Barbaresi, M
(1991) Interradical interfixes: Contact and contrast. In V. Ivir, & D. Kaloqiera (Eds.), Languages in contact and contrast: Essays in contact linguistics (pp. 133–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbert, S., & Pukui, M
(1979) Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D., & Marantz, A
(2008) Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franceschi, D
(2013) The cum-construction in present-day English. Rivista di Linguistica, 25(2), 221–260.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A
(1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, & S. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H
(2009) Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I., & de Urbina, J. O
(2003) A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itô, J., & Mester, A
(1986) The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(1), 49–73.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F
(2009) Uralic, Finno-Ugric: Hungarian. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 527–541). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kubozono, H
(1995) Gokeisei to Oninkouzou [Word Formation and Phonological Structure]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Labrune, L. (2014). Featural linking elements in Basque compounds. Morphology, 24(4), 377–405.
Lieber, R
(2009) IE, Germanic: English. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 357–369). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A
(1997) No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 201–225). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
(2001) Words and things. Handout. MIT.Google Scholar
Marchand, H
(1969) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mukai, M
(2008) Recursive compounds. Word Structure, 11, 178–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemi, J
(2009) Compounds in Finnish. Lingue e Linguaggio, 8(2), 237–256.Google Scholar
Nübling, D., & Szczepaniak, R
(2008) On the way from morphology to phonology: German linking elements and the role of the phonological word. Morphology, 181, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okubo, T
(2014) Linking elements as expletives in distributed morphology. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the English Linguistic Society of Japan (pp. 130–136). Tokyo: The English Linguistic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Plag, I
(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary of the English language (OED)
2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ralli, A
(2008) Compound markers and parametric variation. Language Typology and Universals (STUF), 611, 19–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Compounding and its locus of realization: Evidence from Greek and Turkish. Word Structure, 6(2), 181–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, S., & Bisetto, A
(2009) The classification of compounds. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 34–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shimada, M
(2004) Dousiteki Kyozi ni kansuru Syogensyou: Huhenbunpou no kanten kara no Bunseki [Phenomena concerning verbal expletives: The analysis in terms of universal grammar]. Ibaraki: University of Tsukuba Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
(2012) Three types of coordinate compounds: Comparison between Western and Asian languages. Paper presented at Universals and Typology in Word-Formation II , Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia, 26–28 August 2012.
(2013) Coordinated compounds: Comparison between English and Japanese. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 10(1), 77–96.Google Scholar
Shimada, M., Nagano, A., Okubo, T., & Asano, M
(2014) Functions and typology of the compounding stem: Meaning-independent elements in compounds. Paper presented at the 16th International Morphology Meeting , Budapest, Hungary, 13–16 May 2014.
Sridhar, S
(1990) Kannada. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Štichauer, P
(2009) Compounds in Czech. Lingue e Linguaggio, 8(2), 293–314.Google Scholar
Thompson, L
(1987) A Vietnamese reference grammar. USA: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar