Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:15:07.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical Overgeneration in Icelandic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Margaret Stong
Margaret Stong
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Ottwa, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5, Canada.
Get access

Abstract

Bound neuter i-stems in Modern Icelandic, which occur as heads of compounds in for example salanguryroi ‘slang word’, support an overgenerating model of the lexicon. Bound stems are shown to be generated as constituents at level 1 of the lexicon and combined to form compounds at level 2. Bound stems are blocked from becoming inputs to the syntax by the Avoid Synonymy principle (Kiparsky 1983), revised as a constraint on the output of the lexicon as a whole. Because Avoid Synonymy operates in lexical Logical Form, it has access to word-internal structure at each lexical level. The revised version of Avoid Synonymy is given additional support from Icelandic and English.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , December 1987 , pp. 181 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, M. R. 1978. Morphological Investigations. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1969. An Outline of the Phonology of Modern Icelandic Vowels. Foundations of Language 5, 53–72.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1972. Icelandic u-Umlaut and Breaking in a Generative Grammar. In Firchow, E. et al., (ed.), Studies for Einar Haugen, The Hague: Mouton, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1976. On the Conditioning of Icelandic u-Umlaut. Language Sciences 40, 26–27.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Böôvarsson árni 1983. ëslensk orôabòk handa skòlum og almenningi. Reykjavík: Bòkaútgáfa Menningarsjò*s.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1983. Convention and Contrast in Acquiring the Lexicon. In Seiler, Th. B. & Wannenmacher, W. (eds.), Concept Development and the Development of Word Meaning, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 67–89.Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 3–16.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. & Stong-Jensen, M. 1985. Avoid Synonymy Revivified. Canadian Linguistic Association, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical Morphology and Phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Hansin, Seoul, 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1983. Word Formation and the Lexicon. In Ingeman, F. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Kansas, 3–29.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1984. On the Lexical Phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C.-C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E. (eds.), Nordic Prosody III, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 135–164.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology. In Ewen, C. J. & Anderson, I. M. (eds.), Phonology Yearbook 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–138.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1983. Argument Linking and Compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 251–85.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Orešnik, J. 1971. On the Phonological Boundary Between Constituents of Modern Icelandic Compound Words. Linguistica (Ljublajna) 11, 51–59.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1985. Morphology and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 193–246.Google Scholar
Rognvaldsson, E. 1981. u-hljòôvarp og önnur a-ö víxl I nütímaíslensku, ĺslenskt Mdl og Almenn Málfræôi 3, 25–58.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. 1977. The Adjacency Condition and the Theory of Morphology. In Stein, M. J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Stong-Jensen, M. 1985. Overgeneration and Constraints in the Lexicon. Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, University of Iceland, Reykjavík.Google Scholar
Stong-Jensen, M. 1987. Rule Domains in Lexical Phonology. XIVth International Congress of Linguists, Berlin.Google Scholar
Valfells, S. 1967. “Umlaut”-Alternations in Modern Icelandic. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Walsh, L. 1984. Possible Words. In Speas, M. & Sproat, R. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 131–147.Google Scholar