I. Aronoff, Selkirk and Lieber on the structure of the English lexicon and the nature and use of word-formation rules.
In the wake of Chomsky's "Remarks on Nominalization" (1970), in which Chomsky makes a strict distinction between syntax and derivational morphology, Aronoff (1976) proposes a word based theory of the lexicon. This lexicon is a separate component of the grammar in which derivational word formation processes are dealt with. This hypothesis is called strong lexicalist hypothesis. Aronoff suggests that inflection and compounding are not taking place in the lexicon but in the syntax (Spencer 1991: 82). As to the nature of the listed lexical items Aronoff does not go along with Halle who in 1973 assumed that the lexicon is made up of three lists: a list of morphemes, a list of actual words, and a list of words that are regularly formed but are non-existent (McCarthy 1992: 25). In his theory Aronoff reduces the three lists to one single list, stating that it could only be words that are listed in the lexicon, not morphemes. A reason for this assumption is that morphemes, other than words, are not persistent in meaning and sometimes they do not seem to have any meaning at all. A good example for meaningless morphemes are the so-called cranberry morphemes.
[...]
Table of Contents
I. The structure of English compounds and the basis of their interpretation.
II. [No title provided in text for chapter II]
III. The characteristics of derivation (affixation and conversion) as word formation process in English
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines different theoretical frameworks of word formation in English, specifically focusing on the structure of the lexicon and the mechanisms governing word structure and derivation. It explores the divergent approaches of linguists such as Aronoff, Selkirk, and Lieber regarding the relationship between morphology, syntax, and the lexicon.
- The structure of the English lexicon and word formation rules (WFRs).
- Theoretical perspectives on compounding and its interface with syntax.
- Mechanisms of derivation, including affixation and morphological conversion.
- Productivity of word formation rules and the handling of lexical idiosyncrasies.
- Comparison of associative versus dissociative theories of morphological structure.
Excerpt from the Book
The structure of English compounds and the basis of their interpretation.
Compounding is a word formation process that differs from derivation and inflection in a "straightforward and traditional" way (Anderson 1988: 187). Compounding combines two (or more) already existing words into a new word whereas derivation and inflection consist in the application of a WFR to a single existing word (Anderson 1992: 292). Even though a compound can be put together by more than two words, it can only have two constituents that have to belong to one of the categories Noun, Adjective, Verb, or Preposition. The compound itself will belong to the category Noun, Verb, or Adjective (Selkirk 1982: 13).
Summary of Chapters
I. The structure of English compounds and the basis of their interpretation.: This chapter defines compounding as a distinct word formation process and explores how different linguistic theories, particularly those of Selkirk and Lieber, model the constituent structure and semantic interpretation of English compounds.
II. [No title provided in text for chapter II]: This section analyzes the properties of exocentric and endocentric compounds, discussing the challenges of distinguishing them from syntactic phrases and the application of rules like the Right Hand Head Rule.
III. The characteristics of derivation (affixation and conversion) as word formation process in English: This chapter investigates derivational processes, distinguishing between prefixation and suffixation, and examines the role of class I and class II affixes in category-changing and non-category-changing derivations.
Keywords
Word Formation, Lexicon, Morphology, Syntax, Compounding, Derivation, Affixation, Conversion, WFRs, Lexicalist Hypothesis, Semantic Idiosyncrasy, Bracketing Paradox, Feature Percolation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines theories of English word formation, specifically analyzing how linguists like Aronoff, Selkirk, and Lieber conceptualize the lexicon and the rules governing word structure.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The central themes include the structure of the lexicon, the distinction between derivation and compounding, the productivity of word formation rules, and the interaction between morphology and syntax.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to compare different "lexicalist" theories regarding where word formation rules are located and how they function to generate new words or explain existing ones.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The work utilizes a theoretical and analytical method, reviewing and comparing existing linguistic literature and competing models (e.g., associative vs. dissociative theories) to evaluate their explanatory power.
What content is covered in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical foundations of the lexicon, detailed mechanisms of compounding (including headness and stress patterns), and the processes of affixation and morphological conversion.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include morphology, lexicon, compounding, derivation, WFRs, and lexicalist theory.
How does Lieber’s theory differ from Selkirk's concerning the lexicon?
Selkirk views morphology as closely linked to syntax and word structure rules, while Lieber moves toward a "dissociative" theory where lexical semantics are handled in a separate component, utilizing feature percolation conventions.
What is the "bracketing paradox" mentioned in the text?
It refers to cases where the phonological structure and the semantic interpretation of a word (like 'unkinder') seem to require conflicting bracketing arrangements, a challenge for morphological theories.
- Quote paper
- Johannes Klaas (Author), 1998, English Word Formation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/722
