Advertisement

Peeling away the layers of the onion: on layers, inflection and domains in Icelandic compounds

  • Gísli Rúnar HarðarsonEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In Icelandic there are two different types of modifiers within compounds, inflected and uninflected, and the inflected modifiers appear to be peripheral to the uninflected ones. In this article, it is proposed that this is an effect of compounding being required to combine elements of the same type or size. The inflected modifiers, containing more structure than the uninflected ones, cannot be merged at the same level as uninflected modifiers. This article also explores two other issues of domainhood within the compound. One being the establishment of domains for morphophonological processes, where it is proposed that the boundaries of morphophonological domains are determined by the edge of the extended projection of the root. The second one being that of special meaning, where it is shown that exocentric compounds with inflected modifiers have exclusively non-compositional meaning, whereas exocentric compounds with uninflected modifiers could have either compositional or non-compositional meaning.

Keywords

Morphology Morphosyntax Compounding Morphophonology Domains 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Roots don’t take complements. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 287–297.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, Margaret Reece. 1978. Morphological investigations. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Stephen. 1974. The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Árnason, Kristján. 1985. Icelandic word stress and metrical phonology. Studia Linguistica 39(2): 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Árnason, Kristján. 1987. The stress of prefixes and suffixes in Icelandic. In Nordic Prosody IV. Papers from a symposium, ed. Kristen Gregersen, and Hans Basbøll, 137–146. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Árnason, Kristján. 2005. Hljóð. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.Google Scholar
  7. Árnason, Kristján. 2009. Phonological domains in Modern Icelandic. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, ed. Janet Grijzenhout, and Bariş Kabak, 283–314. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Árnason, Kristján. 2011. The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies Written Language Archive (Ritmálssafn Orðabókar Háskólans. (n.d.) The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies. Accessed November 19, 2012 from www.arnastofnun.is/page/ritmal.
  10. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Bauer, Laurie. 1977. On teaching compound nouns. Moderna Språk 71: 325–336.Google Scholar
  12. Bauer, Laurie. 2009. Typology of compounds. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 343–356. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3–103.Google Scholar
  14. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Martin Walkow. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(4): 951–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín. 1990. Stofnhlutagreining samsettra orða. B.A. thesis, Reykjavík: University of Iceland.Google Scholar
  16. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín. 1996. Afleiðsla og samsetning. M.A. thesis, Reykjavík: University of Iceland.Google Scholar
  17. Bjarnadóttir, Kristín. 2000. Þágufallssamsetningar í ritmálssafni Orðabókar Háskólans. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans. http://www.lexis.hi.is/kristinb/datsams.html.
  18. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1994. What does adjacency do? MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 1–32.Google Scholar
  20. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 35–71.Google Scholar
  21. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1): 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2013. Suspension across domains. In Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, ed. Ora Matushanski, and Alec Marantz, 185–198. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bošković, Željko. 2013. Phases beyond clauses. In Nominal structures in Slavic and beyond, ed. Lilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou, and Urtzi Etxeberria, 75–128. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  28. Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1): 27–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chomsky, N. 1993. Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, David Micheals, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  34. Citko, Barbara. 2006. On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Corver, Norbert. 1992. Left branch extraction. In Proceedings of NELS 22, ed. K. Broderick, 67–84.Google Scholar
  36. Embick, David. 2010. Localism Versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Falk, Yehuda N. 1991. Bracketing paradoxes without brackets. Lingua 84(1): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Faarlund, J.T. 2009. On the history of definiteness marking in Scandinavian. Journal of Linguistics 45(3): 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A Theory of category projection and its applications. PhD. Dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Gouskova, Maria. 2010. The Phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review 17(4): 387–448.Google Scholar
  42. Gouskova, Maria, and Kevin Roon. 2009. Interface constraints and frequency in Russian compound stress. Proceedings of FASL 17: 49–63.Google Scholar
  43. Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical specification and insertion, ed. Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale, and Samuel Kayser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–288.Google Scholar
  46. Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2014. Tumbling down the Icelandic Noun Phrase. Ms. University of Connecticut. [https://gislihardarson.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/generals-ii-final.pdf].
  47. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1): 31–70.Google Scholar
  48. Harley, Heidi. 2005. One-replacement, unaccusativity, acategorial roots, and Bare Phrase Structure. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 59–78.Google Scholar
  49. Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in distributed morphology. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 129–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 225–276.Google Scholar
  51. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 2003. Distributed morphology. The second Glot international state-of-the-article book, 463–496. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Indriðason, Þorsteinn. 1994. Regluvirkni í orðasafni og utan þess: Um lexíkalska hljóðkerfisfræði íslensku. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
  53. Indriðason, Þorsteinn. 1999. Um eignarfallssamsetningar og aðrar samsetningar í íslensku. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 21: 107–150.Google Scholar
  54. Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Johnson, Kyle. 1990. On the syntax of inflectional paradigms. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  56. Johnson, Kyle. 2007. LCA + alignment = RNR. Paper presented at Workshop on Coordination, Subordination and Ellipsis, University of Tübingen. [http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/ tuebingen.pdf].
  57. Jóhannesson, Alexander. 1929. Die Komposita im Isländischen. Vol. 4. Vísindafélag Íslendinga.Google Scholar
  58. Jónsson, Baldur. 1984. Samsett orð með samsetta liði. Fáeinar athugasemdir. In Festskrift til Einar Lundeby, 3. oktober 1984, eds. Bernt Fossestøl, Kjell Ivar Vannebø, Kjell Venås & Finn-Erik Vinje,158–174. Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar
  59. Jónsson, Baldur. 1987. Íslensk orðmyndun. Andvari 112: 88–103.Google Scholar
  60. Julien, Marit. 2003. Double definiteness in Scandinavian. Nordlyd 31(1): 230–244.Google Scholar
  61. Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisserberth. 1979. Generative phonology. New York: Acdemic Press.Google Scholar
  63. Kester, Ellen-Petra. 1996. The nature of adjectival inflection. Ph.D. Dissertation. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  64. Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Nordic Prosody III: Papers from a symposium, ed. Claes-Christian Elert, Iréne Johansson, and Eva Strangert, 135–164. Umeå: University of Umeå.Google Scholar
  65. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck, and L. Zaring, 109–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Krott, Andrea, R. Robert Schreuder, Harald Baayen, and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2007. Analogical effects on linking elements in German compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(1): 25–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kvaran, Guðrun. 2005. Orð, vol. II. Reykjavík: Almenna Bókafélagið.Google Scholar
  68. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.Google Scholar
  69. Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  70. Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes. In Handbook of word-formation, ed. Pavol Štekauer, and Rochelle Lieber, 375–427. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lobeck, Anne C. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–216.Google Scholar
  74. Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. In West coast conference on formal linguistics. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. http://web.mit.edu/marantz/Public/EALING/WordsWCCFL.pdf.
  75. Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, ed. Sook-Hee Choe, Dong-Wee Yang, Yang-Soon Kim, Sung-Hun Kim, and Alec Marantz, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
  76. Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, ed. Ora Matushanski, and Alec Marantz, 95–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Mithun, Marianne. 2010. Constraints on compounds and incorporation. In Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, ed. Sergio Scalise, and Irene Vogel, 37–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Moskal, Beata. 2015a. Domains at the border: Between morphology and phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. Storrs: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  80. Moskal, Beata. 2015b. Limits on allomorphy: A case study in nominal suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Müller, Stefan. 2003. The morphology of German particle verbs: Solving the bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 247–266.Google Scholar
  82. Neef, Martin. 2009. IE, Germanic: German. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 386–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Newell, Heather. 2005. Bracketing paradoxes and particle verbs: A late adjunction analysis. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XIII, ed. Luis Vicente, and Erik Schoorlemmer, 249–272. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  84. Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. Ph.D. Dissertation. McGill University.Google Scholar
  85. Nissenbaum, Jonathan. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
  86. Nübling, Damaris, and Renata Szczepaniak. 2008. On the way from morphology to phonology: German linking elements and the role of the phonological word. Morphology 18: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nübling, Damaris, and Renata Szczepaniak. 2013. Linking elements in German origin, change, functionalization. Morphology 23: 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pesetsky, David. 1985. Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 16(2): 193–246.Google Scholar
  89. Pfaff, Alexander. 2014. Inside and outside—Before and after: Weak and strong adjectives in Icelandic. In Adjectives in Germanic and Romance: Variation and change, ed. Freek Van den Velde, Petra Sleeman, and Harry Perridon, 217–244. Amsterdam: Linguistic Aktuell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Piggott, Glyne, and Lisa Travis. 2013. Adjuncts within words and complex heads. In Syntax and its limits, ed. Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell, 157–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.Google Scholar
  92. Pylkkänen, Line. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Roeper, Thomas, and Muffy E.A. Siegel. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2): 199–260.Google Scholar
  94. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1990. Íslensk orðhlutafræði. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
  95. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006. The Icelandic noun phrase: Central traits. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 121: 193–236.Google Scholar
  97. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012. Case variation: Viruses and star wars. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(3): 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Snædal, Magnús. 1992. Hve langt má orðið vera. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 14: 173–207.Google Scholar
  99. Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  100. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan i Lon Jacobsen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen. 2004. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
  102. Vangsnes, Øystein A. 1999. Identification and the role of morphology in the Scandinavian noun phrase. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  103. Warren, Beatrice. 1978. Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds, vol. 41. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  104. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(3): 639–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Stripping and topless complements. Ms. University of Connecticut. Lingbuzz. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001779.
  106. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 403–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 1990. Compounding and inflection. In Contemporary morphology, ed. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschutsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison, 133–138. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations