Jump to content

Expletive infixation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫
{{Short description|Process in word formation}}
{{Use American English|date=January 2019}}
{{Use American English|date=January 2019}}

⚫
{{Short description|Process in word formation}}


'''Expletive infixation''' is a process by which an [[Expletive attributive|expletive]] or [[profanity]] is inserted into a word, usually for intensification. It is similar to [[tmesis]], but not all instances are covered by the usual definition of ''tmesis'' because the words are not necessarily [[compound (linguistics)|compounds]].<ref name="McMillan">{{cite journal | last = McMillan | first = James B. | year = 1980 | title = Infixing and Interposing in English | journal = American Speech | volume = 55 | issue = 3 | pages = 163–183 | doi = 10.2307/455082 | jstor = 455082}}</ref>
'''Expletive infixation''' is a process by which an [[Expletive attributive|expletive]] or [[profanity]] is inserted into a word, usually for intensification. It is similar to [[tmesis]], but not all instances are covered by the usual definition of ''tmesis'' because the words are not necessarily [[compound (linguistics)|compounds]].<ref name="McMillan">{{cite journal | last = McMillan | first = James B. | year = 1980 | title = Infixing and Interposing in English | journal = American Speech | volume = 55 | issue = 3 | pages = 163–183 | doi = 10.2307/455082 | jstor = 455082}}</ref>
Line 7: Line 6:
The most commonly inserted English expletives are adjectival: either participles (''[[fuck]]ing'', ''mother-fucking'', ''freaking'', ''blooming'', ''[[bleeding]]'', ''[[damnation|damned]]'', ''wretched'') or adjectives (''[[bloody]]'').
The most commonly inserted English expletives are adjectival: either participles (''[[fuck]]ing'', ''mother-fucking'', ''freaking'', ''blooming'', ''[[bleeding]]'', ''[[damnation|damned]]'', ''wretched'') or adjectives (''[[bloody]]'').


== Rules of formation ==
== Rules of formation in English ==
Although most speakers are not exposed to these formations until after childhood,{{fact|date=November 2013}} they can form new examples readily once introduced to the process, and their judgments of which formations are acceptable are remarkably consistent.<ref name="McCarthy">{{cite journal | last = McCarthy | first = John J. | authorlink = John McCarthy (linguist) | year = 1982 | title = Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation | journal = Language | volume = 58 | issue = 3 | pages = 574–590 | doi = 10.2307/413849 | jstor = 413849| url = https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=linguist_faculty_pubs }}</ref> This suggests that the rules for the placement of the expletive are not arbitrary, but instead derive from fundamental aspects of [[English phonology]].{{explain|reason=Why only English phonology? Does it occur in other languages?|date=January 2017}}
Judgments of which formations of expletive infixation are acceptable are remarkably consistent.<ref name="McCarthy">{{cite journal | last = McCarthy | first = John J. | authorlink = John McCarthy (linguist) | year = 1982 | title = Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation | journal = Language | volume = 58 | issue = 3 | pages = 574–590 | doi = 10.2307/413849 | jstor = 413849| url = https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=linguist_faculty_pubs }}</ref> This suggests that the rules for the placement of the expletive are not arbitrary, but instead derive from fundamental aspects of [[English phonology]].{{explain|reason=Why only English phonology? Does it occur in other languages?|date=January 2017}}


A simple rule is that the insertion occurs at a [[syllable]] boundary, usually just before the primary [[stressed syllable]].<ref name="McMillan" /> Thus, one hears ''abso-fuckin'-lutely'' rather than *''ab-fuckin'-solutely''. This rule is insufficient to describe examples such as ''un-fuckin'-believable'', however, so modifications to this rule are proposed such as [[morpheme]] boundaries taking precedence over stress. Counterexamples to this exception do exist: ''unbe-fuckin'-lievable''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:unbefuckinglievable#English|title=Citations:unbefuckinglievable – Wiktionary|work=wiktionary.org}}{{Better source needed|reason=[[WP:CIRCULAR]]|date=January 2017}}</ref>
A simple rule is that the insertion occurs at a [[syllable]] boundary, usually just before the primary [[stressed syllable]].<ref name="McMillan" /> Thus, one hears ''abso-fuckin'-lutely'' rather than *''ab-fuckin'-solutely''. This rule is insufficient to describe examples such as ''un-fuckin'-believable'', however, so that some modifications to this rule are proposed, such as [[morpheme]] boundaries taking precedence over stress. Counterexamples to this exception do exist: ''unbe-fuckin'-lievable''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:unbefuckinglievable#English|title=Citations:unbefuckinglievable – Wiktionary|work=wiktionary.org|date=29 January 2021 }}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=[[WP:CIRCULAR]]|date=January 2017}}


A more fundamental theory due to [[John McCarthy (linguist)|John McCarthy]] is based on [[Prosody (linguistics)|prosody]].<ref name="McCarthy" /> Its basic principle is that "the metrical stress tree of the host is minimally restructured to accommodate the stress tree of the infix". For example, although ''unbelievable'' and ''irresponsible'' have identical stress patterns and the first syllable of each is a separate morpheme, the preferred insertion points are different: ''un-fuckin'-believable'', but ''irre-fuckin'-sponsible''. McCarthy explains this by saying they have different prosodic structures: un(be((lieva)ble)) but (irre)((sponsi)ble). The infix cannot fall between the syllables ''ir'' and ''re'' because they form a single [[foot (prosody)|prosodic foot]].
A more fundamental theory due to [[John McCarthy (linguist)|John McCarthy]] is based on [[Prosody (linguistics)|prosody]].<ref name="McCarthy" /> Its basic principle is that "the metrical stress tree of the host is minimally restructured to accommodate the stress tree of the infix". For example, although ''unbelievable'' and ''irresponsible'' have identical stress patterns and the first syllable of each is a separate morpheme, the preferred insertion points are different: ''un-fuckin'-believable'', but ''irre-fuckin'-sponsible''. McCarthy explains this by saying they have different prosodic structures: un(be((lieva)ble)) but (irre)((sponsi)ble). The infix cannot fall between the syllables ''ir'' and ''re'' because they form a single [[foot (prosody)|prosodic foot]].
Line 16: Line 15:
== Examples in popular culture ==
== Examples in popular culture ==
* "abso-bloomin'-lutely" in "[[Wouldn't It Be Loverly]]", a song from ''[[My Fair Lady]]''
* "abso-bloomin'-lutely" in "[[Wouldn't It Be Loverly]]", a song from ''[[My Fair Lady]]''
* "E-motherfucking-T!" in "[[Rosetta Stoned]]", a song by the band ''[[Tool (band)|Tool]]''
* "Guaran-fucking-teed!" in "[[Wrath (Lamb of God album)|Contractor]]", a song by the band ''[[Lamb of God (band)|Lamb of God]]''
* "Viet-fuckin'-nam!" from [[Abbie Hoffman]] (portrayed by [[Richard D'Alessandro]]) in ''[[Forrest Gump]]''
* "Viet-fuckin'-nam!" from [[Abbie Hoffman]] (portrayed by [[Richard D'Alessandro]]) in ''[[Forrest Gump]]''
* "Out-bloody-rageous", the title of a track in the album ''[[Third (Soft Machine album)|Third]]'' by the band [[Soft Machine]]
* "Out-bloody-rageous", the title of a track in the album ''[[Third (Soft Machine album)|Third]]'' by the band [[Soft Machine]]
* "un-bloody-hinged" from the movie ''[[Chasing Liberty]]''
* “Shomer-fucking-Shabbos” from the movie ''[[The Big Lebowsky]]''


== See also ==
== See also ==
Line 27: Line 30:
== External links ==
== External links ==
* [http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1994/1994AWE.html Discussion of where to properly insert the expletive]
* [http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1994/1994AWE.html Discussion of where to properly insert the expletive]
* {{cite web |last1=Scott |first1=Tom |title=Abso-b████y-lutely: Expletive Infixation |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt22yWYX64w |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211221/dt22yWYX64w |archive-date=2021-12-21 |url-status=live|website=YouTube |date=13 Apr 2020}}{{cbignore}}


{{Profanity}}
{{Profanity}}

Latest revision as of 02:08, 21 July 2024

Expletive infixation is a process by which an expletive or profanity is inserted into a word, usually for intensification. It is similar to tmesis, but not all instances are covered by the usual definition of tmesis because the words are not necessarily compounds.[1]

The most commonly inserted English expletives are adjectival: either participles (fucking, mother-fucking, freaking, blooming, bleeding, damned, wretched) or adjectives (bloody).

Rules of formation in English

[edit]

Judgments of which formations of expletive infixation are acceptable are remarkably consistent.[2] This suggests that the rules for the placement of the expletive are not arbitrary, but instead derive from fundamental aspects of English phonology.[further explanation needed]

A simple rule is that the insertion occurs at a syllable boundary, usually just before the primary stressed syllable.[1] Thus, one hears abso-fuckin'-lutely rather than *ab-fuckin'-solutely. This rule is insufficient to describe examples such as un-fuckin'-believable, however, so that some modifications to this rule are proposed, such as morpheme boundaries taking precedence over stress. Counterexamples to this exception do exist: unbe-fuckin'-lievable.[3][better source needed]

A more fundamental theory due to John McCarthy is based on prosody.[2] Its basic principle is that "the metrical stress tree of the host is minimally restructured to accommodate the stress tree of the infix". For example, although unbelievable and irresponsible have identical stress patterns and the first syllable of each is a separate morpheme, the preferred insertion points are different: un-fuckin'-believable, but irre-fuckin'-sponsible. McCarthy explains this by saying they have different prosodic structures: un(be((lieva)ble)) but (irre)((sponsi)ble). The infix cannot fall between the syllables ir and re because they form a single prosodic foot.

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b McMillan, James B. (1980). "Infixing and Interposing in English". American Speech. 55 (3): 163–183. doi:10.2307/455082. JSTOR 455082.
  2. ^ a b McCarthy, John J. (1982). "Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation". Language. 58 (3): 574–590. doi:10.2307/413849. JSTOR 413849.
  3. ^ "Citations:unbefuckinglievable – Wiktionary". wiktionary.org. 29 January 2021.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expletive_infixation&oldid=1235755750"