Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:11:29.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

John J. McCarthy
John J. McCarthy*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An analysis of English Expletive Infixation (as in fan-fuckin-tastic) in terms of a metrical theory of prosody is presented. It is shown that the major environment for Expletive Infixation—immediately before a stressed syllable—follows from independently motivated characteristics of this theory. Further support for this metrical theory is adduced from infixation in words with dactylic stress alternation and with internal stress-neutral junctures, and from the subordination of stress in forms after infixation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 574 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. (LI monographs, 1.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Stress rules in English: A new version. LI 4. 451–64.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1980. A metrical theory of stress rules. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–41.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, and Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1976. On hierarchic representations within syllables. MIT, MS.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1979a. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1979b. On stress and syllabification. LI 10. 443–65.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1981. The role of the evaluation metric in the acquisition of phonology. The logical problem of language acquisition, ed. by Baker, Carl L. & McCarthy, John, 218–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1978. Where you can shove infixes. Syllables and segments, ed. by Bell, Alan & Hooper, Joan, 213–21. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
McMillan, James. 1980. Infixing and interposing in English. American Speech 55. 163–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. LI 11. 511–62.Google Scholar
Rotenberg, Joel. 1978. The syntax of phonology. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–606.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. MS. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. To appear, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English morphology. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1973. A dissertation on natural phonology. University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Strauss, Steven. 1979. Against boundary distinctions in English morphology. Linguistic Analysis 5. 387–419.Google Scholar