Theory Of Word-formation Research Articles

On the meaning predictability of novel context-free converted naming units

In the field of predictability, the effort of both morphologists and psycholinguists has been primarily concentrated on primary compounds. Little attention has been paid to the meaning predictability of converted naming units. This article discusses some aspects of a theory of predictability which is related to an onomasiological theory of word formation, and points out the specific features of meaning predictability of converted naming units. Theoretical considerations are applied to a sample of non-established converted naming units within experimental research. A method of calculating the predictability rate is proposed. The predictability of various naming units may be compared by means of an objectified predictability rate. The factors affecting the predictability of novel context-free naming units are identified and discussed.

English Word-Formation: A History of Research (1960-1995) (review)

Reviewed by: English word-formation: A history of research (1960–1995) by Pavol Štekauer. Don Chapman English word-formation: A history of research (1960–1995). By Pavol Štekauer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 2000. Pp. 495. ISBN: 3-8233-5210-5. FF 397. Pavol Štekauer has admirably summarized and synthesized the wide-ranging contributions to the study of word formation since 1960; his book will be useful for the beginner and the specialist alike. Š organizes his survey by scholars who have contributed to the field rather than by topics: For 24 different scholars, he devotes one chapter each in which he first summarizes the main theories of the scholar and then in a separate ‘notes’ section critically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the scholar’s contributions. This organization makes the book useful on several levels. For the beginner, Š’s book can be used as an introduction to the field. In his summary sections, Š explains key terms (like ‘head’ or ‘external argument’) at a level basic enough for his book to serve almost as a glossary, and in his notes sections, Š provides a remarkably integrated account of key issues (like the role of the lexicon or inflection vs. derivation). The ample index, bibliography, and cross-referencing further contribute to the book’s usefulness as an introduction. For the specialist, the book can also serve as a reference to less familiar works and scholars. As Š notes, the field is still growing, and contributions have come from several different directions; his book provides the valuable service of gathering and defining those contributions and relating them to each other. He treats the major issues one would expect in a survey, but his organization by scholars allows him to highlight similarities and differences in their approaches that may not have been previously noticed. Š imposes some welcome order on a field in which issues are still coalescing. The specialist may also appreciate Š’s book as a study in its own right. In his first chapter, Š briefly describes his own theory of word formation, an onomasiological approach that begins not with the structures of words but with the naming needs of a speech community; in the notes section of each chapter he then describes how his own theory would treat particular debated issues. While Š has already devoted an entire book to his own theory, I found this survey, with its application of onomasiological theory to familiar problems, at least as useful in explaining his theory as his previous volume. Perhaps the chief virtue of this book is Š’s clear explanation of theories and debates. By separating his summaries from his criticism, he is able to present the contributions of other scholars more on their own terms rather than as precursors to our (and his) present theories. At the same time, Š clearly signals the place of each theory within the tradition in his notes sections. In fact, his notes sections treat several more scholars not featured in his summaries. His summaries appear fair to me, though some of the scholars he discusses might be in a better position to judge. This is a book that I am happy to own. It will stand as a good reference book until someone writes another survey of the next 30 years. Don Chapman Brigham Young University Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

Echo reduplication in Kannada and the theory of word-formation

This article demonstrates that Echo Reduplication in Kannada applies equally to words, subparts of words and entire syntactic phrases. Such a rule is problematic for a lexicalist grammatical architecture because it treats the internal structure of words as parallel to the internal structure of sentences, suggesting that there is no clear division between word structure and phrase structure. Numerous variants of the lexicalist architecture are examined and rejected on empirical grounds. The data are analyzed within the framework of Distributed Morphology, in which syntactic structure provides the input to the morphological component. The article goes on to demonstrate that some pieces of morphological structure realize pieces of constituent structure whereas others arise due to featural properties of the syntactic environment of the root.

Beheading the Word? Please, Stop the Execution

The paper deals with one of the central topics of any word-formation theory, the problem of the headedness of complex words. A brief outline of the most influential views of the topic is followed by the delimitation of the basic features of head. Arguments are given in favour of an affix-pased approach to headedness, based on an onomasiological theory of word-formation. It is maintained that the conceptually identified onomasiological base can function as an indicator of head of naming units. With reference to prefix+WF base structures, an argument is put forward in favour of headedness of prefixes. The theory proposed is tested against Bauer's criteria of headedness. Based on the analysis presented the author of the paper does not share L. Bauer's scepticism reflected in his proposal of beheading the word.

The role of morphology in the process of language acquisition and learning

Morphology is attracting more and more the interest of linguists. No complete theory of language can develop without a well established theory of word formation. There are many unsolved problems, however, which make any morphological theory a weak theory, badly needing evidence based solutions, some of them crucial to the theory; these are for example, productivity, meaning, constraints, and so on. We are also concerned with the acquisition/learning of the rules of word formation. In this respect we draw out conclusions from other authors' evidence and from our own.

Labrador Inuttut (Eskimo) and the Theory of Morphology

In this paper Aronoff s theory of word formation is discussed in the context of polysynthetic structures. In several areas Eskimo demonstrates characteristics that would be unexpected from the largely Indo-European perspective which Aronoff adopts. In general LI word formation exhibits a high level of regularity and productivity. This may be attributed to the involvement of syntactic rather than lexical rules in the generation of LI wordforms. Syntactic and regular word derivation, such as that documented here, play a highly important role in the grammar of Eskimo, a fact which would be unexpected from Aronoff s data and synthesis. In general, LI resists description in the lexically biased approach Aronoff was required to develop for English. Furthermore, Eskimo data requires refinements of the proposed constraints on the input and output of word formation rules.

Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science

Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science